• Browse: About; New; Previous; Next
• Return to Letters Index
• Home to Positive Atheism

Criticism Of
October, 1998, Column
Brett Rice

• Reference: Anything Goes!? Hardly! by Cliff Walker

From:
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Comments on Oct. Column
Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 10:24 PM

Cliff,

Since you don't seem to be interested in discussing the political ramifications of your philosophy, perhaps you wouldn't mind responding to some comments on your last column.

Cliff wrote in the column:

"A popular objection to atheism by theists is the claim that atheism leads to an 'anything goes' philosophy. Without knowledge of God's laws, they tell us, we are lost in a moral fog and lack the ability to discern good from evil. How could we know to do right without a revelation from beyond? Where is our standard?"

Brett comments:

Popular beliefs notwithstanding, Theism, per se, has nothing to do with behavior, at least according to Christian doctrine. The point of Christianity is just that: personal behavior is not a criterion for union with God.

Certainly, the Christian point of view is that God has set standards, however, those standards are universally recognized as being individually unattainable. That is the reason for the necessity of union with God, concerning the human achievement of those divine standards. That is the "theme" of the Bible - the universal failure of mankind, and all "created" beings to achieve, on their own merits, equivalency with God.

Cliff responds:

In lieu of convincing demonstrations of God's existence, this is the popular objection to atheism -- your particular interpretation of a particular religion notwithstanding. It is the Christians who want the Ten Commandments posted in public schools, and their stated reason for doing this is to increase morality (that is, prevent violence).

How can any attempt at "equivalency with God" have anything whatsoever to do with keeping peace in society?

That some forms of Christian theism see "salvation" as having nothing to do with behavior is one of my many complaints about Christianity as a method towards morality. With this understanding, there is no personal accountability, neither here nor in any "hereafter."

However, this is not the only understanding within Christendom: The vast majority of Christians throughout history have seen behavior as crucial, either to salvation or as an indicator of prior salvation. This makes sense considering that other people cannot know what is going on in your own mind, and they need some way to discern the true from the false among them.

In either event, the good behavior is always defined by a revelation from a god, and the questions remain: Is it really real? Which god? How do we know?

Cliff wrote in the column:

"All this presupposes that mankind is inherently evil. We can only say that we are fallible; we cannot go further. Nobody can compare known humans to any 'perfect' specimen. To take our fallibility as evidence that we are inherently wicked is to stretch beyond what we can verify."

Brett comments:

Well, we know that it is possible for "us" to do better; we do have an "inherent" idea of higher standards. Whether or not they are attainable, is a matter of record, to be sure. Certainly, after 25 thousand years, or more, of human societal coexistance, it is without argument that human beings, generally, are inherently short sighted, self possessed entities, who are individually capable of, and inclined to embody and variously demonstrate every aspect of evil which we have come to describe as such in our vocabulary. If you are looking for "evidence", I might suggest that you needn't look any futher than the borders of your own mind.

Cliff responds:

This assessment is much more pessimistic than even most atheists are accused of being. This makes sense in that you have prejudiced your outlook on life with the Christian doctrine of "Original Sin," which takes fallibility and stretches it way beyond what we can know and can prove, and defines humanity as inherently evil. Having done this, it is easy to point to any number of atrocities that have been committed in a smug attempt to prove your case.

I also must ask how it is that you know what transpires within the "borders" of my own mind? Once you can show me precisely how it is that you can know what is happening in my mind, then I will give credence to your ideas about humanity being inherently wicked -- and not simply fallible. Otherwise, you do not speak for all of humanity, and all you have are examples of the behavior of some of humanity.

Cliff wrote in the column:

But then, this notion of inherent evil comes by faith in a revelation -- and that raises the question of which revelation?

Brett comments:

Does it? How so? I see a constant effort, on the part of athiests, to emulate and implement a moral standard which is comparable to the Christian ethic, without success. History is full of like failures. Of course, atheists attempt to attribute those failed attempts to "priesthoods", who sought to manipulate the ignorant masses of humanity by virtue of fear and dread of the "gods" which they created. To a large degree, that is probably accurate, but history being the inaccurate "science" that it is, we'll never know for certain what they really believed.

