Bboy

I wholeheartedly agree. This article is a disappointing contribution to what should be a rich and enlightening conversation about meaning, values and ethics between the secular and religious.

While the non-believers in this forum have understandably focussed on the article’s poor and smug logic, I’m equally concerned with its poor theology.

Of course the assumption that the universe has no ultimate intended goal does not lead necessarily to the conclusion that “nothing that a person or any other creature does is the right or the wrong thing to do in any given situation.”

Equally, what this proposition implies about religion is questionable. God’s purpose for the world is not the reason for Christians to behave ethically. Are we presumptuous enough to think that God’s purposes are achieved though our choosing to behave well? Do we think our place in the final scheme of things depends on accumulating ethical brownie points along the way? And are we really vindictive enough to hope that there is indeed an afterlife in order to ensure that egregious wrongdoers don’t “get away with it”?

Many of the author’s criticisms of secular perspectives are equally true of some forms of Christianity:

Does not Christianity in fact open itself at least as much to the accusation of determinism as does atheism (e.g. Calvin’s view of election, or the author’s own apparent belief that we’re heading to a “particular ultimate destiny”)?

Aren’t Christians as vulnerable as non-believers to the tendency to confuse the legal with the moral (think of all the good, law-abiding Germans attending the government-endorsed Protestant Reich Church in the 1930s and 1940s)?

Bonhoeffer called Christians’ attempts to show that the world cannot live without the tutelage of God as “an attack .. . on the adulthood of the world I consider to be in the first place pointless, in the second place ignoble, and in the third unchristian.” This article seems to me to exemplify the form of Christian apologetics that he so despised.

’The article makes a rational assessment...’

No it doesn’t, it poses an interesting question about teleology then skips the whole modern philosophical enterprise to an unconvincing cul-de-sac nihilism, whilst painting atheist as unserious for not falling over immediately at the obvious conclusion.

’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.’

Let’s see:
Author is unfamiliar with thoughtful treatment of atheist secular ontology (morality, meta-ethics and epistemology) – check
Author pays only bare lip-service to the seriousness and elucidation of atheists on the challenge of teleology, progress and moral objectivity - check
Author is so convinced of the absolutely certainty that nothing can follow atheism but complete nihilism that he does not bother to even justify the contention, and seem incredulous that this could be objectionable - check
Author has recently equated abortion to murder – check

What exactly is your point? That you really are an impartial commentator whose views aren’t obviously partisan? Please.

’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.’

That’s just it - you seriously see that as beyond discussion because it is received wisdom, and the idea that it might be contestable or even offensively close-minded doesn’t even enter your mind. Any normative system not based on God is morally relative and arbitrary? Please remind me which course you took and which university that allowed you to make that sweeping judgement?

’One moral code, such as Hitler's, is as 'good' or as 'bad' as another's, such as Mandela's.)’

Ah, yes, how very charitable of you to grant us poor meta-ethically challenged atheists that we can have our sham relative morality, but it’s no better than Hitler's. Oh, yes, you’re a well studied and broad minded ‘student of life’ alright. More like student of vacuous ‘cultural of life’ studies and all it annexed moral certainties, paucity of academic rigour and complete lack of humility.

runner: you're killing people's brain cells by writing stuff like that.

"there is no ultimate meaning and that there is no ultimate basis for morality in a godless universe "

Only in your opinion GP - and as an atheist, the opinion of someone who believes in a deity of whom there is no evidence doesn't carry much weight with me, I'm afraid. Morality is not the preserve of the believers - there are good and ghastly people of all belief (and non-belief) systems. As for 'ultimate meaning', why on earth do we need one? We exist, then we cease to exist, what we make of our time here is up to us.

Lets catalogue the negative responses...
1) Claims of a straw man, without referencing any particular atheists who have been able to logical address the argument (we'll call this the scared crows response)
2) Claims that Christians are mean (we'll call these the children's response)
3) Claims that it doesn't matter as the commentators are happy and live full lives (we'll call this one the hippie response)

I'm still waiting for a logical response to Graham's article. For the scared crow's...have you even read the current atheistic ethics philosophers? Singer? Blackburn? Rachels? Taylor (okay..well he's dead now). The best these guys can do is assume some sort of morality exists and so they spend their time trying to work out what it is. Blackburn essentially states there is no basis for morality that they have been able to work out from their atheistic worldview.

For the hippies...if you don't think truth is important, why are you even posting here?

For the children...why are you trying to impose your moral judgements on other people?

Dear_Candide.....

BBOY_said: <<But then it all goes pear-shaped when he asserts straight-up that this obviously leads to inescapable nihilism>>

You can see 'sarcasm' in my post but 'hate' ? aah.. you nail your colors to the mast as a lefist who only sees 'hate' when in fact its just disagreement

BBOY outlined the dilmenna very clearly (but denies it) and you are in denial of the reality of the philosophical ramifications of a godless universe.

I find it astounding that the unending mental gymnastics we endure from atheists is only exceeded by their hysteria about we believers hating them so much....

GODLESS UNIVERSE....leads to 'INESCAPABLE NIHILISM'.....

Yes.. it absolutely does.. as clearly as 2+2-4 not 5.

NO.. it does not.. when people put their philosphical heads in the sands of irrationalism and simply 'deny' that it is the logical, reasonable and inescapable outcome of such a starting point.

They wax eloquent trying to salvage some vestige of a basis for Morality and scrounge around the bottom of the well of ideas for something...ANYthing..which will assure them that "I really DO have meaning.. my life really DOES have a purpose" you can see the anger.. as they defy the knowable God, with emtpy platittudes of disbelief..

NO God.= No right/wrong It's as simple as that.

THUS.. the only thing restraining my behavior (of anykind) is the ..LAW.

Without "Right/Wrong" as eternal principles.. we have MIUAUG and we have 'behavior'...not 'good' behavior nor 'bad' behavior..just pleasant and unpleasant.. threatening and unthreatening.. convenient and incovenient.

To deny something so incredibly obvious is borderline.... *something*.

THE WAY OUT.. is usually (like secular ArchDeacon CJ moaned) "We adapt" er..sure.. but don't whinge when some other group 'adapts' by killing you and taking your wife as a captive sex toy..

What? you protest ? no no Nooooooo... all humans have learned to live in harmony.. cough.. splutter.. choke... gag...barf

You see.. no matter what OTHER peoples behavior is or how it effects you and your family.. you can never say it is 'evil' or 'bad'.....

THAT....is true atheism uncovered.