Chuck Colson on New Atheists and morality

Comment by: Pseudonym

First off, let’s look at the statements given.

In response, Warren pointed out the inconvenient (for Harris, that is) truth: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta.

I think that’s misleading enough to count as “false”. There are plenty of atheists doing that sort of thing, but they’re not doing it under the umbrella of an atheist organisation. Rather, they’re doing it under the umbrella of a secular organisation. That’s because to a first approximation, there are no atheist organisations.

I’m certain that plenty of atheists work for the Red Cross, the UNHCR, and MSF, to name but three.

Atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Cambodia killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God.

It’s true, but it’s beside the point. For every example of atrocities at the hands of a nominally “atheist” government, there’s an example of atrocities at the hands of a nominally “theist” government, and vice versa.

I think the main difference is that because Theism is more institutionalised, it has some atoning to do. Atheism can (with some justification) merely distance itself. Unfair, perhaps, but that’s life.

From the article:

The issue is whether the secular worldview can provide a basis for a good society.

If it’s a problem for Atheists, then it’s also a problem for pluralist Theists, surely?

Unless you’re trying to establish a theocracy, then society needs to accommodate any reasonable worldview, for some definition of “reasonable”. If not, you can’t call it a “good society”. I don’t see any way out of it: government must be secular.

Just as an aside: Not being from the US, I don’t interpret “secular” as being “don’t touch religion with a 3-metre pole”. I believe in accommodating peoples’ beliefs and non-beliefs, and I don’t believe in discriminating against a person or organisation just because they’re religious.

Comment by: Ir (Helen)

Here’s the issue for me. I’m sure Chuck Colson would say “Don’t judge Jesus/Christianity according to MY failings!” therefore he should be consistent with that and not judge atheism based on the inappropriate behavior of certain atheists.

I would say he has two choices: stick to his position about his behavior not showing Jesus sucks and stop saying atheist regimes show atheism sucks; or continue to point fingers at atheism and affirm “yes, judge Jesus based on my failings - great idea”.

By not opting for one of those I would say he’s being unacceptably inconsistent and every smart atheist will notice the inconsistency.

And since he’s a visible Christian leader he unfortunately is role-modelling inconsistency to many Christians, who will probably use his arguments and lose respect with people who aren’t Christians who see the inconsistency of it.

That’s now it seems to me, anyway. If someone can show me how his position IS consistent, I will learn from that and retract what I said about him being inconsistent.

Comment by: Ir (Helen)

Mike wrote:

And I’m saying it’s unacceptably inconsistent and every smart Christian will notice the inconsistency when atheists do the opposite … they discredit religion based on the atrocities of the adherents, but not discredit atheism for the same reasons.

LOL

IF atheists do just what Christians are doing then fair enough.

There tend to be differences in how Christians and atheists pitch themselves, so it’s often not exactly a level playing field. But - where it is, yes, that’s a fair comment.

The more I learn from people here, the more I learn we are the same … we share good and bad qualities, all of us.

I totally agree with this!

Comment by: Karen

Apparently Chuck Colson has never heard of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, two atheists who established the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world. They are doing incredibly innovative work to help feed the poor and cure the sick, mainly in the Third World but also domestically.

The other thing that’s inaccurate about his comments is that he totally ignores the contributions of hundreds of thousands of nonreligious people who devote their lives to fields like medical research, agricultural innovation, literacy, education, social services, medical care and other helping professions. Yes, these people are earning a living from their work (so are missionaries), but a large number of them must be primarily motivated by a desire to do some good and make a real difference for humanity. Why is that utterly discounted? Is it only in handing out food or translating bibles in slums that people are able to demonstrate their good impulses?

Comment by: Karen

The more I learn from people here, the more I learn we are the same … we share good and bad qualities, all of us.

So what’s the temporal advantage of being a Christian then, if the behavior of Christians is no different overall than that of non-Christians? I was taught that Christians get divine guidance from the holy spirit. But I don’t see a marked difference in how those with help from the holy spirit live their lives, versus those who don’t have the holy spirit.

If the holy spirit is there providing wisdom, comfort and guidance, but so many Christians are ignoring its influence that it’s undetectable in their lives, that seems to me like a failed proposition.

(I’m talking strictly about benefits here on earth, by the way, leaving out any afterlife rewards or punishments.)

Comment by: Stephan

Despite his great philanthropy, you must remember that Bill Gates is also responsible for Microsoft Windows, one of the greatest forces of evil in the world (stated the Unix operating system engineer).

Again, there is no question that atheists can do good. But from a purely Darwinian perspective we should let the weak and suffering die, because this will strengthen the rest of the species for survival. To care for the weak and suffering requires a higher law, one with its roots deeply in theism.

Comment by: Siamang

##

Again, there is no question that atheists can do good. But from a purely Darwinian perspective we should let the weak and suffering die, because this will strengthen the rest of the species for survival. To care for the weak and suffering requires a higher law, one with its roots deeply in theism.

How many times do I have to put a stake in this vampire?

From a Darwinian perspective we should EMPHATICALLY NOT let the weak and suffering die.

That you think opposite says far more about your ignorance of social science and game theory than it does about evolution.

How can killing a person be wrong, but killing a tree is OK?

If you can’t tell the difference, then you’re either a sociopath or you imagine us to be. Here’s a hint: We’re not trees. That’s why it’s okay to chop a tree. I don’t have to look up God in a book to know the difference between a tree and a person. The evolved social contract doesn’t extend to trees.

The social contract, which EVOLVED WITH US, from hundreds of thousands of years, probably millions of years, set the rules, not some religious book from the very, very recent historical past.

Comment by: Siamang

I don’t imagine either.