Cliff responds:

I think it's probably the other way around: Moses taking the codes of Hammurabi, etc, and calling them the word of a god; Jesus inverting the logic behind the "silver rule" of Hillel and others to make the "golden rule"; Mohammed observing his own experience as an orphan to make Alla's commandments to give alms to the poor.

Brett continues:

The fact remains, however, of the indisputable evidence of the "Word" of God. The most ancient remains of cognizant human beings are always accompanied by evidence of their belief in God. As long as there have been "people", there has been a God, to whom they have attributed their knowledge. Therefore, to say, sarcastically, that revelation is the supposed origin of any knowledge is to betray ignorance of archaeological evidence.

Cliff responds:

This is to admit that gods are, in fact, the creations of men. So, then, we have the codes created by men attributed to gods. Then we have men, acting on the false claim of being representatives of the god, meting out the judgements and the punishments for disobeying the imaginary god.

When the falsehood is found out, I promise you there will be unrest and revolution.

Should our system of government start out on honest footing, and be touted as what it is, the flawed creation of fallible humans, there will be one fewer opportunity for unrest.

Unrest within an admittedly human government happens, but almost always in response to corruption.

A theistic government inherently opens itself up to corruption because there can be no checks and balances against a god, and there is certainly no redress of grievances against a god.

Cliff wrote in the column:

With the atheistic position of what you see is what you get, we learn to think for ourselves and to come up with our own solutions. We develop a system of ethics that we know will work, that we can explain, that we can dispute if unfair, and that we can modify if need be.

Brett comments:

(See above statement concerning atheistic emulation of Christian morality.)

My other response to this statement is: What in the hell are you proposing? Scrap the existing morality? Go to a totally new social structure? Hey; I thought that that was what the Communist experiment was all about! They failed! They blew it!! Hello?!!

Cliff responds:

Leave it to the adherent of a system such as Christianity -- a system that sees reality primarily in terms of black and white; good and evil; us vs. them -- to assume that I propose completely scrapping what we have.

Not everything we have needs scrapping. Only the likes of Abbie Hoffman, et al, ever said it does.

And leave it to someone who does not have an answer of his own (but depends on a god and a revelation for his answers) to jump up[ and down with the ol' straw-man ruse of comparing atheism to Communism. (Didn't that become passe during the 1960s?)

If you go back and read again, you will see that I merely describe a set of methods for developing and maintaining systems of human government, compare their merits with the theist systems, and defend the atheistic methods against the charge of "anything goes."

Cliff wrote in the column:

And we can more easily live with the decisions of a justice system that we had a hand in building ourselves.

Brett comments:

And, just what do you think that we have now?

Cliff responds:

In America, we have a system that was developed primarily by humans that is much easier to live with than any system that I have seen that alleges to come from "above" or "beyond."

Cliff wrote in the column:

Theism, with its divinely revealed rule book, offers none of these things. In fact, the moral system of theism risks the same criticism that theists usually reserve for atheistic systems.

They accuse us of having an "anything goes" approach, but once we hold a book to be divinely inspired, we can no longer explain or justify our deeds. Neither are we accountable for what we do. God said to do it, we're going to do it, and that settles that -- no ifs, ands, or buts.

Brett comments:

Cliff, I respect your rights as a citizen, I admire your intelligence, and I appreciate your honesty, but to make a statement like that, betrays bias, vindictiveness, and ignorance. I don't care if you have read the Bible 200 times, you haven't got a clue as to what it is about.

Cliff responds:

I beg your pardon!

(And just where did I imply that I was talking about the Bible in particular and not about the notion of theism in general? But, since you bring it up -- )

Brett continues:

Every hint of what we, as a civilization, call morality is delineated in its pages. In your wildest utopian dreams, you couldn't come up with anything remotely resembling a social system while disregarding the standards which are set down in the Bible. There is nothing else! Examine every other philosophical treatise in the history of man, every other "holy" book ever written, and you will find every virtue, which is, on concensus, recognized to be a true virtue, contained in the Bible.

