Objective Standard Versus New Atheists

Appropriately, it was not the Christians who devastated the so-called New Atheists, but the Objectivists.

In his article for The Objective Standard, "The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists," Alan Germani reviews the ethical theories of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins.

In brief, Hitchens holds that ethical knowledge is innate and Harris clings to intuitionism, while Dennett and Dawkins turn to evolutionary programming. The first set of ideas collapse to personal subjectivism, while the evolutionary claims collapse to social subjectivism. For details and key quotations, please read Germani's entire article.

The Christian critics of the New Atheists point out, quite correctly, that without God they are unable to formulate an objective ethics. Of course, with God all the Christians can formulate is an ethic that combines deistic, social, and personal subjectivism. Ultimately, it is a grand clash of subjectivists of different stripes.

What is needed is a morality rooted not in the alleged pronouncements of God, nor in the arbitrary pronouncements of men, nor in the alleged insights of some inner sense or intuition. Instead, we need a truly objective morality rooted in the facts of human life.

Polls and Abortion

Back on September 28, Rasmussen conducted a poll that covered Colorado's Amendment 48:

In November Amendment 48 entitled "Definition of a Person" will be on the ballot. This amendment to the Colorado constitution defines a person a s-- "any human being from the moment of fertilization". If the election were held today would you vote for or against this amendment?

39% For
50% Against
11% Not sure

Do you believe that life begins at conception, or at birth, or somewhere in between?
41% At conception
22% At birth
33% Somewhere in between
4% Not sure

Support for the measure dropped by the election; only 26.7 percent of voters favored the measure.

What is extraordinary is that the measure did not receive a passing vote in a single county. In El Paso county, home of Focus on the Family, the measure got 37.6 percent of the vote.

Unfortunately, the poll reinforced the fallacy that the measure had something to do with when "life begins." Amendment 48 said nothing about when "life begins." And the poll includes no correct answer to the question anyway. As Diana Hsieh and I pointed out, life precedes conception; both the sperm cell and egg are alive. Life is an unending chain spanning back billions of years. The relevant question is not when life begins -- everyone grants a fertilized egg is alive -- but when personhood begins.

Forman on Slavery and Abortion

In an October article, Robert Forman, like many evangelicals, compares abortion to slavery:

Slave owners and those who were in the slave trade were unapologetically pro-choice when it came to slaves and slavery. They felt that "if you don’t like slavery, don't own a slave" -- but leave the "right" for those who do desire to own slaves to be able to own slaves. That's very similar to the "if you don't like abortions, don't have one" -- but leave the "right" for those who do want an abortion to be able get an abortion.

Forman is ignoring one minor distinction: a slave is a person, while a fertilized egg is not. Notably, in his entire article, Forman makes no effort to show that that an embryo is a person. You'd think that somebody so concerned about the alleged evils of abortion would try to do that.

Perhaps in his next article Forman would care to answer the arguments made by Diana Hsieh and me demonstrating that personhood begins at birth.

There is a useful comparison to be made between slavery and abortion bans, in that both violate the rights of people. Diana and I make that case as well.

Probability and God

London atheists purchased bus advertisements stating, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

This is a poor message on a number of levels. Christians would dispute the notion that they "worry" about God's existence; they would claim that they rejoice in God's existence. Similarly, they would argue that they enjoy their lives because of their connection with God. The advertisement suggests that that the most important aspect of God, if he existed, would be that he makes us worry and not enjoy our lives. Christians will sensibly respond that such a message says more about the atheists than it does about God.

The fundamental question is whether God exists. Here too the advertisement fails. First, if "there's probably no God," then that means God may exist. What is the probability? Is there a 20 percent chance of God? A 49.9 percent chance?

Interestingly, Richard Dawkins helped fund the advertisement. I was surprised to read the following segment from the AP's article:

Dawkins said that as an atheist he "wasn't wild" about the ad's assertion that there was "probably" no God.

[Campaign organizer Ariane] Sherine said the word was included to ensure the posters didn't breach transit advertising regulations, which stipulate ads should not offend religious people.

I don't know whether the buses in question receive tax subsidies. If not, then they are within their rights to set advertising policy. If so, then the policy constitutes government censorship.

Offhand, I don't see why religious people would take more offense at the claim that "there is no God" than the claim "there's probably no God."

However, the notion that God's existence may be subject to probabilities is absurd. A probability is a measure of human ignorance and inability to perfectly predict the future. To take the obvious examples, if I flip a coin, the probability of getting heads is one-half; if I roll a die the probability of rolling a three is one-sixth. I can know that there is a die, and I can know by testing it that its weight is evenly distributed and its sides smoothly cut.

God is something else entirely. To say "there is a probability that X exists" is to say that we know of cases in which X does exist, and cases in which X does not exist, and in a given set of circumstances X exists some fraction of the time. For example, "there's probably no beetle of a certain type living in this tree," because we've evaluated a bunch of trees and found the beetle only in a minority of them.

To talk about a probability of God existing is to take the concept outside of the context that gives it meaning.

The claim that God exists is arbitrary. It is based on no evidence, and the very concept of a supernatural God is absurd. The proper response to such a claim is to reject it, not pretend that it somehow falls within the scope of probability.

Does Free Will Prove God?

A large portion of articles from the conservative Town Hall attempt to prove the existence of God or slam atheism. (This is yet another example of how the conservative movement is captured by the religious right.) A recent example is Ben Shapiro's "Why Atheism Is Morally Bankrupt."

Here is Shapiro's argument:

[W]ithout God, there can be no moral choice. Without God, there is no capacity for free will.

Thats because a Godless world is a soulless world. Virtually all faiths hold that God endows human beings with the unique ability to choose their actions -- the ability to transcend biology and environment in order to do good. Transcending biology and our environment requires a higher power -- a spark of the supernatural. As philosopher Rene Descartes, put it, Although I possess a body with which I am very intimately conjoined [my soul] is entirely and absolutely distinct from my body and can exist without it. [A direct quote?]

Gilbert Pyle, the atheistic philosopher, derogatorily labeled the idea of soul/body dualism, the ghost in the machine. Nonetheless, our entire legal and moral system is based on the ghost in the machine -- the presupposition that we can choose to do otherwise. ...

According to atheists, human beings are intensely complex machines. Our actions are determined by our genetics and our environment.

Shapiro's claim about atheists is obviously false. Many atheists reject determinism.

But notice the basic form of Shapiro's argument: "I cannot explain X as part of the natural world, therefore God exists." This argument has been repeated in many forms over the centuries. "I cannot explain [lightning, weather, causal laws, gravity, the origin of species, morality, free will] as part of the natural word, therefore God exists."

But an inability to explain something does not justify the move to Making Stuff Up. Lack of knowledge about the natural world does not demonstrate the existence of a supernatural world.

I do not pretend to have the final answer to free will. (I don't pretend to have the final answer to gravity or many other things, either.) Yet it is obviously the case that an account of free will need not invoke God, because two major theories of free will avoid doing so. Objectivists such as Leonard Peikoff argue that mechanistic causation does not exhaust the nature of causation, and that certain things in the universe -- people with rational consciousness -- are capable of self-causation in important ways. Others, including Daniel Dennett, make a case for compatibilism, the view that free will operates within a deterministic world. I hope to return to this issue squarely within the next couple years.

The unassailable fundamental is that we do have free will. We obviously can "choose to do otherwise." We can observe the phenomenon of choice within ourselves. The fact that science cannot explain free will with finality does not disprove free will any more than a lack of understanding about gravity allows us to float freely above the earth with no upward force. The point of science is to explain aspects of the natural world, not rationalize away their existence.

Shapiro claims that atheists cannot explain free will in the context of natural law. His solution? Conjure a God not bound by natural law. He counts his ignorance as his proof: we don't understand something, therefore, God. Yet even within that rationalistic framework Christians have struggled to explain free will. Many influential Christians were determinists. Indeed, Christianity is driven to its own form of compatibilism: God must simultaneously have perfect knowledge -- including a perfect awareness of the future -- and grant humans free will. Neat trick. The upshot is that Christians reject compatibilism based on a competing theory of compatibilism. But the absurdities of the supernaturalist framework are secondary: the main point is that there's no reason to accept a supernaturalist framework, and the attempt inherently defies reason.

Rampant Irrationalism

A couple days ago I noted attendance at evangelical churches is up. Well, that's only the tip of the irrationalist iceberg. In his column yesterday, David Harsanyi collected various polling results showing a marked turn to the supernatural and irrational.

* "[A]ccording to a 2006 Scripps-Howard/Ohio University poll, a full third of you believe that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job."

* "[O]ne-third of Americans... believe that UFOs exist... A Newsweek poll says the number of believers is up 15 percent since the 1980s..."

* "A new Harris poll finds that 28 percent of you believe in witches and 40 percent of the public -- including 46 percent of women -- believe that ghosts are hovering in the so-called 'real' world. Over 20 percent of you have claimed to have actually witnessed a poltergeist."

This is in addition to the traditional nuttiness: 73 percent believe in miracles, 61 percent believe in a high demon, and 59 percent believe in hell.

The world really is haunted by demons -- the demons of people's irrational and mystical beliefs.

