Review of "Good without gods" by QualiaSoup

This is a review of the YouTube video "Good without gods", posted by QualiaSoup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

This video is an attempt to demonstrate why god/religion is not required for morality. Instead, the author asserts that morality can be derived and defended on purely scientific means. How successful is he? Let's take a look at his assertions:

First of all, he defines what morality is "not" based on. He states that morality cannot be based on:

• Power -- power often turns on the weak
• Majority Preference -- the majority can be wrong
• Tradition -- because it's always been done that way doesn't make it right
• Law -- laws can be wrong

The author and I agree on all of these points, so we'll move on.

From here, the author posits six different thought experiments. He describes six different societies, each with a unique moral anomaly. From these, he attempts to glean some type of moral insight.

In Society 1 (Soc1), all children are thought to be witches. These infernal kids are blamed for natural disasters and other evils that plague the society. They are punished, and some are perhaps even killed by their parents because of this belief.

Obviously, this belief is not correct, and so, claims the author, we see that bad morals can be the result of a false view of nature. When the society learns that natural disasters are caused by purely physical processes, then there is no need to inappropriately punish the children for being witches. In this view, moral responsibility is the difference between education and ignorance.

The author explicitly states, "Education, especially in science is crucial to moral progress." One has to wonder how he came to this view, as his statement is not scientifically defensible! Furthermore, education implies a teacher--the statement contains an implicit appeal to authority (something the author will later deny is an acceptable means of deriving moral principles).

The author then claims that his example is analogous to homosexuality. Homosexuality, he says, is not a moral issue because it results in no intrinsic harm.

Let's pause right here to take issue with this last statement. A simple internet search quickly led to an article where a group of homosexual activists admit that there are many different health consequences directly connected to their lifestyle. (http://www.drwalt.com/blog/?p=597) These consequences range from an decrease in lifespan of about 20 years, a suicide rate 2 to 14 times that of the general population, higher rates of anal cancer for homosexual and bisexual men, and increased breast cancer rates for lesbians.

Some articles revealed by the search attributed the increased negative consequences to societal attitudes toward homosexuals; however, of the issues listed above, only the increase in suicide rates can be linked in any way to the attitudes of others. So the claim  that homosexual behavior results in no intrinsic harm is debatable at best, and blatantly false at worst. And therefore, by the author's own standard, homosexual behavior would be an immoral activity. In his own words, "knowing better leaves us no excuse for not doing better."

The author quite rightfully slams those who profess to be Christians while using hateful rhetoric against homosexuals. Jesus never used scorn against sinners--except for the self-righteous religious leaders of the day. He was quite acid-tongued with them!

Now it's quite possible that the author might disagree with me; he might even find another study which counters the claims above. As Christian Apologist Frank Turek is fond of saying, "science doesn't say anything... scientists do!" It is certainly possible for different scientists, given the same data, to arrive at differing conclusions, based on their own experience, preconceptions, and opinions.

We are then left with a dilemma... whom do we trust? At this point, both sides are using an appeal to authority. It seems that we are left at an impasse. Each of us can give reasons (although our author does not do so) to support our position. Each of us have access to scientific facts and authorities. How then shall we decide what the "moral" position is?

The author seems not to realize that the fundamental question that morality seeks to answer is "what ought men to do?"  Science cannot provide this answer. It can tell us how the universe works, but not how it ought to work. How does one arrive at an "ought" from a discipline that tells us what "is"?

The author correctly states that "dehumanizing people erodes sympathy" and reduces the guilt felt by those who abuse others. He uses as an example the Nazi's view of the Jews as "vermin" or the view of religious people of the non-religious as "degenerate hell-fodder". (Now while it may be true that some "religious" people view the non-religious in this way, I have yet to meet one who truly follows Christ that sees them without empathy. Before meeting Jesus, we were in the same condition as they. This at its core is either a misunderstanding of true Christianity, or a straw-man argument.)

But the author is correct in his premise; dehumanizing people results in dire consequences. However, he has neglected to provide any way in which science or atheism establishes the value of human beings, or a basis for the guilt an abuser should feel. According to naturalistic Darwinism, mankind is nothing more than a collection of animated matter; our mind, including our hopes, dreams, emotions, etc. are just an extended biochemical reaction happening in our brains. How then has a man any more value than a volcano? Science has no answer. Therefore on atheism, his premise has no foundation. To define "dehumanizing", one must first define the value of being "human", and explain why that value should inspire sympathy or empathy. It is science, separated from God, that truly removes value from humans.

Now this is not the intent of science. Science is a simply a search for knowledge. However, by reducing humanity to nothing more than atoms and biochemical processes, the author triggers the Law of Unintended Consequences and destroys the basis for human value.

