The Case Against Moral Atheism: When Living by the Golden Rule Makes No Sense

By Ken Wheeler

What if you decided, today, that God did not exist? Would that change your morality? Would you still turn in an honest tax return? Why? If you are a single mother having a difficult time making ends meet, would you steal from the cash drawer at work to buy food for your baby? Why not?

If an adult decided to prey on young children, why would that be morally different than a crocodile feasting on a baby monkey at the watering hole in the jungle? Why has the law of the jungle changed just because the jungle is now Wall Street and the Internet?

If humanity evolved from primordial slime pools, who gets to declare that the pedophile is a criminal and the croc is just functioning according to his evolved DNA?

Why should a person adopt moral values if he believes a Creator God does not exist? Does the Chaos Theory provide an answer to that question or is it just an attempt by the Atheist to fill in the blank with anything but God while avoiding the obvious and logical challenges produced by the concept of a Godless morality?

The Case Against Moral Atheism challenges anyone who does not believe in a moral law-giver above mankind to consider why they should live moral lives if this life is all there is.

• Language: English
• Publisher: WestBow Press
• Release date: Sep 26, 2014
• ISBN: 9781490850139

Ken Wheeler

Ken Wheeler’s journey into historical Christian evidences and apologetics began three decades ago. His studies eventually led him to the “New Atheists” and the philosophical challenges of moral Atheism. He has been in the retail business since 1981 and currently resides in Bakersfield, Ca.

Book preview

Copyright © 2014 Ken Wheeler.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from either The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide or the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

WestBow Press

A Division of Thomas Nelson & Zondervan

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.westbowpress.com

1 [phone]

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4908-5012-2 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4908-5013-9 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014915672

WestBow Press rev. date: 09/19/2014

CONTENTS

Dedication

Acknowledgment of the late Christopher Hitchens

Preface

Introduction

Chapter 1 Why I Am not a Moral Atheist

Chapter 2 Rule #1: If God is the Creator, God Makes the Rules

Chapter 3 The Moral Atheist and Rule #1

Chapter 4 The Ignorance of Atheism: Bad Things Happen to Good People

Chapter 5 The Ignorance of Atheism: Salvation in Christ Jesus

Chapter 6 Anything but God: The Attraction and Influence of Atheism

Chapter 7 The Ignorance of Atheism: The New Ten Commandments

Conclusion

Appendix

About the Author

DEDICATION

To the God of grace and mercy, to Him alone be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

And

To my Lisa; without your encouragement I would never have tried to write this. Others will judge my thoughts one way or the other and the success or failure of this book will be decided by the Lord, but because of you, I finished the task.

Thank you.

Love, Ken

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE LATE CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

When I came across the news of Mr. Hitchens’ death several months after it occurred, I was honestly saddened to read that this brilliant antagonist of Christianity and all things religious or godly, had passed. I felt as though an acquaintance I would enjoy getting to know on a more personal level had been suddenly removed from my life. While some may foolishly think I am bothered because Hitchens had somehow triumphed over religion until the bitter end, I was truly saddened that there was no news of his seeking the Lord prior to his demise. I would not wish an eternity without God even on those who rail against Him. Unlike many of my fellow Christians, who, I am ashamed to admit, lashed out at Mr. Hitchens on YouTube and seemed to gleefully condemn him to hell, I found no solace in thinking of his eternal lostness if, indeed, he rejected Christ until his final breath.

I thought about what Hitchens might have been thinking in his last waking moments. Was there even a thought of What if I am wrong? Or did he, like Richard Dawkins, pompously reject such a notion? Did he, as did Joseph Stalin, raise a clenched fist and shake it at the heavens before his last breath? I hope not; I pray not. Yes, I had prayed for Hitchens, asking God to touch this man’s heart with His Holy Spirit that he might call on the Lord and be saved. I am very sorry he apparently did not.

That said, as I am finishing this effort, I must acknowledge this gentleman, for without his book god is not Great, there is a very good chance I would not have made this journey. Although I continued to investigate my faith through the years, I made minimal efforts to dig deep into the wells of Atheist thought, and Hitchens’ book changed those efforts significantly.

Accolades and personal comments should come from those who knew him well, so I will not insult him or his family by attempting to say things about him of which I knew very little. The fact is I knew nothing of this amazing journalist until I read his aforementioned book. All I knew was he was supposedly a well-known Atheist author, who attacked the existence of religion and very specifically my Christian faith and the faith of Islam. That was enough to cause me to ask myself tougher questions, listen to more debates, and eventually read more Atheist authors. For this, I am respectfully grateful to Mr. Christopher Hitchens, because this has resulted in an increased confidence in my faith. I have a deeper appreciation for the God who is, in fact, most certainly ‘Great’.

