Why is Robert Morey Not an Atheist?
According to Robert Morey, atheism is a "worldview" that makes "various statements about the universe and God" and must be able to "prove its truth claims." Morey is making some very popular errors — at least, I'd like to be generous and label them mere "errors" — in treating atheism as if it were a philosophy.
Doing this makes it easier for apologists to argue against something other than atheism while pretending to accomplish something substantive. If they were serious, they would argue against actual atheist philosophies like Objectivism, or even atheist religions like Buddhism, but that would entail learning about them, understanding them, and formulating novel arguments against them.
That's hard work, and quite frankly I don't think most Christians apologists are up to the task. I realize that's awfully harsh, but I believe I am more than justified in saying this by apologists' own behavior. If they were up to the task, there is no reason why they wouldn't do it. Decisive arguments against atheistic belief systems would be a serious issue; instead, though, all we find are fallacious arguments against belief systems that apologists make up on their own and just attribute to atheists.
As if that weren't bad enough, though, Morey goes on to cite what he calls "the creed of atheism":
In the entire universe,
there has never been in the past,
there is not now in the present, and
there will never be in the future,
any god, gods or goddesses
of any size, shape or description.
A "creed" is a formulaic profession of faith or belief — something like the Nicene Creed. That's what Robert Morey has tried to imitate here, but it's worth noting that this is simply something that he's made up on his own. This isn't a "creed" which atheists recite every week before sacrificing virgins. In fact, this "creed" might be fitting for some Christians — any Christian who has believed that God is wholly transcendent would never think that there has ever been any god in the universe. Is it too much to ask to expect Morey to be aware of this?
So why is Robert Morey not an atheist? It might have something to do with the fact that he doesn't have the foggiest idea what atheism is — and perhaps doesn't even care. While such ignorance might be passed over in silence if it were limited to just Morey, we aren't so lucky. As might be expected, there are Christians out there who not only fall for Morey's fallacious arguments, but even set out to defend them to atheists.
Slim Jim, for example, tries desperately to defend Morey's argument on his own blog:
Let me ask you, in the entire universe, has there ever been in the past, or now in the present, or the future, any god, gods or goddesses of any size, shape or description?
Upon getting the answer "no" from Joe, Slim Jim says "So that is your ‘creed’ so to speak."
That's no more a "creed" than my answer of "no, not that I know of" to the question "in your driveway, has there ever been in the past, now, or in the future, any Rolls Royce of any shape, size, or description?"
A creed is a system, formula, or codification of a belief or opinion. It is not just any belief or opinion. There are many things I believe (France is in Europe, Chinese is a language) and many things I don't believe (gods, fairies, elves, Bigfoot, alien abductions). They aren't all creeds. Indeed, it's arguable that they can't all be creeds.
How many creeds can a person possibly have? One for every claim they believe and another for every claim they don't believe? That would be absurd, but it's difficult to see how Slim Jim could agree without undermining his argument here. If he's going to call some random, arbitrarily chosen answer in a blog comment a "creed," though, he should better be able to offer a more substantive defense of that than "so to speak."
It should be noted, of course, that Morey does no such thing himself. He makes something up and calls it a "creed" of people who have never heard this formula and perhaps have never hear of him. What arrogance! If I invented some formula and labeled that the "Christian creed," I'd be rightfully called a liar at best, stupid if I really didn't know better. Is there any reason to think that such labels wouldn't be appropriate for Robert Morey?
The most generous response to Morey is that he's engaging in a juvenile Straw Man argument: he's invented something new to slap the "atheism" label on, created a creed for it, and then proceeds to attack that. In the end, he pretends he's said something interesting about atheism itself, not the fictional atheism that exists solely in his own mind. It's little more than playing cops-and-robbers, with Morey sticking his finger out at atheists saying "BANG! You're dead," then expecting us to fall dutifully down in order to maintain the illusion.
Sorry, uh-uh. Ain't gonna do it. If Robert Morey doesn't have the interest or wherewithal to address atheism as it really exists instead of something produced by an over-active imagination, then I'm not going to play along. What I'd like to know is, though, why so many Christians play these games. Is dealing with the reality of atheists and atheism too difficult? Too intimidating? What?
In military training, A puppet made of straw is suspended from a beam. The trainee fixes his bayonet to his rifle, and attacks the “straw man”. Nuf said!
