Atheist Sunday School
The headline for this ChristianPost story seems to be overstating things a little, but an atheist Sunday School is an interesting idea. Would they just teach the same Bible curriculum and then end each class by saying, "And, remember, none of that is true." What do you put on the flannel graph?
Favorite quote:
It's interesting to me that atheist parents are looking for a faith-free, rational avenue to teach their kids ethics.
"Son, natural selection clearly teaches us not to hit other children to get what we want. I mean, it doesn't exactly teach us that. But beating up the smaller and weaker is no way to survive, er, exist. What I'm trying to say is that letting someone else have what you really want is sometimes good because, well, um, what did you learn in atheist Sunday School again?"
The problem with atheist Sunday School, of course, is that the best Sunday Schools don't really teach you how to be good. They teach you that you need rescuing from your terminal badness by a good God who really loves you. Ethics training can never compete with discovering the transformative power of God's grace through faith in Jesus.
Favorite quote:
She's got a point. You never know what your atheist kids will be exposed to at their friend's houses. I remember this one time over at Bobby Davis's house. We were playing in the garage and found his dad's stash of old Christianity Today magazines. Mr. Davis called himself an atheist, but it turned out he was believing in all kinds of stuff behind closed doors. I was never the same. You just don't get those clear, thoughtful arguments for faith in Jesus out of your head after seeing them for the first time at such an impressionable age.Bri Kneisley sent her 10-year-old son, Damian[!], to [atheist-in-training] Camp Quest Ohio this past summer after a neighbor had shown him the Bible. "Damian was quite certain this guy was right and was telling him this amazing truth that I had never shared," said Kneisley, who realized her son needed to learn about secularism, according to Time magazine.
It's interesting to me that atheist parents are looking for a faith-free, rational avenue to teach their kids ethics.
"Son, natural selection clearly teaches us not to hit other children to get what we want. I mean, it doesn't exactly teach us that. But beating up the smaller and weaker is no way to survive, er, exist. What I'm trying to say is that letting someone else have what you really want is sometimes good because, well, um, what did you learn in atheist Sunday School again?"
The problem with atheist Sunday School, of course, is that the best Sunday Schools don't really teach you how to be good. They teach you that you need rescuing from your terminal badness by a good God who really loves you. Ethics training can never compete with discovering the transformative power of God's grace through faith in Jesus.
Posted by Christopher Lyon on at
8:30 PM
7 Comments:
This article makes two critical errors.
Firstly, it conflates atheism and evolution. The two are clearly not even within the same magesterium, far less synonymous. Many theists (of all religions) believe in evoluion. Some atheists do not.
Secondly, it conflates science and ethics. As Hume pointed out, you cannot move from "is" to "ought" - you cannot say "because nature is this way - then this is the way things ought to be". Science and ethics are thus completely seperate magesteria of thought - you can't move from one to the other.
I would imagine any educated and intelligent atheist would know this. Sadly, the lack of either of these two qualities, and a lack of imagination, is evident in this blog.
Mr Hume, famous disappointed philosopher
Thank you, sir, for your comments. I agree that one need not be an evolutionist to be an atheist, but I don't know of any atheists who are not. Do you? (That's not a challenge; just a sincere question.)
And I completely agree with you about not conflating science and ethics. As a Christian, I base my understanding of morality on what I believe is the supernaturally revealed Word of God, not on what can be observed in the physical universe alone.
What I was likely too pithy in questioning is where one finds a solid ethical standard when you eliminate any kind of faith in anything beyond the observable. What reason does a completely material view of the universe give me for sacrificing my wants/needs for the good of others? Beyond enlightened self-interest, why does it matter how I treat anyone if there is no higher standard of right and wrong?
Dear Christopher,
Firstly, Yes, I do know atheists who dissent from the theory of evolution.
In Mclean vs Arkansas Board of Education, one of the State's witness, Dr. Wickramasinghe, testified at length in support of a theory that life on earth was "seeded" by comets which delivered genetic material and perhaps organisms to the earth's surface from interstellar dust far outside the solar system.
The "seeding" theory further hypothesizes that the earth remains under the continuing influence of genetic material from space which continues to affect life. This is at variance to the theory of evolution. There are other examples of such theories.
----------------------
Secondly, if you understand the naturalistic fallacy - why do you accuse atheists of making it? Are you trying to imply that all atheists are stupid enough to make a fallacy? That would be rather unfair - David Hume himself had a popular reputation as an unbeliever - yet he was the person who pointed out this fallacy!
