A Case Against Atheism and Determinism. Especially Fundamentalist Atheism

Introduction: We decided to take on Johnny Skeptic's website. In particular his views on Christianity and moral absolutes (his article on moral absolutes is no longer available at his website). Apparently, Johnny thinks they are incompatible with each other. But, can the atheist justify moral absolutes? I decided to e-mail Johnny...

The e-mails are organized as follows:

I. A Discussion on Moral Absolutes

back to top

1. Frank Opens.

Hey Johnny Skeptic,

I visited your website. I find it to be short, concise, and to the point. Good going. I have a question though: under "moral absolutes" all you did was criticize how Christians have no justification for supporting moral absolutes, but what about the atheist? Can you please tell me how atheists can justify moral absolutes?

Yours,

Frank

back to top

2. Johnny Skeptic Opens.

Hi Frank,

Thanks for your e-mail. I am pleased that you like my essay.

Frank: I have a question though: under "moral absolutes" all you did was criticize how Christians have no justification for supporting moral absolutes, but what about the atheist? Can you please tell me how atheists can justify moral absolutes?

Johnny: Good question. My answer is that I am not satisfied with the defintions that dictionaries give for the word 'morality.' My definition for morality is "acting in ways that do not harm other people." Our legal system is built upon just that. Even animals have a similar sense of morality. Their approach is basically "Don't mess with me and I won't mess with you." The sensory systems of all animals, including humans, are genetically programmed to feel pleasure and pain. Proper moral absolutes for atheists would mainly be caring about the rights and needs of other people, balanced with their own right and needs. Of course that balance would vary among atheists, just as it does among Christians. Genetic and environmental influences account for that fact.

Documented research has shown that many atheists are more moral than Christians, and that most certainly includes fundamentalist Christians. That fact proves that Christians who claim to believe in moral absolutes are often embarrassed by atheists who supposedly have none.

I look forward to your reply.

Johnny

back to top

3. Frank's First Response.

Johnny,

Thanks for responding to my e-mail. So, moral absolutes are justified for the atheist because of his genetic makeup that constitutes his sense of pleasure and pain like animals while presuming genetic and environmental influences? Are animals moral agents though? When a snake takes the egg from a chicken can we really call that "stealing"? And, what if the pleasure of an animal is to give another animal pain though?

Hoping to hear from you,
Frank

PS I found the link to your website at infidelguy's website. Reginald Finley believes morality is relative, do you then disagree with him?

back to top

4. Johnny Skeptic's First Response.

Hi Frank,

Thanks for your e-mail.

Frank: So, moral absolutes are justified for the atheist because of his genetic makeup that constitutes his sense of pleasure and pain like animals while presuming genetic and environmental influences? Are animals moral agents though?

Johnny: I think so, at least for the most intelligent animals. For the most part, they have the same "Don't mess with me and I won't mess with you" attitude that most humans have.

Frank: When a snake takes the egg from a chicken can we really call that "stealing"?

Johnny: A snake is not aware of what stealing is, but the most intelligent animals are well aware of the concept of stealing. When attempting to take something, they usually excercise great care left the master of the house come home. They are not aware that they are stealing in a moral sense, but if their intelligence were increased they would be.

Frank: And, what if the pleasure of an animal is to give another animal pain though?

Johnny: Among the most intelligent animals I don't think that that happens except regarding basic needs such as acquiring food and mating.

Frank: I found the link to your website at infidelguy's website. Reginald Finley believes morality is relative, do you then disagree with him?