Cliff responds:

Just where does the Bible discuss right and wrong as being the product of negotiation and up for discussion?

True, there are a few cases of men successfully negotiating with the Bible god. A classic example is Ezekiel balking at the Bible god's commandment to eat human dung: "Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth" (Ezekiel 4:14). So the Bible god allows Ezekiel to substitute "cow's dung for man's dung" (verse 15).

Another example of negotiation with a god occurs in the Book of Mormon, in the story of the barges that were "tight like unto a dish." The men kept finding problems with the barges (as designed by the god), and so the god allowed the men to make various improvements -- such as holes in the top for air (Ether 2).

However, this notion of negotiating with the deity is the exception, and the man doing the negotiating is inevitably seen as weak.

And nowhere is there seen a discussion or negotiation over what is right and what is wrong. Men are never included in this discussion.

And why did the Bible god (according to the story) free the poor, afflicted Hebrews? because slavery is wrong? because of the dignity of the human? because "all men are created equal"? No! It was always for the purpose of manifesting the "glory" of the Bible god. (Read the Exodus story again!) Nowhere does the Bible condemn the institution of human slavery.

In the Old Testament, adultery is only committed against another man by having relations with his wife -- his property. If she is unmarried, even if the sex is rape, this is not adultery. The laws of the Bible god are not applied equally between men and women. However, in the New Testament, adultery is committed within the regions of one's own mind. How on earth are we supposed to turn this commandment of Jesus into a useful and usable law that we can put into practice?

I could go on, but I spent several weeks typing and formatting and posting "The Ten Commandments" by Joseph Lewis. Anybody to whom the answer to this question is not obvious is advised to read just one chapter of this book, which is just one of many pieces that cover the subject quite thoroughly.

Cliff wrote in the column:

If I can convince you that I have word from God, then I can commit any atrocity I wish and get away with it. I answer to no humans and I certainly answer to no gods. In short, anything goes.

Brett comments:

Where, in the Bible, is anyone authorized to commit "atrocities", in the name of God?

Cliff responds:

I must reiterate that the Bible is seen by many as being a direct commandment from the Bible god. However, as Thomas Paine aptly points out, such "revelation" is only hearsay:

And again:

My point, though, is that if a man (or woman) causes others to think that he has a word from a god, then he need neither explain nor justify his deeds. He is no longer accountable for what he does. "Who art thou that repliest against God?" God said to do it. End of discussion.

Though not explicitly stated as such, John 15:6 was, for centuries, claimed as a commandment from the Bible god to burn millions of us "heretics" at the stake:

For a more explicit example, Numbers 31:17-18 basically says it all:

I need no more than this. To list even a small portion of the other atrocities allegedly commanded by the Bible god would take up a lot more time than I have. I urge you to do as I have and read the Bible cover to cover, and than ask yourself why people such as myself would be so thoroughly offended by it.

As Thomas Paine so aptly puts it:

Cliff wrote in the column:

"Jesus supposedly said: "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." History shows what madness happens when a god makes people "free" from accountability."

Brett comments:

History shows what "evil" men are capable of manifesting -- all on their own! Blaming humanity's "evil" on God is a bullshit cop-out!

Cliff responds:

We never even reached the point where we agree whether there exists a god to blame. My comments are about men claiming or alleging to have the word of a god and exploiting people thereby (and I think all such claims are falsehood).

Cliff wrote in the column:

This is not the same as Liberty, which always includes personal responsibility.

Brett comments:

The concept of volitional freedom, tied to personal resonsibility has its origins in, and is inseparable, logically, from the concept of theism. There is no contrary epistemological statement which can logically hold up. If you'd like to debate that point -- fine with me.

Sincerely,

Brett Rice

Cliff responds:

You are welcome to make your case on this one. I'd like to discover that the concept of Liberty, as declared by the founders of the United States of America, as described by the architect of this nation, Thomas Paine, actually did have its roots in something that is popularly seen as a direct revelation from a supernatural deity.

Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.