PREFACE

On the subject of morality, as on every other subject, some people are not worth listening to.

—Sam Harris

The atheist is living a lie as he attempts to explain how we can come from nowhere, then go to nowhere after we die—but somehow be filled with meaning in between.

—Charles S. Meek

One thing you will notice if you take an objective look at Atheism¹ is that you will be numbered among those who, do not think for themselves, if as a believer, you do not reject your faith in God and accept the faith of unbelief. According to Atheists, only those under the influence of religion have not mastered the art of doing their own thinking. Good news, however. You have Brights,² such as Christopher Hitchens, who know what you are going through³ and have come to your intellectual rescue by sharing their gospel of unbelief.

Soon after finishing Hitchens’ book god is not Great, I thought of responding to him. But clearly realizing the futility of that endeavor, I put the book in the Atheism section of my small library and occasionally simmered over his thoughts. Four years later, after a brief moment of soul-searching and with encouragement from my wife, Lisa, I decided to put my thoughts about moral Atheism on paper. This would not be an apologetic for the existence of God, although apologetics must ultimately be used in a discussion of the Atheist’s faith (which they vehemently deny having), rather, my focus would be on the prosecution of moral Atheism—a way of life that has no objective justification whatsoever. Within that belief system, each person simply justifies their morality by personal standards chosen on any given day. Those standards may or may not conform to the social norm, but conformation and tolerance, not rightness or wrongness of an action, are the keys to social acceptance. With no ultimate, higher lawgiver above individuals, we are gods unto ourselves, each being led by the random directional forces of our own DNA, unanswerable to anyone except those who are bigger, stronger, more intelligent, or perhaps more cunning than we are. It is the cement-walled, pavement-covered jungle of the human race in which the modern, moral Atheist exists. And the law of the jungle rules without an ultimate moral lawgiver. Or at least it should.

I do not claim to know more than some Atheists, more Atheists, or any Atheists on the topic of moral Atheism but I will address it with the thought in mind that maybe there is an unbeliever, somewhere, who might at least consider the thoughts of an average believer who thinks for himself and draws his own conclusions. An average guy who has read Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens, [commonly referred to as the New Atheists]; has watched countless lectures and debates by Atheists on the Internet; has read hundreds of replies to those videos, written by slobbering disciples who fill their diatribe with venomous attacks on believers they accuse of intolerant behavior; and yet has come away with no chinks in his armor of faith in the Jehovah God, who is the Father of the Christ, my Lord, the only Savior. Would any average unbeliever/Atheist who demands politically correct tolerance of their Atheism (and any other ism contrary to Christianity) consider the thoughts of an average believer who has done his homework? Or would they be more like those described by Richard Dawkins, author of the best seller The God Delusion, whom, he says, do not entertain arguments against their beliefs that have developed over their lifetime—especially as children being soberly taught by their parents to believe in God.⁴ Could it be possible that in the face of this social phenomena (parental/adult influence on children) there would be at least some unbelievers, whose faithless and godless brainwashing (likewise by their parents) was not so severe, or perhaps by their own sheer natural determination, could not be loosed from the fetters of Atheism/unbelief if they would only but consider a polite nudge from a simple believer such as I?

As Dawkins hopes his arguments will convince someone—anyone—to escape the grip of the belief in God, it is my hope this humble endeavor will cause some open-minded Atheist to escape the grip of moral Atheism by thinking this through and realizing when taken to its logical, ultimate end, there is no justification for it other than self-gratification and self-preservation. If the evolution of primal-goo has ultimately given us the human-race, then justice, fairness, and goodness take on totally subjective meanings and become convenient, politically-correct, ambiguous catch-phrases that can be used by those strong enough to impose them on others. But why would this be wrong? Aren’t justice, goodness, and fairness all for the benefit of humankind? Does it not depend on what you believe good, fair, and just to be? So it follows, whoever is the definer of those terms becomes the moral lawgiver and gets to make the rules by which others must behave in a moral society. But what if your definitions of good, fair, just, right, wrong, and moral are not my definitions of those terms? And what if I am not concerned with your well-being enough to care about what happens to you if my good actually hurts you? How would that work for you, and why should I care?