-----------------------
Thirdly, I do not know of any atheist who rules out the existence of things that are not observable or material. As JL Mackie, another famous atheist philosopher, pointed out - our consciousness is the only thing we can be certain exists, and it is not physical. In other words, the only realm of existence we can be absolutely certain exists is non-physical, and non-observable. I cannot see or touch my consciousness, after all.
Indeed, this is an area of agreement between atheists and theists. Long before Mackie, Bishop Berkeley pointed out the self same thing - hypothesising the possibility that the physical universe, that which you erroneously limit atheists to believing in, may not exist at all! Berkeley's "Immaterial Realism" has been widely commented on by later empiricists like Hume. Athiests do not have a "completely material view of the universe".
------------------------
Lastly, there are different atheist thinking schools of thought on the subject of ethics.
My personal belief is that there cannot be, with or without the existence of God, an objective moral basis for us to base our actions on. I do not believe in the possibility of objective morality.
That means I consider you following God's commands as merely an extension of enlightened self-interest - understanding that by doing so, by turning your life to him, you will be saved from eternal torture. I do not believe you are following an objective moral code - and have never seen this well defended.
Thus, all moral values are subjective. We each follow the dictates of our conscience, shaped by our genes, our embryology, and our upbringing and society. You may not consider this "solid" - but frankly, that doesn't much matter - because that doesn't make it untrue!
In general, I think you would do well not making vast generalisations about atheistic thought, or even pretending you understand it when you plainly do not. If you wish to hear what atheists think about ethics, you ought to ask them, rather than making presumptions.
I would also recommend you ask yourself some tough questions on your own ethics. Does God's character define good - or does good define God's character?
If the former, is God's character not an arbitrary standard? Without an external definition of morality shaping God's character, what would prevent him saying rape is right, or murder is right, or child abuse is right? How can God's subjective values, the luck of the draw on his character, be viewed as objective or solid?
If the latter, where do these objective ethics come from? Who created these? How did they come to shape what God was, and how his character was?
These are not easy questions, and I have never seen them answered to my satisfaction. That leads me to conclude that you are on as shaky ethical ground as anyone...
Mr Hume, famous ethical philosopher
That's got to be our longest comments post ever. Thanks for investing your time in the site. My schedule won't allow me to continue this dialog for long. But in brief . . .
Firstly: Even with the old seeding theory, wouldn't evolution still be needed to get us to where we are today?
Secondly: I'm not sure where I accused atheists, in general, of making this fallacy. I did (too) sarcastically question on what standard atheists would teach Sunday School students to "be good." The original Time magazine story is interesting. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.html]
Thirdly: You make a good point that not all atheists necessarily rule out an immaterial world completely.
Lastly: I still don't see the motivation for making genuinely moral choices without some objective internal or external standard of right and wrong. (In fact, I think all of us carry that standard internally to a certain degree by design.) Still, I don't know how (or why?) you teach a six year old not to hit others unprovoked and for fun without saying, "That's wrong." And if you do say, "That's wrong," why is it wrong?
In terms of your questions for me, I do accept by faith the Bible's claim that God is both good and right because He is God. He is the standard for Himself. I don't hope that will satisfy you, but I believe it.
Also, I do not attempt to do good out of fear of hell. I've heard other atheists suggest that, as well, but it is a misunderstanding of Christian teaching. I believe in total human depravity, so attempting to "do good" won't get me anywhere close to being "good enough" to escape "eternal torture." God must save me completely and or I am lost. I believe He saved me by subjecting Jesus to the penalty for my sin, and through faith in that I am secure in that salvation even if I continue to sin (and I do).
So why do good now? It's tough to totally escape self-interest, but I now attempt to conform to God's absolute standard for right and wrong because I think it's the best option and because I love the right and good God who sacrificially loved me (and you) when I still hated Him.
Again, thanks for your comments, famously ethical one. :)
Christopher,
Firstly, the theory of evolution by natural selection is actually two theories in one. The first is that all life on earth shares a common ancestor (commonly known as the "fact" of evolution). The second is that life on earth evolved from this common ancestor by a process of mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Dr. Wickramasinghe's theory potentially denies the fact of evolution (we could potentially have come from several common ancestors through seeding) - and modifies the theory of evolution by adding genetic influence from outer space.
