Since the recent arrival and “bestseller” status of several books by Atheists (no doubt employed by the credulous as proof that the Antichrist has invaded the publishing business) there has not been much in the way of intelligent rebuttal—by that I mean rebuttal that is willing to take on these Atheists on the neutral ground of scientific proof and/or logic. One recent attempt was in a piece in the Washington Post by Michael Gerson. It is on an aspect of the general subject of belief in God(s) that has been on-going in these pages that relates to the putative relationship between belief and morality. This is, of course, the longstanding nonsense that, if you are a person who proclaims to “love God,” you must be a person who will love your fellow man and all God’s creation.
One need only take a look at the degree of belief in America and the mess we are in to see just what nonsense this is. But the Theists like to use the same old canard that Bush uses to justify his on-going fiasco in Iraq [1] : that we would be even worse servants of God if there were more Atheists. Here is Gerson on this concern. He first agrees with Harris, for example, that:There is something innate about morality that is distinct from theological conviction. This instinct may result from evolutionary biology, early childhood socialization or the chemistry of the brain, but human nature is somehow constructed for sympathy and cooperative purpose.
But then he states that: “. . . there is a problem. Human nature, in other circumstances, is also clearly constructed for cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of other less desirable traits.
So how do we use to chose between good and evil if we get rid of God, he worries? He claims that Atheism does not have an answer for this. Of course he over simplifies with his dualities. What about non-cruel “exploitation”? Isn’t capitalism, much favored by the credulous, exploitation of people and natural resources? Are the economic activities that lead to the de facto indenture of humans or global warming, cruel or not? And “rage”; what is war but (sometimes) “controlled rage. I guess “controlled rage” is morally acceptable (You can beat your wife, but keep it under control). There has been a lot of controlled rage used to shove religions down peoples’ throats so that they could subsequently be un-cruelly exploited.
Gerson worries that there will be noting to control the non-believer’s tendency to selfishness if we get rid of God. Excuse me, but what planet is this guy from? You mean that in the credulous world there is some control on selfishness? Take a look around, dude. Just take a look at one of those blow-dried prayboys on the Evangelist television shows and their mansions and Bentley’s and the rest, not to mention that you have a nine out of ten chance that some greedy CEO who screws his workers probably will say he is a good Christian. Take a look around and you’ll be praying for The Rapture to hurry up.
So Gerson goes soldiers on for his God: By exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis could exist to condemn them? Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not. The “will to power” thing sounds like some of that crap phraseology you get from evangelist preachers. But does the second sentence means we have to wait until somebody comes up with a moral basis for condemning greed and misuse of power? Jesus, this guy’s been in an intellectual coma. Ever heard of political revolution, dude; ever heard of the Constitution, dude, ever heard of the Law? What does he mean by “no objective way” to judge behavior. What is religion but the most subjective way of doing it. Does he mean we have to settle the question ”what would Jesus do?” before we have a basis for action. How about what the Pharisees would decide about what’s moral, or the Pope, or the mullahs, or swamis and gurus? So we should not have a law that you can’t molest children that does not have a religious basis? Mr. Gerson needs a wake-up call. He molests my kid and he will end up as a soprano in his church choir, and I will not have asked an Evangelist preacher, a catholic priest, or a mullah about the moral propriety of my Gerson-gelding because those hypocritical bastards are probably too busy molesting children!
In short, Mr. Gerson, there are ways for society’s to put bounds on behavior that we can call “moral” that do not need the blessing of some Bishop or Ayotallah or prayboy. In fact, I would argue that it is a better course [2] for societies to sit down and work out some secular rules for their communities that transcend those of the various religions that might exist in that community. This is the whole idea behind the separation of church and state , the very notion that almost every religion is trying to obliterate! It is religio—OK, maybe overly religious people—who are the scourge of most societies, who threaten freedom, choice, and the rights of women and children, and of free thought. Been to the Creation Museum in Tennessee, Gerson?
So Mr. Gerson tries to haul out some big guns to bully us: America’s Founders embraced public neutrality on matters of religion, but they were not indifferent to the existence of religious faith. George Washington warned against the “supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” That George was a helluva lot better president than the current Gdeorge—but he had slaves, you dork! So the founders were often religious men themselves and were not anti-religious, but they knew enough to want to separate church and state. They understood the dark side of credulity.
But Gerson really loses it with his closer: Atheists and theists seem to agree that human beings have an innate desire for morality and purpose. For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature — imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold.
You gotta love it when they do this. We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them is just stuck in there like it was the second law of thermodynamics, or two plus two equals four. He claims that Atheists can’t prove a basis for morality without God, but Mr. Gerson claims to know the intentions of the Creator. Wow, that’s gonads for ya! [3] Where the hell does he get off stating this as though it was a proven fact? It is something that Mr. Gerson believes, and he is entitled to his belief as long as he doesn’t try to shove it down my agnostic throat or make it my form of government, or send my kid off to war in the name of his God.
And what is this about a “cruel joke of nature”. If you believe that everything was created by a Creator. Mr. Gerson, then who the hell created Nature, you logical cripple. In your cosmology it was God who set things up so that that the lioness would rip the throat out of the cute baby gazelle. Nature can be cruel, and don’t get me going on where all the “evil” in the world must come from.
And I suppose that “destined for disappointment” means that if Athiests don’t believe in God then they won’t get to end up with Him, but willo end up in (if that’s possible) “oblivion.” [4]
Oh, I forgot, the evil would come from the Devil. Why don’t we all get together for coffee one of these days, Mr. Gerson: you, me, God, and the Devil. I’ll even let you bring up to three Guardian Angels. [5]
___________________________________
©2007, James A. Clapp (UrbisMedia Ltd. Pub. 7.13.2007)
[1] You know, that there would be chaos and civil war if we left. So what do you call what’s going on while we are there in Iraq—and what we engendered ?
[2] This is a cue for Gerson to call out the old “godless Communists” canard, but I am not referring to the instances in which political ideologies have been elevated to the status, or replacement, of religion.
[3] Oh, I forgot, Mr. Gerson lost those in a previous paragraph.
[4] I think Agnostics like me have to go to Purgatory and watch endless re-runs of The 700 Club.
[5] You’re gonna need ‘em