Johnny: Possibly not. For atheists there are not a commonly agreed upon list of moral absolutes that pertain to all human behavior, but most atheists would agree they if they have children they should treat them well. Genetics is the cause of that. All humans have a conscience, and a good conscience is not exclusive to religious people. Due to genetic influences conscience can vary widely, even among Christians. Historically, Christian nations conquered the largest colonial empire by far in all of human history by means of murder and theft of property. During the time of Jesus, while most Christians advocated slavery, some Stoics. During early U.S. history, while the majority of Americans approved of slavery, Thomas Paine did not. I forget whether he was an atheist, agnostic or deist. I am a determinist. In other words, I don't believe in free will. Determinists believe that all human thoughts and actions are predetermined by genetics and environment, whether a person is religious or not. If a person is a racist, changes his mind and gives up racism, he has not changed his mind at all. Let me use a simpler example. If you go to a restaurant and order chicken for dinner, and several minutes later you change your mind choose want to order fish, you really didn't change your mind in the truest sense. Rather, your brain cell activity, which is never static, even when you sleep, "changed" your mind for you. Possibly the only way that the existence of free will could be proven would be if the human mind could be put in a static state, and while in that state a person could change his mind. However, putting brain cell activity into a static state while a person is conscious or at sleep is well beyond our ability at this time. Even people who believe in free will would agree with me that genetic and environmental influences account for a significant amount of human thoughts and actions. Black people a big advantage regarding joining a professional basketball team. In a family with five children, four of them might be normal, but one might be a monster. If free will actually exists, then why can annual murder rates usually be predicted within plus or minus three percentage points, possibly even less? Some critics will claim that even though I am correct on this point, no one can predict which people are most likely to commit murders. That is true, but if free will actually exists, reasonably accurate predictions would not be possible. Rather, at least some of the time they would fluctuate dramatically, but they never do to a noticeable extent.

Many people take prescription drugs in order to help them control abberant behavior. Such an approach often works well. Since in those cases drugs modified brain chemistry in positive ways, there is no reasonable proof that those people did not improve their thoughts and actions by taking drugs rather than using their free will. As I said previously, everything get down to genetics and environment.

You have probably heard of Richard Carrier of the Internet Infidels and the Secular Web. He once told me that he is a determinist. A friend of mine is a college professor. He has master's degrees in philosophy and humanities. He has an IQ of 173. He scored 1560 on his college board exams, including a perfect score in the verbal section. He is a determinist. I once sent Marilyn Savant an essay that I wrote on free will. Marilyn has an IQ of 230 and is in the Guiness Book of World Records under 'Highest IQ.' She has a question and answer column each Sunday in Parade magazine called 'Ask Marilyn.' She sent me a private letter and asked me if she could use my name and parts of my essay in a possible future column. I agreed. So far she hasn't mentioned my essay, but I should have asked her when she wrote back to me if she believed in free will.

I look forward to your reply.

Johnny

back to top

5. Frank's Second Response.

Johnny,

Thank you for replying. Your e-mail, albeit concise, well said, and to the point, has stirred more questions from me. You say that more intelligent animals are more morally conscience than less intelligent animals (i.e. the snake isn’t aware that it is stealing), and therefore are morally susceptible. But, why is that? Isn’t that begging the question? Why can’t the less intelligent animal be just as morally inclined than the more advanced thinking animal? Besides, wouldn’t the chicken ward off the snake when it tries to “steal” its eggs, thus proving that the chicken has a sense of morality? And can’t the same thing be said about the snake (what if someone tries to steal his eggs? Wouldn’t he do something about it?)?

As for the animal that likes to give pain for pleasure you said “Among the most intelligent animals I don't think that that happens except regarding basic needs such as acquiring food and mating.” But we see this happen despite “basic needs”. We see people (who are moral agents like intelligent animals) who get in fights for no good reason, but for the pleasure of giving someone else pain. Sure, you think this is wrong (because your definition of morality is “acting in ways that do not harm other people”) but can you blame people for fighting each other if they are genetically and environmentally predisposed that way anyway? What are we to do? Hope their “brain cell activity” changes so they can “change” their choice? Which brings me to your deterministic viewpoint, can you really reprimand someone for doing something wrong if they’re going to do it anyway? If they have no free will but the will to do what they will, is it wrong? Because that’s like telling a machine that it/he/she is doing something morally wrong. Do we really praise or blame people if they have no choice in the matter?

Furthermore, if “all human thoughts and actions are predetermined by genetics and environment, whether a person is religious or not” then does that go for THIS very belief? And if that’s the case, how would you know who’s thoughts are right or wrong if someone has a different brain cell activity (dictated by genetics and environment of course) than yours? Furthermore, can amoral matter (i.e. our brain) do something moral?

As for Reginald Finely I have yet to hear him say for the record that treating children well is a moral absolute because he deliberately said that morality is relative.

I know this is a lot of questions but I’m quite serious and I have yet to see any real justification for moral absolutes given an atheistic viewpoint.

