Day 49 – the atheist’s rebuttal
Doesn't evolutionary theory say that our minds and morality are just a part of our survival drive? –EDWARD K. BOYD
If atheists are adamant that the universe has no reason, morals, and purpose, how do they explain these characteristics in humans without having to admit the existence of God? How do they answer the Argument from Human Characteristics?
One way is to deny that humans have these characteristics at all. The appearance of reason, morality, and purpose could be just that—only an appearance. If the truth were known, some atheists claim, these traits are not what they seem to be. They are not real, and that means that no supernatural entity is needed to explain them. Nature thus remains the one and only reality.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it goes completely against what atheists observe in the world on a daily basis. These atheists deny the existence of human reason, morality, and purpose while humans who appear rational, moral, and purposeful are walking all around them. They ask us to look in the mirror and deny that we have any of these traits; then they expect us to accept their ideas as rational and their outlook meaningful. They claim that what they observe all around them is only a mirage, an illusion. At its core, this answer to the Argument from Human Characteristics is just another version of the illusory theory used to discredit the Argument from Design. It falls short of its goal for the same reason: it doesn't hold true in real life.
Another way to rebut the Argument from Human Characteristics is to say that reason, morality, and purpose are by-products of our animal instincts. Just as a dog at times appears to be smart or good but is acting only on instinct, reason and morality in humans could be nothing more than these same instincts in higher form. Since instincts come from nature, there would be no need to look elsewhere to explain these characteristics. There would be no need to resort to supernatural belief.
The problem here is twofold. For one thing, this line of thinking still doesn’t explain why you and I have traits that nature itself doesn’t have. It doesn’t explain how an irrational and amoral "tree" like nature can yield through its animal instincts rational and moral "fruit." The inconsistency of the atheist is not really changed. Secondly, the fact that we often are forced to choose one instinct (such as compassion) over another one (such as self-preservation) means that something more than our instincts must be at work. You cannot use another instinct to decide between the two, anymore than another key on the piano can decide for you which one of two keys you are to play. That decision must come from above, from the sheet of music (in the case of the pianist) and from the supernatural (in the case of humanity).1
The third way that atheists attempt to counter the Argument from Human Characteristics is to bring to our attention all the negative traits of man. Instead of focusing on humanity's tendency to love, reason, and act morally, they remind us that it is just as common for humans to hate, act irrationally, and be immoral. This, they say, is just as much evidence against the supernatural as the positive traits are evidence for it. The two cancel each other, leaving a stalemate.
What the atheist is attempting to do once again is distract us from the question at hand. That question does not concern any negative traits humans happen to possess. (It is assumed that atheists, with such a negative worldview, can account for them.) The question at hand is whether or not atheists can explain the presence of positive human traits in a universe 100% negative, and the truth is they cannot.
Eventually we will address the irrational and immoral side of humanity. But though we will not avoid this subject, we will reserve this topic for the second and third legs of our journey, when God’s nature and human nature are explored. To point us in its direction now is just an attempt to evade the present issue.
Daily Quotation
Edward K. Boyd and Gregory A. Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic, 53.
1See Mere Christianity, Book I.
No comments:
Post a Comment