"Good God, woman, I used my thumb!"

Saturday, April 08, 2006

The Irrationality of Athiesm

This is from our friend Ben. He has something to say.

--
How many times have we been treated to atheistic commentary on religion as a "disease"? How many times have atheists in the media described religion as "irrational" and "anti-intellectual" and "evil"? Again and again, this crowd asserts the non-existence of God and proclaims the status of humans as "intelligent animals." Well, some appear to be more intelligent than others, and here's one reason why:

If these people truly had the courage of their convictions, then they would cease lambasting religion, because they would realize that religion is a behavior. We "intelligent animals" display many behaviors, and without God as a cause, all of our behaviors must be analyzed in the
same fashion as all animal behaviors - natural responses to the pressures of the environment.

Raccoons wash their food; badgers don't. Bowerbirds build complex nests; cuckoos don't. I go to Church; Richard Dawkins doesn't. To the atheist and strict Darwinist, behaviors carry no moral component. I don't happen to reproduce by laying eggs inside the body of another creature, nor do I kill my mate at some point in our courtship ritual - but if I did, to the atheist, such a behavior should be neither right nor wrong. It would simply exist, a natural response of animals to the pressure imposed upon them by the randomly produced environment.

So why do some atheists object so strongly to the practice of religion? Might they just as reasonably object to the dances of bees and songs of birds? I think so. It is because we do not always immediately understand the natural purpose of animal behavior that it exists as a field of study. If the lion is observed killing lion cubs, behaviorists relying on strict Darwinism do not call the lion "evil", and if several lions display the same behavior, the Darwinists do not presume it is a case of mass delusion affecting these lions. Instead, they study the behavior to find its natural cause and purpose. For certain they do not object to the behavior itself. Consider an op-ed piece written to decry infanticide among lions. Non-sensical, eh?

When human behavior is the topic, however, all such objectivity is lost. People who claim to believe in a universe governed by random chance in which the natural world of both physiologies and behaviors arises through the action of this randomness - these same people now attach a moral dimension to behaviors, if they are human. Certain things are "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", despite the obvious fact that if human beings are mere animals, the products of evolution, our behaviors are no more right nor wrong than the behaviors of any other organism.

Consider, if you will, the war between the red ant and the black ant. Would we think it odd if the Darwinistic biologist took sides? Of course. Why then, do we not find it terribly odd if the biologist chooses sides in a human war? To him, both are natural, the competition between organisms for resources-or at least, they should be. It seems to me that it is atheists, especially those who are constantly invoking Darwin, who are often irrational when they comment on human activites, especially religion. For someone who professes to believe in the random origins and complete lack of meaning of the universe and life to simultaneously judge some human behaviors "right" or "wrong" seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home