Sorry, Austin. I read your post kind of hurriedly. After another read, I saw that you already mentioned the straw man.
Is dealing with the reality of atheists and atheism too difficult? Too intimidating? What?] Me again. Reality is not a Christian “thing”. A good example is the way they reject the reality of the evolution of life on earth. They had a terrible time accepting the reality of a round earth. Then, they were faced with the reality of the earth orbiting the sun instead of the other way around, And so on. As I said, reality just isn’t Christian. If my understanding is correct, reality is not a Muslim thing either.
“Reality is not a Christian “thing”. A good example is the way they reject the reality of the evolution of life on earth. They had a terrible time accepting the reality of a round earth. Then, they were faced with the reality of the earth orbiting the sun instead of the other way around, And so on. As I said, reality just isn’t Christian. If my understanding is correct, reality is not a Muslim thing either”.
I hope you realize that these are all generalizations. I’m pretty sure (I might be remembering incorectly) that Galileo was himself a Christian.
Yes, I am generalizing. I apply it to all persons who have this problem with reality. And I know a few. Let everyone pass this shoe around for size. It either fits, or it does not. If I mention the science of evolution an aquaintance will cross his arms and say, those scientist’s don’t know what they are talking about. Then I say, well,I have studied evol to some degree, and I got a feeling that they kinda DO KNOW what they are talking about. Galileo. As soon as he questions church dogma, he strays from the straight and narrow path.
I went and read more of Morey’s post. He wrote:
>According to the laws of logic, it is impossible to prove a universal negative. When an atheist makes the assertion, “There is no god anywhere at any time,” he is making a universal negative which he cannot prove. Since he cannot prove or demonstrate his assertion, he is being irrational.
Let’s say there is an atheist willing to say this (I know some–and on some levels, I’d be willing to say it).
How rational is Morey? Let’s plug in “leprechauns” rather than “god.” Is Morey going to claim he can’t say leprechauns exist? How about ghosts? How about talking bunnies? (Square circles would cause another issue altogether for his claim above…but…)
The point is that it’s not irrational to reject a claim for which nothing close to convincing evidence or proof has been presented. Holding out that such claims are true is what the world considers “gullibility.”
If I say “SIHGENOW exists” (making something up out of thin air), are those who say “You just made that up!” irrational?
How is _that_ rational? Where else in the universe–EXCEPT in apologetics is this considered to be an unwise stance–to reject claims that are unsupported by real data and observation. Why should we reject all the information we have access to, in order to hold out hope a completely unsupported claim is potentially true?
Morey is confusing “logic” with practical reality. I’ll wager that he, like the rest of us on the planet, has survived thus far at least in part by rejecting unsupported claims. That part of our survival is at least as important as accepting what is supported.
Morey rejects _nothing_ as untrue? I find that seriously hard to swallow. Is he attacking people for doing exactly what he, and the rest of us do daily? I’m betting that’s what’s happening here.
His brake line may have leaked last night–does he check for brake fluid under his car every time he pulls out of his driveway? Each morning, he rejects the idea that his brakes have leaked all his fluid out during the night. What an irrational guy!
Does he have someone test his food before he eats it? If not, he rejects the possibility his food has been poisoned–each time he eats. What an irrational guy! He can’t say his food _hasn’t_ been poisoned…but if he didn’t feel he _knew_ it wasn’t–would he actually eat it? I can’t imagine he would.
What does it mean to “know” a thing? Is absolute certainly possible? Not in all cases–but near absolute certainty is generally used when we say we “know” X. This is why nobody says Morey’s lying if he says, “I know my food isn’t poisoned” or “I know my brakes are working” (if they worked fine the night before). We understand that “know” in this context means that he is as sure as he can be about X and has no reason to assume otherwise.
Morey a hypocrite? No doubt.
Morey is also flat-wrong in his logic: universal negatives can be proven, but just in narrow circumstances. For him to claim otherwise as a “law of logic” demonstrates, unequivocally, that he knows nothing substantive about logic. He’s just making BS up that will sound appealing to readers and help them rationalize what they already believe.
You can be sure, also, that any believers who takes his claims at face value also don’t really understand logic and are thus especially susceptible to this brand of anti-intellectual claptrap.
That’s what I was hinting at with:
>(Square circles would cause another issue altogether for his claim above…but…)
Yes, some things don’t exist, and we can logically illustrate that they don’t.
