Greg Craven: Atheists are a Plague... to be Exterminated?
Greg Craven, vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, goes down this path by comparing atheists to plagues:
FROM time immemorial, this world has been troubled by plagues. From bogong moths in Canberra to frogs in biblical Egypt, unwelcome and unlovely creatures have the awkward habit of turning up in bulk.
Just now, we are facing one of our largest and least appealing infestations. Somewhat in advance of summer's blowflies, we are beset by atheists.
Worse, they are not traditional atheists. These tended to be quiet blokes called Algie with ancillary interests in nudist ceramics, who were perfectly happy as long as you pretended to accept a pamphlet in Flinders Lane.
No, the new hobby atheist is as brash, noisy and confident as a cheap electric kettle. They want everyone to know that they have not found God, and that no one else should.
Source: The Age
Notice how Greg Craven repeats a very popular theme among anti-atheist bigots: atheists of the past were preferable because they were only a bit eccentric and didn't object when Christianity was pushed on them but "new" atheists are intolerant fundamentalists because they have the temerity to stand up and announce their atheism without apology. Atheists were acceptable when they were meek and quiet; atheists who are loud and boisterous -- like religious believers are accustomed to being -- are an unacceptable intrusion on the public square.
Mind you, the appeals of atheism as a diverting pastime are not immediately obvious to those of us who are on relatively easy terms with God. Why would anyone get so excited about the misconceptions of third parties as to the existence of a fourth party in which they themselves do not believe?
I don't know about anyone who is "excited," but I do know that when third parties make accusations about me, claiming for example that morality is impossible unless we accept claims about what this fourth party wants us to do, how we should behave, etc. We have third parties informing us that this fourth party will torture us for all eternity unless we do what these third parties tell us.
Confusing, I know, but it's more than enough to be annoyed or even exasperated about.
First, the great advantage of designer atheism is that you get to think of yourself as immensely clever.
Which is obviously a mistake, since the truly clever people are those who liken atheists to plagues which required violent eradication.
The second factor has to do with wit. For some reason, contemporary Australian atheism seems to consider itself terribly funny.
This is an even more obvious mistake, since it's far more witty to describe atheists as eccentrics with an interest in nudist ceramics.
Frankly, the prime reason the average believer finds the common or garden atheist as appealing as a holiday in Birchip is because they consign them to that sorry category of individuals who spend their lives loudly congratulating themselves on their own intelligence without noticing that no one else is joining the chorus.
Thus, as a Catholic, I do not normally sense in some tabloid atheist the presence of a supreme discerning intellect. I simply place him or her in much the same pitiable bin of intellectual vulgarians as the chartered accountant who cannot see the art in Picasso, the redneck who cannot admit of indigenous culture, and the pissant who cannot see the difference between Yeats and Bob Ellis.
Yes, atheists would be better off if they were more polite. We could start by comparing Catholics to incontinent drunks who lose control of their bladders at parties. Then we could retell old jokes about how Protestants can't screw in light bulbs because they never see the light of reason. Or perhaps we could turn up our noses at religious theists because they cannot see the art of Picasso.
All of this would be ethically and intellectually superior to anything written by people like Richard Dawkins. As vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, I think it would be reasonable to regard Greg Craven's critiques as somewhere around the most clever, the most ethical, the most intellectual, and overall the best that a Catholic can make about atheism.
Don't you feel a powerful urge to convert from atheism to Catholicism, now?
At the bottom, of course, lies hate. ...There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate.
These statements appear at the bottom of Greg Craven's opinion piece and I think they are, unintentionally, the only true statements he wrote.
PZ Myers had an excellent response to Craven’s article:
Excellent article. In the U.S. a survey determined that atheists comprised the most hated minority in the country. Perhaps that is one reason I would like to repatriate to France!
And what’s wrong with Birchip, anyway?
“One of the most dangerous expressions of bigotry is to compare the targeted group with vermin or a disease. This analogy is dangerous because vermin and disease are things we seek to eradicate for our own safety. ”
I absolutely agree that this guy is being bigoted and that atheists have every right to criticsize religion and be as vocal as they want. But speaking as an atheist myself, if we agree that comparing people to a disease of vermin is a dangerous analogy that leads to a follow-up they must be exterminated, can we not say the same about atheists who say the same about religion? Is it not just as dangerous when atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens compare religion to a poision or a meme or virus?
@Neon Genesis:
It would be, if Dawkins, or Hitchens, referred to religious people as plagues, instead of the assorted religions. It’s like the difference between calling Objectivism or Utilitarianism plagues, and calling Objectivists or Utilitarians plagues. It is for this reason that separating people from their ideas, and focusing on the latter for eradication, rather than the former, is so important.
@Wurdulac
Exactly. And, like many other arguments, everyone understands this when it’s not religion that’s on the table. That’s the reason the “Make Poverty History” campaign wasn’t roundly denounced as a proposal to kill all poor people. It’s just that people have this weird blind spot when it comes to religion that perverts their thinking.
“It would be, if Dawkins, or Hitchens, referred to religious people as plagues, instead of the assorted religions. ” But isn’t that what they do when they refer to all moderate believers as being enablers of the plague?
It may be a very unpleasant fact, but a fact nonetheless: any sort of mysticism in the thinking of a human being is evidence of a hindering or disabling intellectual dysfunction which can, in many cases, become full blown psychological illness. If you insist on facts that are clearly not facts and on reasoning that is clearly logically-inconsistent you are sadly mentally out of sync with the rational universe. Those prone to mystical thinking need nothing less than a full-time therapeutic effort to aid them for the first time to or back to genuine rationality. There is nothing humorous about the matter and, to any other human being not similarly afflicted who is also capable of empathy and willing to demonstrate compassion for other human life, it is nothing less than heartbreaking. Continuing to appease irrationality among human beings simply because it is traditional and popular poses a serious threat to the living and certainly to those of the future. Indeed, such endless appeasement is another sort of irrationality human culture cannot afford.
The entire species is struggling to wake from its history of irrational mysticism and savagery. It is a disservice to that effort and to future humanity for those with clarity of observation and reason to remain silent. I, for one, will not do it and will encourage as many others as possible to speak and do what best serves human rationality.
Mysticism IS a disease of the species and, when summing fatalities, no doubt the worst disease of all.
Please cite Dawkins, Hitchens, or anyone else saying “moderate believers are enablers of the plague.” Not your re-wording of their comments, but their actual words.
Here’s a whole article where Sam Harris criticizes moderate religion for the apparent sin of not calling religious extremists delusional enough: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article431642.ece “To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world — to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish — is antithetical to tolerance as moderates conceive it.” This quote makes me wonder if Sam Harris has ever read one of John Shelby Spong’s books or indeed, even a history book on religion.
Correction: he criticizes moderate religion because it isn’t so much better than extremist religion. It’s dishonest to put words in his mouth as you are doing. This is what you did in comment #7 and why I asked you to quote their exact words, not your own personal re-wording of what they say.
Actually, I suspect he has precisely such people in mind.
However, if you think you can rebut the specific arguments he offers — not arguments you put in his mouth, but the arguments he uses — you’re welcome to do so.
“Correction: he criticizes moderate religion because it isn’t so much better than extremist religion.”
That’s not what he says. He says in the article “As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots, because they are merely practising their freedom of belief. We can’t even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled.”
Yet I don’t know a single moderate Christian that would argue we can only say they don’t like the personal full embrace of scripture. Which moderate Christians say things like that? Notice Harris never once cites any examples of moderates enabling fundamentalists or presents any evidence for his claims and yet you say he is not saying moderates enable fundamentalists by calling them delusional enough yet this is precisely what he says when he says “As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots.” Again, point me to evidence that the majority of moderates say we cannot call fundamentalists dangerous idiots.
I was referring to the first quote you provided: moderate religion continues to promote a book with contents that are contrary to the tolerance which moderates also want to promote.
And that doesn’t look anything like the words you tried to put in his mouth.
I question your reading comprehension.
First, Sam Harris first lists the sorts of challenges which should be made but which cannot, then cites “don’t personally like it” as the only one left that isn’t closed off. He doesn’t argue that anyone actually does this; instead, his point is that this is all that’s left to moderates because they are unable to make any other arguments.
Second, Sam Harris doesn’t claim “religious moderates say we say X,” but rather “we cannot say X because Y” — he gives the reason why this particular complaint gets closed off. The second challenge is scriptural in nature, but it won’t work because fundamentalists tend to know so much more about scripture than moderates. The first challenge is secular, but it is undermined by the fact that fundamentalists have the freedom to believe the ideas that can make them “dangerous idiots” and there is a strong taboo against criticism of religious beliefs. This is detailed extensively in his book and it’s something I’ve written about numerous times.
Finally, Sam Harris doesn’t say “majority,” which is yet another word you have chosen to put in his mouth.