Thanks,

Frank

PS I know you’re not a racist (after all, you posted on Finley’s website) but isn’t this a rather condescending and racist statement: “Black people a big advantage regarding joining a professional basketball team“?

back to top

6. Johnny Skeptic's Second Response.

Hi Frank,

Thanks for your e-mail.

Frank: You say that more intelligent animals are more morally conscience than less intelligent animals (i.e. the snake isn’t aware that it is stealing), and therefore are morally susceptible. But, why is that? Isn’t that begging the question?

Johnny: It takes more intelligence than any animal has to fully grasp the meaning of morality.

Frank: As for the animal that likes to give pain for pleasure you said “Among the most intelligent animals I don't think that that happens except regarding basic needs such as acquiring food and mating.” But we see this happen despite “basic needs”. We see people (who are moral agents like intelligent animals) who get in fights for no good reason, but for the pleasure of giving someone else pain. Sure, you think this is wrong (because your definition of morality is “acting in ways that do not harm other people”) but can you blame people for fighting each other if they are genetically and environmentally predisposed that way anyway?

Johnny: Strange as it may seem to most people, but not to determinists, the answer is no. However, such people need to be separated from society in order to protect the majority of people who are not programmed that way. An added benefit to society is the deterrant factor of sending criminals to jail. Many crooks are deterred from committing crimes out of fear of going to jail.

Frank: What are we to do? Hope their “brain cell activity” changes so they can “change” their choice?

Johnny: The brain cell activity of hardened criminals seldom changes. Many criminals who are released from jail become repeat offenders. Still, many criminals who are released from jail cease to commit crimes out of fear of going back to jail for a longer time than previoulsy.

Frank: Which brings me to your deterministic viewpoint, can you really reprimand someone for doing something wrong if they’re going to do it anyway? If they have no free will but the will to do what they will, is it wrong? Because that’s like telling a machine that it/he/she is doing something morally wrong. Do we really praise or blame people if they have no choice in the matter?

Johnny: We shouldn't blame them in a moral sense, but they should be separated from society for the sake of the majority of people who are not criminals.

Frank: Furthermore, if “all human thoughts actions are predetermined by genetics and environment, whether a person is religious or not” then does that go for THIS very belief? And if that’s the case, how would you know who’s thoughts are right or wrong if someone has a different brain cell activity (dictated by genetics and environment of course) than yours?

Johnny: From a deterministic point of view, there is no such thing as right and wrong in a moral sense. There is only practical and impractical. Some people who want to commit crimes believe that it is impractical to do so. Others do not. Some get caught and some get away with it.

Frank: Furthermore, can amoral matter (i.e. our brain) do something moral?

Johnny: There is no such thing as right or wrong, moral or immoral, just practical and impractical.

Frank: As for Reginald Finley, I have yet to hear him say for the record that treating children well is a moral absolute because he deliberately said that morality is relative.

Johnny: Even if Reg believes that morality is relative, I am sure that he is a loving husband and father. Regardless, for me and some other people determinism adequately explains what morality is all about.

Regarding my statement about black basketball players on the average having an advantage over white basketball players, I could also say that white chess players have an advantage over black chess players. The basketball reference and the chess reference are not condescending judgements. They are simply well-known facts. I could give many more examples, but those two examples should do. I do not praise anyone because of their genetic and environmental advantages, and I do not criticize anyone because of their genetic and environmental disadvantages.

Frank: I know this is a lot of questions but I’m quite serious and I have yet to see any real justification for moral absolutes given an atheistic viewpoint.

Johnny: In my opinion it is not important to try to decide whether or not there can be moral absolutes from an atheistic viewpoint. Such an attempt is merely philosophical. What matters most is reality, in other words what atheists do, and is their behavior in general favorable when compared to Christian behavior? The answer is yes. My essay topic on correlations easily proves that fact.

I look forward to your reply.

Johnny

back to top

7. Frank's Third Response.

Hi Johnny,

You said, “It takes more intelligence than any animal has to fully grasp the meaning of morality.” I already got this the first time you told me that, but even less intelligent animals are aware of some morality, are they not? Like I said, even the chicken would try to ward off the snake that comes to “steal” her eggs. This is, as you said, “the same ‘Don't mess with me and I won't mess with you’ attitude that most humans have” right? Anyway, this kind of brings me back to my original question, why is it that more intelligent animals are morally susceptible while less intelligent animals aren’t? As we saw, less intelligent animals have a sense of morality.

You answered “no” to my question, “…can you blame people for fighting each other if they are genetically and environmentally predisposed that way anyway” yet you suggest that they should go to jail as an “added benefit to society” and they “need to be separated from society in order to protect the majority of people”? Isn’t this still blaming the “hardened criminal”? Because they are obviously NOT beneficial to society, right? We’re obviously blaming them! Worse yet, you suggest we “shouldn't blame them in a moral sense.”

Furthermore, why put them in jail where they take up tax dollars (which is not beneficial to society by the way)? Why not just do it the “Clockwork Orange” way and brainwash them? Or, why not do it the “Hitler” way and just kill them off because “brain cell activity of hardened criminals seldom changes”. This is more practical than impractical isn’t it?

By they way, I’m a little confused, you think that moral absolutes are justified within the atheistic worldview yet you believe there is no such thing as right or wrong or moral or immoral (you confirmed that when you said, “there is no such thing as right and wrong in a moral sense”)? Is it right or wrong or moral or immoral to be more practical than impractical then? And if that’s the case, then are there moral absolutes?

Furthermore, you said, “determinism adequately explains what morality is all about” but before you said, “From a deterministic point of view, there is no such thing as right and wrong in a moral sense” doesn’t this contradict one another?

Frank: Furthermore, if “all human thoughts actions are predetermined by genetics and environment, whether a person is religious or not” then does that go for THIS very belief? And if that’s the case, how would you know who’s thoughts are right or wrong if someone has a different brain cell activity (dictated by genetics and environment of course) than yours?

Johnny: From a deterministic point of view, there is no such thing as right and wrong in a moral sense. There is only practical and impractical. Some people who want to commit crimes believe that it is impractical to do so. Others do not. Some get caught and some get away with it.

You still haven’t answered my question though. Is THIS very thought of yours predetermined by genetics and environment? Then, how would you know if being practical or impractical is the only way to go as opposed to what is moral or immoral or right or wrong? What if two different people had two different thoughts (both dictated by different genetics and environment), who is right and who is wrong?

As for the race issue, I’m sorry, I just can’t see how it’s not condescending nor criticizing nor racist nor a “well known fact” when one would make a remark that whites are better than blacks in chess or that blacks are better than whites in basketball because of their genetic make up that constitutes certain advantages.

You say, “In my opinion it is not important to try to decide whether or not there can be moral absolutes from an atheistic viewpoint. Such an attempt is merely philosophical.” Yet you criticize Christian doctrine that inadequately holds to moral absolutes? Besides, aren’t we philosophizing?

You add, “What matters most is reality, in other words what atheists do, and is their behavior in general favorable when compared to Christian behavior?” Well, I think one must think philosophically in order to find out what reality is. In this case, I think knowing what’s absolutely moral or not corresponds to reality. Are you saying that abstract ideas like morals are not a part of reality?

Frank

back to top

8. Johnny Skeptic's Third and Final Response.

Hi Frank,

In order to simply our discussions I offer the following: Regardless of whether or not atheists can accept moral absolutes, all that matters is how they act in human society. Documented studies have proven that the behavior of atheists compares favorably to Christian behavior. It's as simple as that.

Regarding my mention of black basketball players, I love people of all races equally. The laws of physics and the influences of various environmental factors determine which people have athletic advantages, intellectual advantages and other kinds of advantages as well. Such being the case, I simply stated the results of genetic and environmental factors. If you want to argue against genetic and enviromental influences go ahead, but please don't claim that I have a condescending attitude toward black people. Everyone who has known me for decades would say that such a claim on your part is ridiculous. You don't even know me and yet you are making assumptions about my character. That makes no sense at all.

I look forward to your reply.

Johnny

back to top

9. Frank Closes.

Johnny,

Well, it looks like our discussion is coming to an end here. Your simplicity of our discussion will only revert me to my last questions which I feel haven't been adequately answered I'm afraid. As for the race issue, I will revert to my last statement. No, I don't know you Johnny. But, from what I can tell, you are a nice person with a friendly personality - you are certainly more approachable than most atheists I meet on the web who tend to be quite hostile, immature, and vitriolic. But, I don't think I can say these things were it not for moral absolutes.

Thanks anyway,

Frank

back to top