However, as you rightly point out, his theory would need natural selection and mutuation to work - and clearly works from a basis of some degree of common ancestry. That isn't exactly surprising - evolution is the *only* scientific and evidenced theory explaining the origin of species that we have. It is so well evidenced that that chances of it being entirely wrong would be almost zero.
-----------------------
Secondly, as I said, it would be good to ask atheists how they derive their moral standards, rather than inventing a strawman method, based on the naturalistic fallacy, that you know yourself to be false.
-----------------------
Thirdly, an "internal standard" of right and wrong cannot, by definition, be objective.
We all have preferences and values internally. Like all other preferences and values, they are subjective. These are what drive us to behave in the way we do. But they are not objective - they are our subjective values.
If you wish to teach a six year old not to hit someone for fun, you could say two things. Firstly, you could appeal to the six year old's values - through empathy. "How do you think he feels getting hit?" you could say. "Can't you see how it's not nice for him - how he's just a little boy like you?" Most six year olds - outside those who are psychopathic and therefore unable to empathise, will probably build a value out of this empathy.
You could secondly appeal to enlightened self-interest. "How would YOU like it if someone hit you?". "Don't you see if you are allowed to hit others, they will be allowed to hit you - we'll all get hurt without rules." The average 6 year old will be intelligent enough to understand that it is thus in his own interests to have the rules, and have them enforced.
----------------------------
Forthly, you say God "is a standard unto himself". That's fine - I would agree. But that doesn't mean he is an objective standard. His values and preferences are as subjective as ours - they do not come from outside of him - they are not imposed by some objective definition of good.
Thus you follow God's subjective preferences. You are just lucky that, most of the time, he prefers to be nice and love people. After all, there is nothing to prevent God's preferences being nasty - he could prefer hatred, anger, rape, torture and killing. Sometimes he does. Without an objective standard, there is nothing to stop God being a nasty piece of work.
To me, this is a rather more naive standard of morality than the atheist's - simply following the dictatorial commands of God, just because.
------------------------
Lastly, I think it is you that misunderstand Christian teaching. The vast majority of Christians throughout time have not believed as you do - that there is no salvational value in attempting to "do good".
All Christian Churches agree that the grace of God, poured out through Christ's sacrifice at Calvary, paid fully for our sins. Our good works cannot be sufficient to deal with sin. Thus we are saved by the mystery of God's grace.
However, the question Christians differ on is "how do we become and stay associated with God's grace - how do we become and stay associated with the paschal mystery of Christ's crucifixion?"
The majority of Christians throughout time have believed that trying not to do bad, and trying to do good, are essential elements in staying associated with God's Grace, through Christ's crucifixion. Presumably, to an extent, you do too - you don't believe that someone can say "yeah, I believe in Jesus - but I'm not going to turn away from sin, and I'm not going to try and live a Christ-like life" - and still be associated with Christ's crucifixion?
In other words, attempting to behave morally is important in the Christian faith - as it is part of what associates you with the paschal mystery of Christ's crucifixion and God's grace - which saves you from sin. Without at least attempting to behave morally, you will end up going to hell, according to the majority of Christian thought. Thus there is a self-interest in doing it - on top of the ordinary self-interest of people being nice to you back.
All the best,
Mr Hume, famous verbose philosopher
I'll leave the rest behind, but I feel compelled to address your comments on the character and grace of God.
On forthly: You make a false and blanket statement about the God you claim not to believe in. God IS an objective standard of what it means to be good. He is the measuring stick. I'm not "lucky" that He's not "nasty." I believe my (and your) whole understanding that rape, etc., are nasty comes pre-installed in us as a result of being created in His image. As the originator of all things, His standards are objective by definition -- unless He changes. And we're convinced He does not.
On lastly: You have also missed the essential ingredient in God's grace. If we must attempt to do good in order to "stay associated" with God's grace once we receive it through faith in Jesus -- it is not grace, at all. Grace is a gift, unearned and unearnable. It is not given or removed based on human goodness. That's the point. By definition, that's what the vast majority of Christians believe because that is basic to Christian teaching. Once in His family, most of us cease to be motivated by fear of hell.
I welcome any further of your comments -- as well as those of anyone else -- but I must now disengage from this conversation, oh famous, dead philosopher.
Is mr. hume rele a "famous... and dead philosopher"
Post a Comment
<< Home