I’ve repeatedly insisted that you address Harris’ actual words and arguments, not straw men of your own creation. Please try harder.
“instead, his point is that this is all that’s left to moderates because they are unable to make any other arguments.” Again, I must question if Harris has ever read any books by moderate Christians because again I don’t know any moderate Christian who’s only argument left is their personal opinion. Bishop Spong for example, is a progressive Christian and is also a biblical scholar and his arguments are based on biblical scholarship, not personal opinions.
“The second challenge is scriptural in nature, but it won’t work because fundamentalists tend to know so much more about scripture than moderates”
Since when? It’s been in my experience that most fundamentalists might be experts in fundamentalism but they’re generally clueless about anything else related to Christianity. Go up to any fundamentalist and see how many of them know what the Q gospel is, for example. On the other hand, a great deal of secular scholarship on the bible has been lead by progressive and moderate Christians like the Jesus Seminar who know far more about the bible than your average church pew sitter. Speaking as a former fundamentalist myself, I know far more about the bible now than I did as a fundamentalist and ironically, most of what I’ve learned about it has been from progressive Christian scholars. Again, I must question if Harris has ever read any biblical scholarship by anyone other than fundamentalists since he seems to not understand what they believe or think.
There’s a difference between using a biblical argument and using a sound, valid biblical arguments. Given the fact that Spong doesn’t even believe in a god yet denies that he’s an atheist, I think it’s valid to question the soundness of his arguments.
Feel free to point out anything specific that he attributes to them which is incorrect.
“There’s a difference between using a biblical argument and using a sound, valid biblical arguments. Given the fact that Spong doesn’t even believe in a god yet denies that he’s an atheist, I think it’s valid to question the soundness of his arguments.” Likewise, I could say the same about the numerous historical inaccuracies the Four Horsemen make about religion in their books. Also, nowhere does Spong say he does not believe in a god. He says he does not believe in the traditional theistic god, but he believes in the pantheistic god or the Ground Of All Being, which is not the same thing as saying he does not believe in God unless we suddenly want to rewrite history so that the western Christian god concept is the only god concept that was ever made.
“Feel free to point out anything specific that he attributes to them which is incorrect.”
One example is in The End Of Faith where Harris says moderates are only moderate because they are ignorant of scripture yet as I’ve said before, much of secular biblical scholarship was lead by moderate believers. Spinoza himself was one of the first people to suggest Moses didn’t write the first five books of the bible and was excommunicated from Judaism because of his heretical pantheistic beliefs but apparently since Spinoza also believed in pantheism, his scholarship was not sound even though he ended up being right about the authorship of the Pentateuch. Again, Harris never points out any evidence that moderates are less knowledgeable about the scriptures than fundamentalists or that their moderation is the result of only ignorance.
Karen Armstrong is also an acclaimed historian who has written extensively about the history of religion and has researched in detail the history of religion and philosophy and is actively speaking out against fundamentalism, which is more than I can say about Christians like William Lane Craig who steal arguments from Muslims and twist the facts to suit their arguments. Ken Miller was a Christian evolutionist who combated intelligent design and got ID out of public school in the Dover trial yet will you say he did not have a sound argument and is enabling fundamentalists even though he got ID out of public school? Then there was Dr. Tiller who was a Christian abortion doctor and was murdered by a fundamentalist. Did Dr. Tiller not have a sound argument simply for being a Christian that was pro-choice and was he enabling his murderer and so he got what he had coming to him for being a fundamentalist enabler?
Harris also tried to argue that any progression of morality in faith was the result of the messiah of secularism and has nothing to do with religion progressing itself and tries to argue that fundamentalist Christianity is the original Christianity and everyone else are ignorant cherry pickers. Yet even from the beginning, there was never a single universal interpretation of scriptures and even agnostic scholars like Bart D Ehrman agree that fundamentalist Christianity is a modern day invention that was created in response to the Enlightenment movement, and that the literal belief in the bible is a modern day invention of Martin Luther.
Go right ahead.
“Theistic god” is redundant because “theism” is simply “belief in a god.” Anyone who rejects theism is, necessarily, an atheist — and Spong has been quite clear that he thinks theism is “dead.”
In A New Christianity for a New World quotes another person who says: “When we speak of God as a person, what we’re really doing is personalizing the values by which we live as a community.” Spong quotes this in a manner that suggests strong agreement, but anyone who applies the label “god” to nothing more than “shared values” is, for all intents and purposes, an atheist.