You omitted my third option: You can tell the difference between a person and a tree.

It’s a starting point. If you and I both agree that we can tell the difference between a person and a tree without consulting a Bible, we may be able to formulate a path by which humans might have evolved DIFFERENT behavioral rules when dealing with other humans than we have when dealing with trees. Right?

What I imagine is that you apply theistic ideas to your day-to-day life but are unwilling to admit it.

Apparently, so do chimps.

Where did chimps get some of our same morals, if they can’t read the bible?

Comment by: Siamang

The interesting thing is that God would not have to do that at all.

Reciprocal altruism emerges just fine without a God, by iterative inherited survival strategies. I can run a computer sim that evolves reciprocal altruism. Am I a God, or did God mess with my computer sim?

I’m not saying God COULDN’T have invented this stuff and just made it look like it evolves. But the extra step isn’t required to explain the observed phenomena.

Just like nobody can prove that God didn’t make the entire world last thursday and gave us all of our memories to make it seem otherwise. But such a proposition is hardly parsimonious.

Lets go back to the vampire:

But from a purely Darwinian perspective we should let the weak and suffering die,

Did you read my link? If so, do you still contend that Darwinian processes cannot evolve reciprocal altruism?

As a matter of fact, the type of morality we have is EXACTLY what we should predict if it sprung from an evolutionary process.

We do not seem to have a morality that is in any way Godly… for example, we do not have a morality that says it is more moral to treat all the children of the world as being as precious as your own children. If we had a non-human-centered morality, there would be no reason why everyone seems to have a “my clan first” center to their morality.

But no, everyone expects, without question, that you look out for your own kids safety. Nobody I know would praise a mother who lets her kid live in the squalor of the street while she flew to Africa to nurse AIDS babies.

Caring for your own is EXACTLY what we should see if reciprocal altruism was an evolutionarily stable strategy adopted by genes spread through heredity. Now maybe God, in his unknowable caprice, decided that “kin altruism” was his highest priority, and He merely created the illusion that this is a gene-centered behavior.

But with or without a God, gene-centered reciprocal altruism evolves.

Comment by: Keith

Siamang,

Thanks for training me well on this evolution stuff … the second I read that altruism cannot evolve, I thought of one of your many explanations of how it could. Thanks … it’s nice to be able to halfway accurately see things from an atheist’s point of view.

We do not seem to have a morality that is in any way Godly… for example, we do not have a morality that says it is more moral to treat all the children of the world as being as precious as your own children.

I think we do have this morality. Much of the abortion conflicts deal from people treating the life of someone else’s child as if it were their own. Also, I know adoptive and foster parents who live this kind of morality on a daily basis.

But no, everyone expects, without question, that you look out for your own kids safety. Nobody I know would praise a mother who lets her kid live in the squalor of the street while she flew to Africa to nurse AIDS babies.

I think this is an example of treating your own kids poorly while caring for the children of others … and it is not moral to fail to care for your own children. A better example of the non-human-centered morality you described would be to care for the needs of another child while also caring for the needs of your child. If indeed you consider that such morality is Godly, then this is good news that it can be seen in lives. Three friends of mine: Doug, Theron, and Lucas all fit the description of this unusual morality you describe. All credit their motivation to do so to the Holy Spirit.

Thanks as always, Siamang. You have been and still are so helpful to me as I seek the truth.

Comment by: Karen

Thanks for answering, Mike O. I’ve posed that “Where’s the holy spirit’s influence?” so many times in various forums I’ve lost count. I rarely get a thoughtful reply like yours.

Instead, most people get very defensive or resort to the free will argument while not really acknowledging the problem I’m raising.

Comment by: Stephan

Reciprocal altruism emerges just fine without a God, by iterative inherited survival strategies. I can run a computer sim that evolves reciprocal altruism. Am I a God, or did God mess with my computer sim?

Sure, you can start with a conclusion and write a computer simulation to duplicate it. But starting with a conclusion doesn’t prove anything.

The problem with any atheist arguments for morality is that they can only claim to be moral without divine influence. The fact is that morality has been influenced and passed down by our religious heritage, so anyone who says, “We could be moral without that” is really only guessing and making an unsupportable claim.

It would be like me saying I could learn to play piano without watching someone else play or taking lessons. I would not even know what a piano was if I never saw anyone play it.

Without the morality that God laid out for us, you would not even know what morality was, let alone be able to define and practice it.

Comment by: Siamang

Sure, you can start with a conclusion and write a computer simulation to duplicate it. But starting with a conclusion doesn’t prove anything.

Read the study. He didn’t frontload the system. You’re a computer guy, ask him for his code… email him about it: LightninUltraq(theatsigngoeshere)Netscape.net

The study says that the math causes an emergent “tit-for-tat” solution.

Cool!

The problem with any atheist arguments for morality is that they can only claim to be moral without divine influence.

The problem with ALL theist arguments about any subject is that whatever non-supernatural mechanism you’ve discovered for ANYTHING, they still claim that God is in there somewhere. Secretly and undetectably mutating your DNA, secretly Intelligently Designing your genome, secretly giving you a moral center, secretly keeping the planets in their orbits…. whatever.

No atheist can disprove any of those places where theists smuggle their God into ever-decreasing gaps.

But parsimony answers thus:“Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.”
“I have no need of that hypothesis.”

The fact is that morality has been influenced and passed down by our religious heritage, so anyone who says, “We could be moral without that” is really only guessing and making an unsupportable claim.

I’m not saying that it hasn’t had influence. I’m saying that the influence is not solely positive. It’s influence is at least partially negative, and that it unduly ties us morally to a time when women, goats and people of different races had roughly the same number of rights.