We care for others because God gave us a conscience to do so. But for the sake of this presentation, I am allowing the Atheist to remove the Creator of all things from the picture for a moment and asking why—why would you choose to be a morally functioning person if there is no God, and if this life is all there is? If you are a moral Atheist, it is my opinion that you are acting cowardly. And if you impose your values on others, you are the greatest of hypocrites. It is my hope that a moral Atheist, after reading this, is inclined to reexamine the foolishness of his or her moral behavior, because time is quickly running out to fill his or her life with things that are most important to the individual—toys, wealth, friends, and lovers, whatever. If there is no final judgment and no great morning somewhere in glory after you die, it is time, my unbelieving friend, for you to live, act, and think how you want to, not as others tell you. If there is only now, morality is just a barrier against your personal rights as evolved goo to do whatever you are strong enough or smart enough to impose on others—or simply get away with. Those who are brave enough will break free and be free indeed. Free from the moral dictates of men like Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris who, as if gods, try desperately to impose their crutch of morality and reasons for it on you, the disciples of their Atheistic faith.

So if my morals are mine and your morals are yours, who are you or I to impose those on each other or anyone else? What gives us the right to force our morality on our evolved equals? Perhaps there was a time in the life of Genghis Khan when he wondered if he had the right to impose his will on others, but it is certainly obvious that if he did, he soon got over it, and rightly so. He went on to conquer the world as he chose, not as others dictated. It is time for the moral Atheist of today to get over their commitment to morality as well.

Open your foolishly moral eyes, unbelievers. The world awaits your self-gratification. If you are brave enough, strong enough, and smart enough, it is time to take what could be yours. You have everything to gain—if there is no God.

I am fully aware and accept this thought will not feel right with most folks who consider it, because somewhere inside them is a feeling that living as I just expressed would not be right. In fact, most would probably feel wrong to think and act like that, but why? If there is no God and if this life is all there is, I submit that even the feeling of right and wrong would not exist, for the existence of our conscience depends on the existence of the Creator who created it. Sam Harris, of course, disagrees.

"Questions of well-being run deeper than any explicit code of morality. Morality—in the terms of consciously held precepts, social contracts, notions of justice, etc.—is a relatively recent development…However, any biological changes that served to mitigate the internecine misery of our ancestors would fall within the scope of an analysis of morality as a guide to personal and collective well-being. To simplify matters enormously,

1. Genetic changes in the brain give rise to social emotions, moral intuitions and language.

2. These allowed for increasingly complex cooperative behavior, the keeping of promises, concern about one’s reputation, etc.

3. Which becomes the basis of cultural norms, laws, and social institutions whose purpose has been to render this growing system of cooperation durable in the face of countervailing forces.

Some version of this progression has occurred in our case, and each step represents an undeniable enhancement of our personal and collective well-being."⁵

This Darwinian assumption/conclusion should rightly be followed with, And I know I am right, because I do not believe in God, but I have to explain the existence of our conscience and morality somehow.

Harris presents his conclusion as if it is empirically defendable. Rather, it is a conclusion that presupposes its truth—which is the very thing that Atheists accuse Christians of doing—and because, as Harris further elaborates, most beliefs are evaluated against a background of other beliefs and often in the context of an ideology that a person shares with others…people are rarely as open to revising their views as reason would seem to dictate.⁶ In other words, Harris, by his own definition, is predisposed to believe conclusions biased toward Darwinism. He tends to agree with like-minded individuals and prefers moral Atheism even though when taken to its logical conclusion, it is an unreasonable way to live.

Some may ask about high-risk behavior that could lead to social chaos rather than communion. Isn’t it better to act with moral concern toward others, just because? Let’s consider this hypothetical situation. What if you were interested in your neighbor’s husband? Chances are that interest could lead to flirtations, which might lead to more involvement, which might lead to someone getting hurt emotionally, physically, or both. Just because you think George is cute does not mean his wife, Martha, would agree to you two having a dinner date every Friday—even if you were Atheists and believed your neighbors’ morals were their morals, and your morals were yours. In fact, as we all know from a hundred episodes of the Dateline television show, if you and George become involved, there is a chance Martha might end up being the prime suspect in George’s disappearance. So yes, high-risk behavior could definitely lead to bad consequences. Risk versus reward is something that has to be considered in any life decision we make, regardless of whether God exists. However, if God does not exist and if George, the neighbor, interests you, there is nothing wrong with your thoughts of a possible fatal attraction. The fact that Martha probably would not like your advances toward George should logically be of no concern to you. If you and Martha are both just female animals in the herd and you win over George, so what? Why is it wrong for you to manipulate your world to serve your own selfish interests, why is that morally wrong instead of intellectually clever or simply natural instinct? If there is no moral lawgiver above you, George, and Martha, your moral decision to chase George is