Where is society’s moral authority 
in the absence of religious belief?

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*


Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.

COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

This was wonderful. Thanks Rick

Mr. Wagner, you need to get your facts straight before you write.

The promotion of Fellowship Church’s youth indoctrination center at Grand Mesa Middle School did not take place on an “outing.” It took place during class time, on school property, and thus violated the law, a fact that District 51 has recognized.

Climate change is settled scientific fact, not “religious dogma.”

If religion is society’s sole, highest and best source of moral authority, how do you explain pedophile priests, preachers who take meth and hire whores, and scandalous “prosperity gospel” preachers who live in mansions, drive Rolls Royces and own jets tax-free? How do you explain human sacrifice?

You must have never taken any philosophy classes. Secular sources of moral authority exist, but you either don’t know about them or choose to ignore them: the ethic of reciprocity, also known as “The Golden Rule” (which predates modern religions), Utilitarianism, social contracts, moral relativism, and secular dedication to non-violence.

Your way of thinking is not the only way of thinking, Mr. Wagner.

PART 1. Kudos to Rick Wagner for an excellent column. But, in my opinion, he is overly kind and generous to atheists and other fraudulently alleged “free” thinkers.
In his book “The Road Less Traveled “ M. Scott Peck wrote a profoundly insightful and moving paragraph which I believe contains the secret to atheists’ animosity toward faith:
“There is clearly a lot of dirty bath water surrounding the reality of God. Holy wars. Inquisitions. Animal sacrifice. Human sacrifice.  Superstition.  Dogmatism.  Ignorance.  Hypocrisy.  Self-righteousness. Rigidity. Cruelty. Book-burning. Witch-burning. Inhibition. Fear. Conformity. Morbid guilt. Insanity. The list is almost endless. But is all this what God has done to humans or what humans have done to God? It is abundantly evident that belief in God is often destructively dogmatic. Is the problem, then, that humans tend to believe in God, or is the problem that humans tend to be dogmatic? Anyone who has known a died-in-the wool atheist will know that such an individual can be as dogmatic about unbelief as any believer can be about belief.  Is it belief in God we need to get rid of, or is it dogmatism?”
I suspect atheists’ main problem with religion is the hypocrisy manifested in the organized Church and most Christians’ behavior. But although that explains atheists’ — (hypocrites themselves) — emotional anti-religious fervor, it does not excuse their intellectual shallowness and self-absorption.
I like to start these discussions by stating the obvious fact that nobody “knows” anything, and that neither theists nor atheists can prove diddley squat to the other “side”. We don’t know how we got here, or why. The entire universe, as humans think of it, could be a tiny speck in some gigantic dog’s eyeball in another dimension. So to display the levels of emotional heat and animosity many atheists do is, in my view, self-evidently stupid.
There is, of course, the self-evident logic of Pascal’s Wager. What’s in it for me to believe in nothing? What’s in it for me to believe we will not see our deceased loved ones and/or favorite pets on “the other side”? Nothing that I can see.
The Bible calls God the great I AM (Ex 3:14).  French philosopher Rene Descartes is credited with first saying the famous words “Cogito Ergo Sum”  or “I think, therefore I am.”  So, for the sake of the argument, let’s say God (the incomprehensible Almight Creator of the Declaration of Independence) is the Great I AM, and the individual human is the little I AM.  From that point, it is reasonable to extrapolate a workable atheistic definition of God to be all that is good, truthful, loving, kind, generous, merciful, ingenious, industrious, courageous, and noble about mankind collectively as a species.

PART 2. So instead of many atheists’ vision of theists’ God as some kind of weird, delusional, white-bearded, Nixonian, “I-am-not-a-crook”, finger-wagging, fun-spoiling, life-ruining, moralistic, authoritarian leprechaun, per Voltaire’s “define your terms if you want to argue with me” admonition, the definition of God I like to use in dialogues with atheists and agnostics (on the rare occasion where they summon the courage to participate): God = the Great I AM Spirit of collective individual human desire — (actually survival need) — for existence (life), significance (to be loved), self- realization/fulfillment (aka life, “liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”), and contentment (happiness).
Using that definition of God, it becomes obvious that what are called “God’s Laws” or “Natural Laws” are really nothing more complicated than a “Great I AM” collective form of the little I AM’s survival rule for individual self-ownership and self-determination summarized in the Two Great Commandments and the Decalogue as: “do not do unto others that which you wouldn’t want done to yourself.”
To borrow from the syntax of Thomas Paine’s “Age Of Reason”: Jesus knew that if a man were impressed as fully and as strongly as he ought to be with a logic-based belief in a God, a fixed point of moral reference, an absolute moral order to the universe, his moral life and behavior would be regulated by the force and power of this belief, he would stand in awe of God and of himself (a creation/child of God), and would not do those things which could not be concealed from either. Jesus also understood that to give this belief/faith the full and fair opportunity of life-governing, life-changing force, it is necessary that the belief/faith acts alone in an atmosphere of free will/freedom/truth completely void of all external coercion.
The place where atheists and so-called “free” thinkers — (actually pseudo-free thinkers) — lose me is when they fraudulently pretend that science and religion are anathematical to each other. That is a lie of several levels.
Religion = world view. World view = how you believe the universe around you actually functions. Everybody has a world view. Even atheists.  Even lawyers.  Atheists are “religious” because, since a) atheism = world view, and b) world view = religion, then c) atheism = religion.