I can’t remember where exactly it was, but I think it was Why Christianity Must Change or Die where he identified himself as a “nontheist.” Well, the prefix non- means exactly the same thing as the prefix a-, it’s just from the Latin rather than from the Greek. A non-theist is an a-theist.
If you can’t give a direct quote, with context, please don’t bother. I don’t trust any paraphrasing you do of anyone. Since the rest of your comment lacks any direct quotes, and thus any direct connection to anything written by anyone, I’m not going to bother with it.
Please don’t post again unless you can provide direct quotes and directly address people’s actual arguments. I have no time, patience, or interest in tackling straw-men you feel like making up. Given how often I’ve had to tell you this, I will have to add the continuing in this manner will cause you to lose your posting privileges here.
Then maybe I just won’t bother coming back to this site since if I disagree with your interpretation of these author’s beliefs and arguments, this somehow makes me dishonest and building straw men because obviously you alone have the one true way and anyone else is dishonest or an enabler or not being sound enough yet you think you’re so much more moral than Greg Craven’s blanket stereotypes of atheists when you do the exact same thing as him.
Dishonesty comes from building straw men rather than directly quoting people and directly addressing their actual arguments rather than making things up. One example of this dishonesty is precisely what you say here: you attribute to me the position that your problem is disagreeing with me, rather than what I have clearly said multiple times, which is that you dishonestly attribute to people things they never said. How ironic: you build a dishonest straw man in order to avoid addressing criticism of how you build dishonest straw man.
Right, I do exactly what he did — so long as you dishonestly pretend that I have accused others of being a plague. Once again, you’re putting words in my mouth rather than directly addressing anything I myself have actually written. That’s precisely what I have warned you about not doing multiple times and, when given your final warning, you just keep doing it rather than trying to improve.
I don’t know if you lack the intellectual ability to recognize the difference between addressing what people write and merely responding to things you make up in your head, or if you can recognize the difference but just lack the moral character to care. But, frankly, it just doesn’t matter because either way the site is better off without the comments of such a person.
I don’t wish to represent the vice-chancellor falsely, however, I do believe that he meant to say that “atheism”, not “atheists”, are a plague, for the Catholic Church does not advocate the extermination of any humans, for this goes against core-Catholic beliefs. I will advocate for “atheism” being a plague, for just like the radical theist who ignores science, so the atheist ignores the theological. Indeed, if one can look at the vastness of the universe and claim the absence of a higher power, above nature and man, he is simply blind.
Yet, you have no basis for presuming to read his mind and pretend to know what he “really” meant.
So you call “atheism” a plague, then immediately justify that based on something atheists do — and thereby transfer the source of the alleged plague to atheists. So, in the end you too attribute the plague to atheists.
Feel free, though, to explain how ignoring theology constitutes a “plague”.
Feel free to provide evidence for any “higher power” if you can.
If Mr. Craven was really secure in his faith, he wouldn’t have to atack people who don’t think the same way he does.
If you listen closely to a religoius fanatic rant like that, you can tell that deep down inside he has some naging doubts that he or she is trying to ignore and the fact that someone has the guts to express his/ her doubt out loud scares the hell oet of them.
When talking of atheist humour you need to understand Australians in general. They have a very wry, dry humour which readily pricks pomposity and ridicules claims of superiority. As Catholics are naturally right and superior they will be on the sharp end of atheist criticism. The Catholic Church doesn’t have a sense of humour. When did you last hear a self deprecating joke told by Catholics against themselves?
This article with it’s odious comparisons sounds to me more like sour grapes because the Catholic Church can no longer control people or even convince them of the correctness of their beliefs.
A plague on all their houses..
Greg Craven is absolutely correct; there is nothing really clever, witty or funny about attacking anybody. Why is it then that he proceeds to try to be clever, witty and funny in his attack on atheists?
Craven flatters himself and his church, if he thinks that atheists consider Catholics as “the biggie”. If there is indeed a “biggie” that concerns atheists more than most other religions, it would probably be Islamism, in most of its forms, but particularly the fundamentalist, militant varieties that plague the world at present.
Most atheists, in my opinion, could not care less about what he or any other Catholic or Christian actually believes; what concerns us is that he and other Christians want to impose their beliefs, or the consequences of their beliefs, on all individuals, disregarding the inherent rights of these individuals to live their lives free of any religious influences whatsoever.
The thing that surprises me is this: Why do undeniably intelligent people, such as Greg Craven, still believe in any god, let alone that particularly vicious example, the God of the Roman Catholic church, when there is simply no evidence that any god exists.
Being an atheist has nothing to do with being witty, funny, clever, militant, new, old, vulgar, intelligent, dumb or hateful. Atheists simply do not believe in the existence of god(s) – end of story.
to #8 NAUMMADD,
You have that wrong, the mystical/ spiritual teachins ain’t the problem, its the literalist teachings, you NEED to look at the Gnostic teachings, these are the mystical/spiritual teachings, the fundies hate these teachings, fundies don’t follow the teachings of any one, they follow the historical teachings put together by kings and emperors, these are called the literal teachings, these ways hold onto the ceremony and remove the teachings and replace them with the way of the king.
check out gnosticism and sufism and you will see the difference.
Sacrifices have never been a part of mystical teachings, only literalist teachings, literalism demands the story is real rather than a lesson!!
My statement that atheism is a plague still stands, that is, if the definition of a plague is: “a widespread affliction or calamity (www.thefreedictionary.com).” Once again, I say this in the belief that man’s nature is both spiritual and physical. If atheism is then the denial of God, then it denies also the soul of man (spiritual nature). Going along this line of thought, would not the negligence of man’s self by denying his spiritual nature be an affliction?
My evidence for God is, in fact, our universe, as well as, the complicatedness and depth inherent in its existence. Who, or what, other than an all-powerful, omniscient being could be responsible for this?
I make all these statements as a mere seventeen-year-old. These statements are simply what I have observed. And for the record, I do appreciate your input Mr. Cline.
Only if “stands” somehow incorporates “asserted regardless of a lack of evidence of reason to support it.”
Feel free to demonstration that this makes atheism a “plague.”
Atheism isn’t the denial of any gods, but your argument fails even if it were so we can ignore that for the time being — although it does need to be highlighted that you chose to attack atheism without having any idea what atheism is.
First you’d have to demonstrate that we have souls. Then you’d have to demonstrate that souls suffer if we don’t believe they exist.
The obligation is yours to demonstrate that your “god” is only explanation for our universe. In particular, you must be able to demonstrate that the characteristics “all-powerful” and “omniscient” are required. If you can’t, then it hardly qualifies as “evidence.”
Yes, I am only seventeen. And if I am wrong that atheism is the denial of a God, please, could you tell me what it entails? I was just going of of Wikipedia’s definition: “Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]”
I must admit, I cannot prove to you that the human soul exists without first proving the existence of God. I believe I have already stated my reason for believing this (the existence of God), but I may be wrong. Now if God truly exists, it seems to me that He must of saw fit to present man, a reasonable being like Himself, with a spiritual nature as the Bible says, “Let us make man in our likeness (Genesis).” Now I don’t expect you to take the Bible’s word as truth, so I’ll do further research to try to find more acceptable evidence for the soul.
Now, this is under the assumption that the soul exists, it seems that if we were to not believe in our own physical bodies and, thus, inherently neglect them, we would soon die. With this example, I suggest the human soul is the same way, if we began to ignore our souls, the ‘health’ of our souls would deteriorate and they would soon ‘die’.
My belief that the universe is explanation enough for the existence of God is based on the same lines of Aristotle and his belief that there must be an unmoved Mover. My reasons for saying ‘all-powerful’ and ‘omniscient’ is the vastness for the universe and the intelligence in its design.
That is correct: the absence of belief in gods.
That’s a serious weakness in your position, since if souls exist it should be demonstrable regardless of gods. Do you need to prove the existence of a god in order to demonstrate that cats or rocks exist?
I’m sure you stated what you thought was a good reason, but you didn’t realize that your reason didn’t constitute a coherent, valid argument.
You have it backwards. You must start with what we know and use this to demonstrate that your god exists. You can’t simply assume that your god exists and then argue that, under that assumption, certain facts of the world make sense to you. I could do the same with fairies because any random story could be presented to link fairies and some facet of existence. Obviously you wouldn’t start believing in fairies because of that, nor should you. That’s because that is a bad argument.
Such reasoning only works in science when the postulated assumption is used to create a test or set of tests which are then performed to see if the assumption pans out. For example, “if the fire were caused by an electrical malfunction, we should find X,” then we go looking for X — if we find it, our assumption is supported… and if not, our assumption may be wrong.
So you can really only start out like you did if you are preparing a test which can be failed and, if it fails, you are willing to accept as a very good reason to not believe your god exists. This brings me to a very, very important issue: the only argument or evidence that I care about is an argument or evidence which, if found to be false or weak, would cause you to seriously reconsider your position.