My main point is that we all understand that we don’t “know” our food hasn’t been poisoned. But if any of us walked around operating under the assumption it could have been poisoned or has been poisoned (without any reason to assume so, other than the knowlege we can’t “know” it hasn’t been)…we’d be considered mental. If a child began operating under this assumption–demanding the dog try a piece of anything before he would eat it–what parent _wouldn’t_ want that child in counseling? That wouldn’t be considered “rational” at all. It would be considered as unsound reasoning.
Wouldn’t his mother insist, “Your food hasn’t been poisoned!” But unless she hasn’t taken her eyes off it–how can she be _sure_?
The point is we all function in practical reality under a “sure enough” framework. And it’s not only rational–but it actually _works_ more often than not. And operating differently–never ruling out any possibility–no matter how implausible or outrageous–would seriously impeded one’s functionality in the real world. We’d be called “paranoid.”
It is logical to say, “We can’t know there is no god”–in some circumstances; but it’s not reasonable from a “practical reality” standpoint to actually hold out hope for the existence of something for which there is no support beyond someone’s claim that X exists. This is why people don’t believe in leprechauns. And if they do, they’re considered delutsional; oddly, that same rationale applied to god doesn’t land you with a label of “delusional”–but I’ve never seen anyone justify _why_ that is the case.
It is impossible to prove one way or another that a purple cow does or does not exist. Based on experience, however, it is safe to assume that one does not exist until one actually shows up.
I think I may have experienced a purple cow, but it could have been something glandular.
I wrote a book 26 years ago on the different forms of atheism today and their failure to give any coherent defense of whatever truth claims they make.
First, I am gratified that something I wrote so many years ago is still causing some atheists emotional destress. Being ignored is worse than being attacked! Thanks.
Second, I have had numerous public debates wtih atheists and have never had any problem dealing with atheistic aguments. If there is a published atheist who is ready, willing, and able to defend the intellecutal merits of his or her kind of atheism, I would be happy to do a debate with him or her.
Fourth, that each form of atheism has its own set of truth claims or “creed” that can be documented. Some atheists do indeed assert that there never has been, is not now, nor shall there ever be any god of any kind. There are other atheists who don’t assert a universal negative. Instead, they define their form of atheism as not knowing or even caring if there has been, is not now, nor ever shall be any god. They don’t assert a universal negative but redefine their athism as not asserting anything. But when someone asserts that he does not assert anything, has he not just asserted something? Hello, earth to Mars!
When someone says that no one knows anything, doesn’t he know that?
George Smith wanted to have his cake and eat it too. After saying that are no moral absolutes, he turned around and called the Bible evil! You cannot condemn anything as “evil” once you gut it of any objective or absolute nature.
If anyone wants to listen to some debates. go to http://www.faithdefenders. com and take a look.
Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, not a philosophy that makes truth claims.
Not only does it suggest a low character that you would take pleasure in others experiencing emotional distress, especially over your own actions, but it is rather pathetic that you would find it necessary to treat disagreement as emotional distress.
This one sentence of yours is far more suggestive of a troubled personality than almost anything else I’ve read from anyone else. I would never take pleasure in others’ emotional distress, and in fact if I were the cause of that I would experience emotional distress myself. Yet Christians like you have the gall to insist that it’s atheists who cannot be moral while Christians have a lock on morality.
In a single sentence you have managed to do more to prove all that wrong than all the articles I have written. Thank you, I appreciate your contribution and will be sure to use it in the future.
Well, if you misrepresent atheism and ignore what atheists actually say about themselves, I wouldn’t expect you to notice having any problems at all.
There you go again, ignoring what atheists say about themselves and just making up random stuff to refute and thereby pretend to be addressing atheists. When you invent your opponents’ positions, it’s only to be expected that you’ll have an easy time rebutting them. It’s not intellectually or ethically honest, but it does make things easier.
I don’t think it’s hard to understand why you don’t trouble yourself to support this claim.
I love your comments as they confirm what I wrote in my book, The New Atheism. I documented that a few modern atheists reject classical atheism and in its place redefine atheism as the mere “absence of belief.” You wrote, “Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, not a philosophy that makes truth claims.” Thank you for documenting my book once again.
Your two sentences illustrate the self-contradictory and irrational nature of your particular kind of atheism.
First, you make two truth claims:
Positive assertion: “Atheism is the absence of belief in gods”
Negative assertion: “not a philosophy that makes truth claims.”
