Atheism's moral philosophy not consistent with Baylor's mission

Oct. 17, 2007

Article here.

I feel sorry for atheists. They are so much in the minority in American society and they are bound to feel some marginalization if not persecution.

Christians should be the last people to persecute anyone -- including atheists. But that doesn't mean Christians have to accommodate atheism as they tolerate and love atheists.

We have to recognize atheists' full freedom to believe God does not exist, but we don't have to embrace atheism as a social good. In fact, I would argue that atheism has no redeeming social value.

Atheism undermines values. How? Let's look at care for others. Yes, an individual atheist might care for other people. But when have you heard of an entire atheist organization serving the poor, the sick or the hungry?

So far, at least, atheists haven't demonstrated their concern for others in any organized way.

But more importantly, atheism undermines values such as care for others because it cannot explain why anyone should care for others. If there is no God or anything at all above nature, then nature is all there is. The law of nature is survival of the fittest. Why help the less fit survive unless there is a God who loves them because they are created in his image?

What argument can atheism marshal against "might makes right"?

Many atheists argue that caring for others can be encouraged based on self-interest.

But what answer can an atheist give (that is consistent with atheism) to the question, "What if I figure out a way to be personally happy and fulfilled while oppressing other people?"

There is no answer to that without appeal to someone transcendent to whom we are all accountable.

And atheism has no answer to social Darwinism -- the idea that society should not help the weak because it's nature's way to weed out the less fit.

Helping the weak goes against nature and if nature is all there is, well, why should we fight it? A person might choose to, but not because of any transcendent, objective obligation (such as that all persons are created in God's image).

Not only does atheism undermine values; it also undermines meaning. I'm talking about meaningful reality -- life with meaning and purpose.

German theologian Hans Küng wrote Does God Exist? An Answer for Today. In it, the maverick Catholic thinker argued that atheism can provide no basis for "basic trust" in the meaningfulness of reality.

The only logical option for the atheist is nihilism -- belief that nothing has any objective meaning or purpose.

Küng admitted that atheism is a rational "basic choice" and it cannot be proven wrong in any kind of absolute way.

But most atheists demonstrate their basic trust in the meaningfulness of reality by being outraged at evil and injustice, thereby demonstrating that atheism cannot be lived out consistently.

What makes something evil or unjust if nothing like God exists -- if nature is all there is? Only subjective choice either by an individual or a society. But that can change and it often does. Without God, the social prophet has no way out of relativism.

Baylor and universities like it exist to promote objective values and meaningful existence.

For them atheism is not benign, but the enemy -- even if atheists themselves are not.

Finally, let me repeat that I have nothing against atheists as persons and neither does Baylor University.

But in my opinion, they are people of character and virtue in spite of their philosophy of life -- not because of it.

Dr. Roger Olson is a professor of theology in George W. Truett Theological Seminary.

This article and many others like it is why we atheists are misunderstood by Christians. Dr. Olson and many other Christians who feel compelled to write misinformation such as this don't personally know any atheists and have imagined that atheists are marginal people at best. I know many, many atheists and many, many theists and there isn't any real moral difference between these two very diverse groups of people.

Here's a small sampling of this man's mistakes and how I feel about them.

This guy says "So far, at least, atheists haven't demonstrated their concern for others in any organized way." There are many groups that atheists/secular humanists have formed: Freedom from Religion Foundation, Atheist Volunteers (I'm a member), Doctors without Borders (secular), and many others. Dr. Olson was too lazy to research and lies to prove a point.

Dr. Olson also says, "And atheism has no answer to social Darwinism -- the idea that society should not help the weak because it's nature's way to weed out the less fit." Dr. Olson's first mistake is to equate Darwinism with atheism. Being an atheist only means that we have no belief in God or gods. Period. We have no opinion, as a group, about Darwinism or social Darwinism. I personally find the idea of social Darwinism abhorrent and disgusting. I would never endorse anything Hilter or any other tyrant did in the name of racial purity or survival of the fittest. By the way, Darwin never used the phase "survival of the fittest." Evolution is about natural selection not "survival of the fittest." I would also add that Christianity has no answer to social Darwinism either.

Another lie Dr. Olson tells: Not only does atheism undermine values; it also undermines meaning. I'm talking about meaningful reality -- life with meaning and purpose. One of the most important aspect of being an atheist is that I know there is no afterlife. No singing with the angels, no eternal punishment from Satan. I'll be as nonexistent when I die as I was before I was born. Please, please give me proof of a heaven and I'll believe, but until then I live my life fully and give it lots of meaning until my last breathe of air and my last heartbeat. Atheists know that our lives have no meaning unless we make it meaningful. Just as every Christian does the best for each day she's alive, we do exactly the same, only without the promise of a reward/punishment in the end.

He ends his essay of lies by stating: But in my opinion, they are people of character and virtue in spite of their philosophy of life -- not because of it. Here's a surprise: I'm a good person because I'm an atheist. My morals don't come from an outdated book (the Bible) put together by a group of bishops in 325 CE just so Constantine could control the Romans. My morals, as I would argue that most of yours, come from wanting the best for me and my family and friends, for my society and, I might add, the world. My actions are guided by those wants and I give a tremendous amount of thought into why I feel this way.

An example of my morals verses Christian morals and the reasons behind this can be shown in the pro-choice/pro-life debate. I am pro-choice. When researching the arguments for and against abortion one finds that in countries where abortion is illegal women are still getting them in large numbers and many of them have died or suffered serious medical problems resulting from a "back ally" or self-induced abortion. Letting our country get to the state where a woman's reproductive health is in jeopardy is immoral. Instead of trying to make abortion illegal we should be making birth control and sex education more available and arming our daughters with information instead of scary religious dogma. This will make them more aware of how to prevent pregnancy, but will also give them a safe environment in which to obtain an abortion should they need it. Would you rather have your daughter alive and healthy or dead? Yeah, me too.

As you can tell, this article hit a nerve with me. It's bad enough that I get told what a good Christian I am every now and then, but I'm not a bad person because I'm an atheist. This man was arrogant because of his Christianity and condensing to atheists because he feels he has the moral high ground. What's sad about this is he wrote this article without a hint of research which basically means he lied. He lies for Jesus and he feels smug about it. Shame on him.