To further establish the relationship of knowledge and morality, the author (again correctly) states that children who don't understand that it's improper to write on walls are not morally deficient when they do so. Then he continues with the absurd analogy of a cat that doesn't understand that it's improper to eat mice.

What is a cat supposed to eat... lettuce?? It's a cat's nature to eat mice!

In Society 2 (Soc2), the author posits a single authority figure who establishes the following two laws:

1. All who harm others will be punished.
2. You will not be punished for harming others.

Obviously, these two laws are contradictory, resulting in a set of laws that cannot be rationally enforced. According to the author, this disproves an egocentric basis of morality. It is therefore rationally consistent to have basic prohibitions against causing needless harm to others.

But one must ask, who is this posited authority figure? The author never explicitly identifies them . If the authority is another person, then the laws are indeed inconsistent, but how does this disprove an egocentric system, which by definition concerns the self, not an external authority? If the authority is one's self, then the laws are perfectly consistent. It is perfectly understandable that one would want both to be free from punishment for their own actions while wanting others to be punished for harming oneself! One does not enjoy being harmed, nor does one enjoy punishment. It is reasonable to desire exemption from both.

Society 3 (Soc3) permits literacy only for males. Females are arbitrarily forbidden from reading and writing. This law exists without any valid justification; it's only purpose is to keep females subservient to males. As previously discussed, lack of education increases one's vulnerability to abuse.

The author claims that this policy is unjust, even if most women agree to the policy. Their lack of literacy and education reduces their capacity for informed consent. This leads one to question whether informed consent to an immoral act renders the act moral!

We will have more to say about this society later.

In Society 4 (Soc4) all criminals are executed, even for petty crimes such as jaywalking. Such a policy is flawed because it rewards the jaywalker for killing those who witness their crime.

By positing this universe, the author affirms the Law of Unintended Consequences. It seems that Soc4 desires to create a perfect society; however, their ultra-draconian policies actually has the potential to result in an increase in murder.

The author's conclusions of the end result of such a policy are correct. This is not a society in which you would want to live. And so, we agree that punishment should fit the crime.

Smiling on Tuesday is forbidden by law in Society 5 (Soc5). The law is totally arbitrary, and can be changed by the authority in power on a whim. These conditions are becoming more and more familiar, as the United States enacts laws, and then immediately grants immunity from those laws to select groups of people.

We have agreed with the author that law is an insufficient basis for morality; indeed, morality is the basis for law. No harm is caused by being friendly on a specific day of the week, so there is no harm caused by this "crime". And so we see, reiterates the author, that an appeal to authority is no basis for morality.

In his words, "We don't base morality on revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behavior is doing what's right, not what we're told, unless doing what we're told is also what's right."

But the question then becomes, "how does one know what is right?"  In the author's opinion, it seems that one can learn how one ought to live by science and logic. If I disagree with him, then by what authority shall he convince me? He is certainly entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine. If I believe that morality is best learned by scripture, or by astrology, or by the luck of the draw, how shall he convince me that his ideas are better than mine? By using logic? Science? Then he is begging the question.

Implicit in his statement is the assumption that "right" and "wrong" exist as moral categories. I happen to agree with him; however a professing atheist with whom I am acquainted denies the existence of such categories, at least in an objective sense. As a theist, I believe that some actions are more right than others, and that there is an objective standard by which all actions may be judged; namely the character of God. An action is right that aligns with what God would do in a given situation, and wrong if it does not. The author of our video does not define explicitly what makes an action "right" or "wrong", but simply says that we can learn morality through science and reason.... a position that we both hold. In the end, however, one is left wondering how the author justifies the existence of such concepts.

And so we have three different views of morality from three different people. And it's quite possible, that you, the reader, disagree with all of us! And so it seems that humans are certainly disqualified as moral authorities... we can't even agree on whether morality even exists!

The author then extrapolates from this example to say that an appeal to scripture is an insufficient basis for morality, because that constitutes an appeal to an authority.

Now it's clear that if the authority is arbitrarily selected, then this is true. I know nothing about the inner workings of the space shuttle; it would be most foolhardy to consider me an authority on such a topic. And so, the author uses different evidence, and still concludes what we have just shown; that men are not sufficiently knowledgeable of morality to be an appropriate authority!

Morality deals with "oughts"... what ought men to do... what ought men not to do. In fact, the entire video is one man's opinion. This entire blog post is also one man's opinion. In many ways, our opinions are diametrically opposed to each other, but we do agree on one thing--all men are created... or evolved... as equals. Whose standard shall we choose?

But what if there is an an appropriate authority? If you want to know something about the Star Wars universe, you would be perfectly justified to ask George Lucas. If you want to know how far Spiderman can shoot a web, it would be appropriate to ask Stan Lee. Why? Because they created their respective universes!