When someone composes a sentence the meaning of which is either true or false, he has made a propositional statement. When you make a propositional statement, you have made a truth claim.
After making a positive truth claim, you turn around and make a negative truth clim in whihc you deny that you make truth claims! Last time I checked, self-contradiction is not rational.
Second, your use of ad hominem slurs against me is illogical. I could have “a low character” but still tell you the truth.
Third, you make the truth claim that I am guilty of “ignoring what atheists say about themselves.” You further assert, “why you don’t trouble yourself to support this claim.”
Yet, my book has numerous citations that document the different kinds of atheism that exist today, including your kind.
However, were do you document where I ignore what atheists say about themselves? You assert exactly what I said some atheists assert.
You assert a truth claim and then deny that you assert truth claims! You assert that I do not document my assertions but my book does so in numerous citations. You use the classic logical fallacy of ad hominem slurs. You are irrational.
The definition of atheism which I use has been in use since at least the mid-18th century.
Your error is in thinking that if atheism itself is not a philosophy which makes any positive truth claims, then atheists themselves cannot make positive truth claims (and still be logically consistent). This is sheer, unadulterated nonsense. Disbelief in elves is also not a philosophy which makes any positive truth claims, but it’s not logically inconsistent for someone who disbelieves in elves to point this out and then also make a positive truth claim.
You are correct that you could have a low character and still tell the truth. Your error is in thinking that I used an ad hominem fallacy — that is to say, that I tried to draw a conclusion about the truth-value of your position on the basis of an ad hominem statement. I did not do so; instead, I simply pointed out that your comment is demonstrative of low moral and personal character.
Frankly, I’m surprised that you could make such a rudimentary error. Either you aren’t really Dr. Robert Morey, or Morey doesn’t have nearly the skills and knowledge he advertises.
I do so in the post you are commenting on — I don’t think it’s a coincidence that you fail to address anything I actually wrote. I pointed out in the post that rather than addressing what atheists say, you just make things up and pretend to rebut them; here in comments you do much the sam.
Now you are just being transparently disingenuous. I never said that I didn’t assert truth claims, I simply noted that atheism itself is not a philosophy which makes truth claims. Above, it could simply have been dismissed as an error — although not an especially understandable one, given how obvious it is. Here, however, you actually change the words in question and attribute to me something I’ve never said (funny, but do I detect a pattern of you attributing to atheists things they’ve never said?).
You claim that I’m irrational, but I at least understand the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and an ad hominem comment. This is something covered in every introductory logic class and early on in every chapter on fallacies in any logic text.
Austin,
Everytime you write something you prove that atheism is irrational, stupid, and illogical.
You keep contradicting yourself.
I would like to see your references for all the assertions and statements you make. Where are your footnotes, endnotes, citations, etc., where are all the references? I think Bertrand Russell and Nietzsche would be very dissappointed with you. You are very inconsistent.
Feel free to provide examples and explanations.
Feel free to support this claim.
I’d be happy to provide more background on any particular points or issues you are interested in.
Fortunately, I don’t write for them. It’s worth pointing out, though, that Nietzsche didn’t include footnotes and citations in his works. Neither did Russell in all of his works. If you were familiar with either author, you’d know this, and that makes me doubtful that you are familiar enough with my own writing to justify the above statements.
You certainly don’t seem to have commented or written to me before with questions or criticisms; instead, you seem to have simply popped up out of nowhere on an old blog post to complain. Is it a coincidence that someone going by the name of Robert Morey started commenting on the same post just yesterday? Is there some connection between his appearance, his numerous errors, and then your sudden appearance to make some of the same claims as he?
Is it just coincidence that “James Mulroney” is also the name of the “Senior Vice President” of the same unaccredited Bible “university” in California run by Robert Morey? Perhaps not, but the coincidence is curious.
I, Dr. Robert Morey, hereby challenge you to debate the definition and rational credibility of your particular form of atheism.
It will be a structured debate with each respondent given equal time, with no interruptions allowed or ad hominem attacks on the motives or character of the other respondent.
Since neither one of us should bear the expense of the travel, meals, and lodging of each other, I propose that we debate on the internet radio show, Unchained Radio. The moderator will be Gene Cook.
I’ve already done so on numerous occasions here on this site. Why would I need an oral debate with you in order to achieve what I’ve long-since accomplished and moved past?
