The first lot of comments really give this article all the attention it deserves. The author starts out ok by raising a valid question about the ramifications of materialist atheism for the idea of teleology in life. But then it all goes pear-shaped when he asserts straight-up that this obviously leads to inescapable nihilism, and that this intellectual impasse is met with a lack of seriousness by atheists, where they aren't totally silent about it.

But this is rubbish. Even within the new populist genre of naturalist scientific proselytising, like Dawkins & Hitchens, who do not have a strong background in philosophy, the subject of meaning and purpose in life is addressed, along with the challenge of moral progress. Did he not read them? But more importantly, amongst real philosophers, we can find a vastly richer discussion of the epistemological and metaphysical challenges of secular morality and progress, which is informed by the richness of the Western intellectual tradition going all the way back to the classics.

IMO, it's always a good test of the robustness of a position to see how charitably and fairly it can treat its mainline viable opposition and still argue through to victory. This article falls well short of a considered view of how seriously atheists do actually treat these issues, and what they've actually said about them.

The author shows how much of our common life has to be sacrificed when atheism is followed to its logical conclusion.

We’re urged to accept scientism: the belief that the only valid knowledge is the scientific kind. A claim to knowledge that can’t be proven scientifically and that no one lives their life by. So atheism denies as knowledge almost every precious human experience simply because it cannot be quantified. Trust, honour, love, friendship.

We’re urged to have faith the universe popping into existence is nothing but a brute fact. - a dead planet can come to life contrary to all scientific understanding - the kind of faith that has Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, believing in panspermia!

We’re urged as Prof. Paul Davies explains to simply reject what science is all about:

“I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.”

We’re urged to sacrifice belief that right and wrong is independent of what we wish.

We’re urged to sacrifice Christianity as at best an evolutionary trick, and at worst a gigantic fraud. Yet in confessing atheism we’re persuaded the mind is suddenly trustworthy and somehow atheism avoids this evolutionary trickery. We’re urged by these authorities, this new priesthood, to ultimately mock and sacrifice Jesus of Nazareth. All at a time when society applauds such a thing.

The author invites us to see just how costly sacrificing reason for dogma really is.

different thread, same nonsense.

"We’re urged to accept scientism: the belief that the only valid knowledge is the scientific kind. " by whom? who is suggesting this? give me a name.

"We’re urged to sacrifice belief that right and wrong is independent of what we wish." by whom? who is suggesting this? give me a name.

and on and on. it's not a straw man, it's a straw army.

I wonder how many of the padophile priests that are often referred to are actually priests practicing homosexuality. Of course no honest study would be allowed on this one. Then again its amazing that the ones who hold so strongly to the moral relativism dogma scream when what they consider offends their conscience takes place.

Good to see Chade believes in free speech wanting the Moderator to eliminate opinions being stated on ON Line OPINION. Grow up!

It is intriguing to read the comments made about my article. I would suggest that the critics try to calm down and then read it again.

The article makes a rational assessment of what the actual state of life and the universe is if atheism is correct.

You would never know it from your comments but there is not a single line which advocates or endorses belief in God - please show me if there is.

Pointing out that there is no ultimate meaning and that there is no ultimate basis for morality in a godless universe is to just say that and nothing more. I did not go on to advocate that we therefore have to believe in God.

Instead of attacking me for saying things which I did not say, why, if you don't like the thought that there is no ultimate meaning or basis for morality, don't you defend your position rather than make an unjustifiable attack on comments that haven't even been made? (And I did state very clearly that I acknowledge that people and societies do make up their own meaning and moral codes - but that is all they are - manufactured fictions. One moral code, such as Hitler's, is as 'good' or as 'bad' as another's, such as Mandela's.)

And by the way, no one has been willing to take on the vexed issue of determinism being a logical consequence of atheism. Determinism means we have no control over what we do, say, or think - no matter how much it feels that we do to the contrary. If determinism is true then everything is some weird farce.

Graham Preston

Just for the record, I am a Christian - and have been for most of my life. For me, the most potent arguments against materialism and determinism - are one with the strongest arguments in favour of the exisitence of God.

There simply is no valid argument from a purely materialist perspective that can explain EITHER free will, AND/OR consciousness and sentience. There is no reasonable argument to the effect that even the most complex biological 'machine' could realise these traits. The reference points of free will and sentience are, by their nature, proof of a 'cause without a cause': a transcendent break with the 'chain of causation'.

Sentience and free will are, by their nature, evidence of the 'transcendental'. And this, in turn, provides strong reference points in favour of the existence of God.