Atheism and Life

On my blog over at www.checkmate101.blogspot.

com I was challenged to approach the world from an atheists perspective and see what I came up with. I gave my word that I would post a blog to that effect and we could further discourse the issue. So I'm going to write about what some of my conclusions would be if, hypothetically, I were an atheist.

Just to make sure there is no confusion, I am not an atheist; I am a Christian theist. I'm simply trying to examine what conclusions an atheistic world view would lead me to, largely for the purpose of better understanding this philosophy and opening discourse on the issue.

One of the questions I've struggled with has been that of morality. I don't doubt that atheists behave morally, for the overwhelming majority do. What I question is the motivation for behaving morally.

Men such as Frank Zindler and Christopher Hitchens propose that we should behave morally because of an enlightened self-interest. That is to say, I want moral behavior not because I necessarily care about other people, but because I care about myself. For example; if somebody with AIDS is bleeding to death on my doorstep, I don't necessarily have to care about that person to intervene. I should intervene solely because of my desire not to catch AIDS.

We could also look to acts of heroism. For example older members of a family of apes often intentionally lag behind when attacked by leopards/other predators in order engage the predator in a suicidal fight to protect the younger and more healthy members of the family.

In both these cases we see some sort of self-interest. In the first case an interest in protecting my own life, in the second case an interesting in protecting my species. What I question though is what makes the individual "hero's" actions in either case good? I understand we're fighting for survival, but why is survival a good thing? I realize that we can't breed, promote our species, increase the quality of life, etc... if we don't survive; but why is it to our benefit we do those things anyway?

Under an atheistic world view, whether we survive and help the species and planet tremendously or whether we all go extinct instantaneously makes no difference. The end result is the same. I might be able to understand this if I thought pleasing our natural self was worth living for. But let's think about that, why should we try to please our biological nature by eating, making friends, having sex, etc...?

The only answers I've found as of yet indicate that we do this to survive, we do this because it's natural, we must do it. Thus it seems to me that naturalism has greater faith in fate than Calvinists do. Think about it, we exist because of natural processes, our behavior is controlled by natural processes, our world runs according to natural processes, and we try to survive to satisfy those natural processes so that more people can exist to further satisfy them. Is it just me or does that not seem very much like fate? Does it also not seem that a great deal of faith, at least the amount required by a Christian theist like myself, is required to live, eat, drink, breath, and die solely because of and for nature?

Aside from this, I must ask on what basis was Hitler morally wrong? The only bad thing, based solely on enlightened self-interest, was he caused the world to turn against him and thus nature caused his demise. See, enlightened self-interest assumes a great value to life, and it has no right to make that assumption. Based on a solely atheistic view we are nothing more than a bunch of organs and bones, we are matter, and that is all we are and that is all we'll ever be (remember, I'm trying to find atheistic answers).

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and we are solely matter, who is to say Hitler was wrong to make 6,000,000+ people change form? Remember, according to atheism we're just matter, thus I don't see a whole lot of difference between us and ashes and it makes no difference in what form the matter we are presently composed of appears. I don't see how an atheist can assume any inherent value to life. Hitler was simply a product of his biological make-up and life circumstances (as far as they influence it, I believe in both nature and nurture, rather then either/or), and I don't see how any atheist can make the claim in the least that their morals are superior to his simply because they have different morals due to biological/psychological processes.

I suppose some people might try to invoke the Utilitarian Rule, that we do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. But again I ask, what's good? According to atheism why is it better to survive than to change form into ashes? Why is it better to be preserved rather than to decompose?

I imagine my thoughts here may offend a great deal of atheists, but I assure you that's not my intention. I was asked to see what assuming an atheistic world view would lead me to, and this is the first big issue (I may write more blogs to this effect, depending on how many issues are addressed in comments). I dare say at this point most atheists would prefer I remain a Christian rather than de-convert, I'm afraid I'd be an ever-so dangerous atheist.

God bless!
Joey