Sorry, but I consider formal, structured debates to be a waste of time. They are decided at least as much, and often more, by style of presentation than content of ideas. To put it another way, sound bites win the day more sound arguments. This is especially true when one side – and that would be you – continually misrepresents and mischaracterizes the other. I’d have to spend all my time just correcting your errors and never have time to actually make a case for anything.
You are, however, more than welcome to write a rebuttal to this post of mine, or indeed anything I’ve written about the nature and definition of atheism. Send me a link and I’ll post it so that readers can see it. It’s not quite a debate but it does give you the chance to publicly challenge what I’ve said – assuming, of course, that this is your motive.
If that isn’t your motive, then I promise I won’t be surprised if you play the martyr card and pretend that I’m afraid of you and of your arguments. As the evidence will show here, however, you have the opportunity to make your arguments known if you really want. The question is, then, whether there is something about the written format that troubles you.
Why am I not surprised that you’d choose a Christian radio show as the context?
OH, my goodness. Who is this guy Dr. Robert Morey? I was thrown aback at the strong force of his arguments! Reading the post, then the comments, I began to side with the critics (I am not an atheist but a Christian) that Robert Morey had weak arguments.
Then when he jumped in to the comments it hit me like bricks! He is an intellectual giant. Reading your back and forth was like listening in on a wise grandfather and his immature child. Morey ripped any credibility this post had to pieces.
I saw his site http://www.faithdefenders.com and http://www.biblicalthought.com and I found a new friend! Thanks.
More Christians need to know about Dr. Robert Morey.
Feel free tho show how all of his falsehoods managed to undermine the credibility of people who kept correcting his errors.
This whole thing was pretty disappointing from both ends. Why deal with someone like Morey? Honestly that’s like a straw man in itself. Why not Bill Craig, Doug Geivett, J.P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, or numerous other brilliant philosophers and apologists. And you actually did make a very flagrant ad hominem.
Morey: First, I am gratified that something I wrote so many years ago is still causing some atheists emotional destress.
Cline: Not only does it suggest a low character that you would take pleasure in others experiencing emotional distress, especially over your own actions, but it is rather pathetic that you would find it necessary to treat disagreement as emotional distress.
This one sentence of yours is far more suggestive of a troubled personality than almost anything else I’ve read from anyone else. I would never take pleasure in others’ emotional distress, and in fact if I were the cause of that I would experience emotional distress myself. Yet Christians like you have the gall to insist that it’s atheists who cannot be moral while Christians have a lock on morality.
IN A SINGLE SENTENCE YOU HAVE MANAGED TO DO MORE TO PROVE ALL THAT WRONG THAN ALL THE ARTICLES I HAVE WRITTEN. Thank you, I appreciate your contribution and will be sure to use it in the future.
Come on, that is text book. You actually said his bad character has proven him wrong in fact “more wrong than your own arguments have”. In case you read this Dr. Morey I really do respect your theology just not your philosophy.
It would be “text book,” if you accurately represented what I wrote.
I didn’t Sy that his bad character has proven him wrong. I said that it suggests low character to take pleasure in others experiencing emotional distress AND that that one sentence (that he takes pleasure in the emotional distress of others) disproves the popular Christian thesis that one needs religion and/or Christianity to be moral.
Notice the “and” conjunction? This means that there are two completely separate ideas in the sentence. One idea is that his statement suggests low moral character. A second and independent idea is that this statement disproves a popular thesis. It’s his own words and attitude which disproves something that many Christians belief. Of course, even if your managed to accurately represent my words, you still wouldn’t have a case because if there were anything that could disprove the idea that “Chrisians have a lock on morality,” a Christian leader with low character would do so and would be a fair bit of evidence to introduce.
I think you should go back to your text book and look again at why an ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy in the first place. I’ll tell you: because it introduces something irrelevant to the truth of a proposition in order to disprove that proposition. Saying that you smell bad or are ugly is irrelevant to your (hypothetical) argument against Kant’s metaphysics. So saying that your opinion about Kant is wrong because you’re ugly is a fallacy — a fallacy classified as an ad hominem.
However, your moral character is not irrelevant when considering your argument about your own morality or the morality of a group you belong to. It would not be a fallacy to say that your immorality disproves your (hypothetical) argument that your ideology provides a perfect moral compass. It would not be a fallacy to say that your bad haircut disproves your argument that your barber is the best barber in the world.
So, once again, I think you need to read things much more closely.