PART 3. Atheists’ “religion” is nihilism. Nihilism pretends to believe only in itself, but even that is not true. Nihilism does not facilitate and support individual self-ownership, but actually denigrates and destroys it. Self-ownership and self-determination are facilitated and supported by voluntary compliance with the Golden Rule, or what some atheists call “The Non-Aggression Principle” — (the principle is the same regardless of what name you give it). In other words, individual self-ownership and self-determination are facilitated and supported by voluntary compliance with the Great I AM’s rules, which can be logically argued to be a collective of the little IAM’s survival and self-ownership rules.
Without some kind of moral order to the universe, life would be nothing more than a cannibalistic feeding frenzy. Or, as Thomas Hobbes argued in “Leviathon”, life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.  Without some kind of moral belief (aka “faith”, aka “religion”) — in other words how living beings (particularly humans) ought to treat each other — what would be the difference between eating a carrot, a chicken, a cat, a cow, or another human being? Atheism and nihilism can get pretty stupid.
The saving grace of humankind is that we (some of us, at least) have intellectual curiosity and a desire for knowledge and self-improvement. Fortunately we have developed computers which greatly facilitate the organization, storage and retrieval of cumulated knowledge, which means that we don’t have to endlessly keep reinventing the same wheel. We can stand on the shoulders of our intellectual giants.
As both Rick Wagner and Gary McCallister have previously pointed out, many of histories greatest scientific minds were of the Judeo-Christian philosophical bent. Contrary to the intellectually dishonest pretenses of atheists, the simple fact is, honest inquiry, experimentation and observation are just as easy (maybe easier) for the theist mind as for the atheist mind.
Arguably the most important thing about the Judeo-Christian ethic — at least from an Economics 101 point of view — is that it prohibits us from trying to use such wannabe-clever word tools as “God”, “government”, “law”, “taxes”, “money”, etc. — to steal each other’s labor.
That’s why most so-called “atheists”, “free” thinkers, and “liberals” hate it. They have every intention of stealing your labor and redistributing according to their self-perceived-as superior wisdom — (making sure, of course, that plenty of the loot winds up in their own pockets and those of their cronies).

PART 4. Way back in 1905 G.K. Chesterton said, “When you break the big [God’s — JRW] laws, you do not get liberty; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small [human — JRW] laws.”
Too many people, especially atheists and “free” thinkers don’t understand that. They are absolutely clueless as to the mechanical (operational) differences between God’s free-will-based voluntary-compliance laws and humankind’s coercion-based “government” laws.
God’s free-will-based law (or Nature’s law, if you prefer), often called the Golden Rule, and/or the Ten Commandments, protects all individuals 1) separately, 2) equally, and 3) simultaneously — an utter impossibility for coercion-based human law. (This fact remains true, despite the seductive pro-statism arguments of such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes.)
In stark polar contrast, ritualized coercion-based “positive” human law pits the privacy of the mother (thesis) against the life of the child (antithesis), and after much ritualized lying and spinning and wasting millions of dollars on shaman/lawyers which could have been spent feeding the hungry, the so-called “legal” so-called “profession” comes up with a fraudulent temporary “resolution” (synthesis) to what shouldn’t really have been a problem in the first place if humans would just voluntarily choose to treat each other more justly and wisely — and, yes, more sustainably.
The latter of the two types of law, the deception-and-manipulation-based process, is called the Hegelian Dialectic. It’s how evil people achieve power over “The Other” by dividing and conquering the citizenry. It’s how people who think they are more clever than you try to use deception-based double-meaning word tools such as “God”, “law”, “government”, “taxes” and “money” to steal your labor.
Long story short, the core reason why the political cutesy pies of the world hate God and want to drive all mention of the Great I AM from the public square: they want to run your life and steal your labor.
That’s why so many of them pretend serious minds like the Founders were just mean-spirited, old, slave-owning, misogynistic, homophobic white hypocrites.
Never buy into buy nihilistic stupidity and self-absorption camouflaged as intellectual discipline and prowess — never, never, never. It’s a tyranny-friendly lie.
Always remember: the universe is a cause-and-effect place/paradigm. And most especially when we ignore the Great I AM’s great laws, we tend to get the tyranny of the small laws designed to run our lives and steal our labor. We tend to get the corrupt government which is the natural consequence our corrupt minds deserve.
Isn’t learning the hard way fun?!

This seems to intentionally confuse the importance of morals for a society with public schools showing videos of one religion. I don’t want my public school math teacher showing my kids videos promoting Buddhism, or my public school history teacher showing videos promoting Islam. Public schools are for teaching reading, math, science, history, and other academic and art subjects. Churches and homes are for teaching morals.

Wow, John Wilkenson sure has a lot to say. But in response I will say the following two things:

1) Proselytizing in public schools is illegal, and
2) Atheists are not dogmatic. When it is proven beyond doubt that a god exists, atheists will then believe it exists.

Humans create their own ideas of morality. The “morality” found in the Bible is just a reflection of the morality of the men who wrote it and the times in which they lived. That’s why the Bible calls for death for disrespectful children among many other things which outrage our sense of morality today.

As an atheist I base my sense of morality on the idea that I want to live in a free and open and safe society. It’s an idea found in the Bible and known as “the Golden Rule” but it’s an idea much older than the Bible. I don’t kill because I don’t want to be killed. I don’t steal because I don’t want my things to be stolen. I don’t need an imaginary friend to explain those things to me. And I don’t need the threat of eternal damnation hanging over head to hold those values.

I’d say if a fear of hell is the only thing keeping you from killing and stealing then you aren’t a good person at all.



TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy