An atheistic state of mind...

In the last post I mentioned that I'd been listening to some fascinating debates by atheists and monotheists (up to this point, mostly Christians). There are some pretty switched on people talking with a great deal of understating and knowledge. There also seems to be quite a lot of respect, within reason.

Often the format of the debate seems to actually hinder free discussion, in favor of monologues. These can be very interesting but often lead to very broken and fragmented answers from one side or the other. There were a couple of points I don't really feel get answered to "my satisfaction". A couple of times I heard arguments or points made and they seem to get glossed over. Here is an example :

In the intelligence squared debate, Peter Jensen said

 "I have an atheistic mind and an atheistic heart. First, I am sceptical of the existence of all gods ... but one. Many concepts of God are human beings on super-steroids, dismissed by atheists and Christians alike.Thank you atheists."

Um, what? So you don't believe in Zeus or Apollo. Borvo or Brighid.  Xochicalco or Cacaxtla. But you're fine with God. And Jesus. Oh and don't forget the holy ghost. This would because what? The other gods are just SO obviously fakes? It's just made up mumbo jumbo! Clearly the only REAL God is, well, God. I really do not get how a monotheist can trot this one out and expect everyone to say "oh well done, good point".

Often the science Vs religion debate comes down to the creation of the universe. The atheist will bring out the scientific argument of cosmology and the Christian brings out, wait for it, the fact that god is eternal. Now, this would be a pretty good argument where it not for the source. Which is of course, the Bible.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

So, you're going to fall back on to the very book which the atheist is currently saying is claptrap, and use it as "fact" to back up your point, eh? That's just not on. You can't make up a book and then just use it casually as fact! What if I bring out the "Atheist bible" which denies the existence of a God, and use that? Of course the monotheist would say "Hey, that's not fair!". Well guess what, I'm going to say the same.

At some point the debate will move on to ethics. The standard Christian position seems to be :

"The only objective moral value is one that comes from God. Science cannot provide a definition of, or measure, good or evil"

What is moral, or immoral, is largely (if not wholly) a product of context within the time and society we are talking about. I'm not going to drum up a load of examples but it's clear that the following is true :

• Non religious societies have objective moral codes. They are simply created by, and objective to, the group rather that to a deity. Anyone who does not follow this code is seen to be "wrong". Therefore it does not take a God for morals to exist.
• Moral structures change over time. Truly objective moral codes would not change.
• Many religions have moral imperatives that contradict each other, making in effectively impossible to be 100% moral.

For any one group to claim that they have moral superiority based on a supernatural force that they cannot, in fact, prove strikes me as shaky ground.

I cannot overstate my respect, appreciation and thanks for Christopher Hitchens, for his massivly intellegent input into the field of philosophy.