If the falsehood of an argument or evidence wouldn’t matter to your belief, then it won’t matter to mine. I really don’t want to hear it. I only want to hear something that you find convincing — which means that, if false, would become un-convincing. Nothing less is worth my time or yours.
This analogy only works if the soul is analogous to the human body — that it needs things analogous to food, water, exercise, etc. You’d have to demonstrate all this.
Aristotle was unfamiliar with modern physics, so I’m afraid you’ll have to move beyond Aristotle and demonstrate that the universe as we know it today requires an “unmoved Mover.”
Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that the universe required a designer: all that’s required is a designer which is just powerful and knowledgeable enough to design the universe. You would have to demonstrate that nothing less than “all-powerful” and “omniscient” would suffice. You would have to demonstrate that “very, very, very powerful” and “boy, pretty knowledgeable” wouldn’t be enough.
Indeed, it is easier to say something is wrong than to prove a point correct, and so I ask you: “If not some unmoved Mover, then what is responsible for the universe?”
Also, you ask me to prove God as one could prove the existence of a cat or a rock. I say, it is impossible to account for and completely explain the Infinite through the finite, the universe. And indeed, God is infinite because He is spiritual, not bound by physics or science (the physical), and because He is the unmoved Mover. And indeed the universe is finite, for it is physical, just like man, it has a beginning and an ending, however man is special, he is the only creature, that we know of, that has the rational capacity to make moral judgements. And just as it is impossible to account for and completely explain the Infinite by the finite, it is impossible to prove the spiritual through the physical. And so I cannot completely account for the existence of the soul as one would a cat, through sight, feel, and sound, for the soul is spiritual. However, this fact that man can make moral judgements, and is the only known creature that can do this, hints that man has been endowed with something above the rest of the universe, I call this the ’soul’. So in conclusion, while it is impossible to completely account for God and the soul by what, I gather, you require (I think this is some scientific, physical reassurance, but then again, I don’t know.), it is through Faith, the profound deduction by the reason, and where reason fails, by the realizations of the ’soul’, that God becomes an acceptable reality.
If you are unable to prove that your claim is correct, you should admit it and retract it.
Perhaps you are unaware of this, but the assertion “If you can’t prove me wrong by proving an alternative, then my claim must be true” is a logical fallacy.
No, I don’t.
All I did was point out that you don’t need to prove the existence of your god in order to demonstrate that rocks or cats exist, so if you need to prove the existence of your god in order to demonstrate that a soul exists then this suggests problems with your position that souls exist.
Well, I don’t know what you mean by “the Infinite,” so I’m going to have to ignore this as irrelevant.
Unless and until the existence of this god is demonstrated, none of those claims are meaningful.
Actually, researchers have witnessed the basics of moral reasoning and behavior in other animals, especially social primates. I recommend reading Franz de Waal for starters.
That may or may not be true, but unless and until the existence of a “spiritual soul” is demonstrated, this premise can’t be accepted without question.
Just because the “soul” isn’t physical doesn’t mean that its existence can’t be demonstrated through the physical senses. After all, lots of things that aren’t physical can be accounted for via physical means: we observe their effects.
Feel free to explain how that conclusion follows from your premise.
I call it the “brain,” and since it’s not only possible to demonstrate the existence of the brain, but it’s also possible to demonstrate particular parts of the brain being active then a person is making moral judgments, I think that my “brain” explanation is a ahead of your “soul” explanation.
Actually, all I see is faith — no reason whatsoever. The valid use of reason would entail first using accurate evidence (ascribing morality to humans alone is not accurate), then deriving valid inferences (you provide no valid inferential link between “we have morality” and “we were endowed by a higher power with something extra”), and finally arriving at valid conclusions. Instead, all I see from you are statements of faith sprinkled with random Capitalizations to make certain words appear more deep or significant.
I am sorry I decided to try to convince you of God and the soul, indeed, I wonder if the atheist is capable of faith and hope. I think this quote best summarizes my feelings here: “For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God, no explanation is possible. (Song of Bernadette)”
You also seem to want scientific evidence for the existence and God, I cannot offer any. For this, I offer another quote which captures my feelings: “…science then excludes fraud; it excludes mental disease, and it excludes a miraculous occurrence. I venture then to ask science, what is left? (Song of Bernadette)”
In conclusion, it seems that you, being dead set on not believing, and I, being dead set on my beliefs, are never going to be able to reason with each other or convince the other of our positions. So I am ending this conversation.