D'Souza Trounces Singer

Dinesh D'Souza smashes ants and declares himself a giant. D'Souza, who tends to declare himself the winner of debates with various atheists, is no doubt correct when it comes to his self-assessment against Peter Singer.

D'Souza ridiculously counts Singer as among "the most effective advocates of atheism" and "the best that the opposition has to offer." You've got to be kidding me. I know a lot of atheists personally, and not a single one takes Singer's views remotely seriously. Besides, Singer is not primarily an atheist, he is primarily a (bad) ethicist. That is, his main business is not disproving the existence of God, but concocting wild theories about how people should live.

Ah, but D'Souza asserts:

...I suggested that Singer was a perfect illustration of what you get when you reject God and attempt to construct ethics on a purely secular, Darwinian foundation. Singer’s atheism, I suggested, is the primary foundation of his advocacy of infanticide, euthanasia, and animal rights.

His assertion is ludicrous. What does Singer's bizarre utilitarianism have to do with evolutionary theory? D'Souza doesn't say in his article; the correct answer is nothing.

Atheism is not a positive philosophy. It does not, as D'Souza endlessly asserts, imply socialism, Singer's views, or any other particular idea. Atheism is a negative. It asserts that God (and the supernatural) does not exist.

D'Souza thinks that, absent religion, morality is impossible, but he is simply wrong. Aristotle formulated a non-religious, Eudaimonistic ethic long ago, and in the modern age Ayn Rand and her followers have revealed the foundation of morality in the nature of human life.

But D'Souza is interested in apologetics, not in actually refuting the "the best that the opposition has to offer," which he has never squarely faced.

Evangelicals Leverage Downturn

An article in the New York Times verifies what many of us suspected: economic downturns are good for certain churches. The paper notes that "evangelical churches around the country... have enjoyed steady growth over the last decade. But since September, pastors nationwide say they have seen... a burst of new interest..."

There seem to be two main reasons for this. As one pastor told the paper, "When people are shaken to the core, it can open doors." The article also discusses an economist who sees the increased attendance as more related to economic concerns: churches provide a safety net, and people without jobs aren't busy on Sundays.

The article mentions "Good Sense," a church-based financial management program. A downloadable document reveals some of the details. It praises "avoiding consumer debt and saving for the unexpected" -- good advice -- but it also advocates greater political control of the economy, demonstrating yet again that evangelicals hardly advocate economic liberty as a rule. The document states:

On a macro level, increased regulation of certain sectors of our financial markets, about which some have warned of excesses for some time, will become reality and will hopefully prevent repeats of the abuses that have led to the situation we are in now. Capitalism must have moral restraints and while those can’t be legislated, regulations can at least make it harder to do wrong and easier to punish those who do.

Most significantly, we are reminded that earthly treasures can succumb to rust, moths, thieves and to economic upheavals and that it is our treasures in heaven that are safe for eternity.

This also shows the tension within the Christian movements for financial planning. I've heard claims that God wants us to be rich, that the Bible counsels hard work and the prudent accumulation of wealth. Yet the stronger Biblical strain is egalitarianism and the call to renounce wealth. One televangelist told the Times we're living in a "time of fear and greed." Yet this fails to distinguish the "greed" of political manipulations and wealth transfers from the self-interest of free markets and individual rights.

Thus, the evangelical movement offers two conflicting messages: be responsible in how you accumulate wealth, but realize that wealth doesn't matter relative to an eternity in heaven.

I did find this line from the Times humorous: "At the Life Christian Church in West Orange, N.J., prayer requests have doubled -- almost all of them aimed at getting or keeping jobs." Yes, all we need is a divine stimulus package.

God's Only Party

Yesterday I noted that two Colorado Republican leaders continue to insist that their party promote faith-based politics. Today Gregg Jackson continues the crusade to ban abortion in his column for Town Hall.

Jackson's goal, and his advise for Republicans, is "To end abortion... to believe that all life, both born and unborn, is an unalienable right and protect it at all cost."

That is, a fertilized egg is a person and must be protected, regardless of the costs to the woman.

What Jackson fails to provide is any reason why we should think that a fertilized egg is a person. That's not surprising, because there is no earthly reason.

GOP Remains Party of Faith

If Colorado Republican leaders Mark Hillman and John Andrews are any indication, the Republican Party will remain the Party of Faith and will continue to attempt to impose religious doctrine by force of law.

Andrews begins a recent column, "What many call a concern for social issues, I call a passion for protection of the human person." He goes on to compare abortion with slavery, and he suggests that at least we should have "laws to balance this difficult issue where precious lives are at stake." The Republican Party, he states, should not "abandon its defense of the unborn."

