Morality really bothers atheists and God-haters. They will do everything they can to avoid moral imperatives. Further, they are entirely convinced of their intellectual superiority but are unable to see past their own colossal irony. They bristle at the idea of absolute truth and having morality imposed upon them yet write their own list of do nots. The very same people who don't want religion telling them what's moral are perfectly fine authoritatively telling us what's moral.
Our question is this: In a world without objective morality, on what basis do these these folks offer us (non) commandments about anything? If truth is relative, then each person chooses for himself what to believe, and there can be no imperative. However, each of these "non-commandments" is a moral principle, offered as self-evident truth to be embraced and promulgated. Each assumes the moral stature to apply universally.
And of course, each statement is a commandment, not a non-commandment. They must have forgotten their premise.
So let's take the above statements one by one.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
So let's take the above statements one by one.
1. Be open-minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
This is sensible advice, something that most people would agree with, but few actually practice (particularly atheists and skeptics).
What is truth? We echo the infamous response of Pontius Pilate (John 18:38) when Jesus said that "everyone on the side of truth listens to me." How does one know what is true?
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
What other ways might there be to understand the natural world? Do people really reject the scientific method? And by the way, how is reliability determined?
4. Every person has a right to control of their body.
This is incorrect. Motorcyclists are required to wear a helmet, there are certain drugs that are illegal to administer, and one cannot sell one's organs. In fact, most laws come to bear on some aspect of controlling one's own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
This is not a "non-commandment" at all, it is a baseless assertion. The problem is, it presumes an existing system of good and bad. Thus this is second-hand morality, premised on Christian truths. Otherwise, there would be no way to determine what a "good person" is.
We would also observe that if there is no God, there is no meaning, except for the self-created delusions we tell ourselves.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
A lot of these are actually good advice, but again we must ask, what is the moral basis? Why is it important to do these things? Why not live one's life without regard for consequences?
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated.
Have you heard that before? "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
Why? On what basis would anyone have a responsibility to anyone else? What moral precept indicates this?
9. There is no one right way to live.
Aside from the fact that there are nine other "non-commandments" telling us the right way to live, the statement asserts an absolute. That is, the right way to live is to live as if there is no right way to live.
Most crucially, this "non-commandment" negates the moral imperatives contained in all the others.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.
Since we are told that there is no right way to live, we summarily reject this.
Most crucially, this "non-commandment" negates the moral imperatives contained in all the others.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.
Since we are told that there is no right way to live, we summarily reject this.
No comments:
Post a Comment