There is just one little thing missing from Andrews's column: any argument as to why we should believe that a zygote, a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells, is a "human person." Recall that Andrews endorsed Colorado's Amendment 48, which would have defined a fertilized egg as a person. Given Andrews's beliefs, his call for "balance" is an unconscionable compromise; does he really want "balance" that would result in the deaths of what he regards as "human persons?"

I guess Andrews is acknowledging that most Coloradans regard his views as ludicrous; 73 percent of the voters rejected 48. And yet he insists on promoting his faith-based politics through the GOP.

Mark Hillman writes:

Recently, some have grumbled that social conservatives - pro-lifers, opponents of same-sex marriage and the so-called "Religious Right" -- are to blame for the party's recent set backs and should be muzzled. If the goal is winning elections, rather than purging membership rolls at the country club, throwing social conservatives under the bus is a catastrophic idea.

But this comparison to throwing them "under a bus" is silly. Here is what I have written:

Religious voters can remain a part of a winning GOP coalition, so long as their goal is to keep politics out of religion, not inject religion into politics. Abortion bans and fear mongering about homosexuals can no longer be the litmus tests of primaries. Republican candidates must clearly endorse the separation of church and state, a separation necessary for the protection of both church and state.

In other words, I am perfectly happy to join a coalition that contains Christians, so long as the Christians stop trying to violate people's rights.

Hillman pretends that evangelicals also favor economic liberty, even though evangelicals blessed us with the likes of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.

Hillman does point out:

This year, moderate "maverick" John McCain enjoyed 72% support from evangelicals (of all parties) on Election Day, despite ranking as the least favorite primary candidate of pro-life Republicans.

I don't know where the statistic is coming from, but it sounds right. Hillman is selectively retelling history. Of course evangelicals such as James Dobson rallied for McCain only after McCain selected Palin as his running mate. These evangelicals supported that ticket because of Palin's anti-abortion record, and despite the fact that McCain is an enemy of economic liberty and free speech. That pretty much tells us where the priorities of the evangelicals are.

Hillman points out that many more people favor some abortion restrictions than voted for 48. True, but irrelevant. Amendment 48 shows the logical consequences of the religious right's position. Voters who value liberty will not sanction Republican efforts to "incrementally" obliterate the right to get an abortion.

Hillman also points out that defining a marriage as between a man and woman is fairly popular. Yet, as I've noted, the stance against gay "marriage" is not strictly religious, and the general attitudes toward homosexuals -- especially among younger voters -- are much more accepting, whereas the propaganda against homosexuals coming from the religious right is vitriolic.

But Hillman, like Andrews is ready to compromise:

[P]ro-life leaders sometimes treat each tangent like a slippery slope. Battles over stem cell research and Terri Schiavo aren't as clearly defined as the mission of saving millions of unborn children.

In other words, banning all abortions is a "clearly defined" mission of the religious right and therefore the Republican Party.

I'm beginning to think that the "new liberty coalition" that I've described cannot arise within the Republican Party. Faith-based politics is incompatible with liberty. I'll be interested to see which mission becomes most clearly defined for the GOP.

U.S. a Christian Nation, Hillman Asserts

Following the Republican defeat in Colorado and across the nation, Mark Hillman, a leading Republican voice in Colorado, took Thanksgiving as an opportunity to remind his party of its Christian allegiance, despite the fact that the party's faith-based politics has been its downfall.

Hillman notes that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, yet he neglects to mention that the phrase appears in the letters of Jefferson, who might be taken as an authority on the nation's founding.

Hillman argues that government is not and ought not be "insulated from faith" and that that various founders and political leaders referenced God and praised Christianity. But that's hardly the same thing as proving that America was founded on Christian principles. Christianity gave the world centuries of religious oppression. It took the Enlightenment and its commitment to human reason to give us 1776 and the ensuing economic prosperity. Whether the the "Creator" of the Declaration is taken to be some distant God or the natural order, our nature as human beings grants us "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"Liberty, equality and freedom have certain biblical roots," Hillman proclaims -- without offering a shred of evidence. Yet for every biblical passage that Hillman might reference endorsing such principles, I can point to ten antithetical to liberty. (Diana Hsieh recently cited a few examples.)

Hillman offers the following false contrast:

Despite our collective and individual shortcomings, Americans have prospered like no other people, but we are foolishly misguided if we believe that our freedom and longevity is the result of mere chance or that it can persevere without demanding sacrifice, humility and resolve from each of us.

It is obviously true that our freedom and longevity have nothing to do with chance. Instead, they owe their debt to a philosophy of reason and individual rights. If we wish to preserve our heritage of liberty, we must look to reality, not ancient mythologies of supernaturalism and their modern interpreters.