Likewise, if there is a creator of our own universe, (and more importantly, of us), it is most appropriate to consult that creator on how men should behave.

The author claims that when we have "valid reasons" for morality, then holy books and gods are not necessary. But from where would such valid reasons come? From science? Science can tell us the operating principles of a handgun, the ballistic characteristics of it ammunition, and what will happen if you were to shoot someone at a distance of 15 yards. It is utterly incapable of telling you whether you should do so!

What about logic? Is it moral to carry a weapon for protection? Some people refuse to carry a gun, even when stepping into a situation known to be dangerous. Others practically refuse to leave their home unless armed. Both would use logic to defend their positions. Clearly, logic alone is insufficient to tell us what we should do.

Because morality deals with people and relationships, it seems reasonable that only a person is capable of making a moral judgement. Inanimate objects do not care about morality. Rocks do not care if they are used to build a hospital wall, or to stone someone to death. Ropes do not care if they are used by a search and rescue team to save a drowning swimmer or by a lynch mob to hang their victim. Similarly, neither science nor logic are persons; what do they have then to tell us about right and wrong?

To be clear, science and logic have their place in discovering what is right and what is wrong, but they are an insufficient basis for morality. There must be something more.

And so, we have established, in agreement with the author, that humans are an insufficient basis for morality. But in opposition to the author, I contend as well that science and logic are insufficient because they are not persons. But if morality must be grounded in a person, but cannot be grounded in a human, what person is left, but God?

In Society 6 (Soc6), feeding chocolate to others, or using green paint is forbidden. This seems to fall under the conditions of Soc5, until you learn that the members of this society are intolerant to chocolate, which is fatal to them, and green paint can only be made with a rare substance that is also used to make a life-saving medicine.

From this, the author asserts that morality can be based on different circumstances. In our society, both of these actions are perfectly acceptable, but here, they are rightfully restricted.

So what are we to make of this? He reminds us that branding children as witches is "categorically wrong", because that's due to bad education, and should not be respected a cultural truth. But, he claims:

moral awareness takes some time to develop in individuals and in societies. Both individuals and societies develop at different rates. Some cultures believe in magic, homophobia, animal cruelty, sexism, racism. Others outgrow magic, but still believe in the others. Some have outgrown all of these, and now focus on "bigger issues" such as population issues, pollution reduction, sustainable energy, etc.

As a side note, notice how he equates racism and sexism, which deal with prejudice due to a persons unalterable physical traits, to the poorly and inaccurately named homophobia, which deals with disapproval of a person's actions. I've never understood why these two should be associated together!

So what is the point of Soc6? The author seems to claim that morality can be different between cultures because of different environments, or different levels of "moral awareness".

But is this really the case? In our society, chocolate is a treat. But what is it in Soc6? It's a poison! In our own society, we frown on people feeding arsenic to others. I've heard that anti-freeze is sweet to the taste, but I'm not going to give it to my child as a beverage! Perhaps they're not so different from us after all!

And if a person is "less morally advanced", then does that make them subject to a different morality, or are they subject to a moral principal that they have not yet discovered? If Culture A does not view animal cruelty as wrong, but Culture B (that, according to the author, is more morally aware) views it as a heinous crime, then is the action wrong for a person in the first culture but right for a person in the second? If a person from the second went to live in the first society, would it, or would it not be moral to beat animals for fun?

It seems that moral awareness should not equate to moral responsibility. If it is wrong to be cruel to animals, should it not be wrong for all persons everywhere, regardless of their unawareness of the immorality of such cruelty? While unawareness may lessen the person's punishment, their action seems to point out a need for education, not a lack of a moral law governing their behavior.

This implies again that morality is something that is discovered, not something that is devised or developed.

The author then sums up his findings. He states that there is nothing arbitrary about:

• Improving Education
• Graduating punishment
• Prohibiting needless harm
• Recognizing differences
• and Cultivating attitudes of cooperation and compromise (despite competing interest)

Which results in coexistence with minimal suffering.

All of these things sound good, and are honorable goals, but these things show us how to discover moral law; they do not explain why such a law exists in the first place.

He claims that the "worry that without religion or gods, we've no basis on which to discuss morality is without foundation." but is this the case? In his view where does morality originate?

It can't be in men; we've both ruled out humans as a valid basis for morality using two different arguments. Science and logic, although useful to discover moral laws, seem a poor candidate to be the origin of moral law.


So are moral laws simply abstract objects, such as numbers? If so, then they exist necessarily... their existence is not contingent on the existence of any other being or object. But if that's true, then it seems that the universe was expecting rational creatures who could discover such moral laws. But atheistic, materialistic Darwinism claims that evolution could have produced beings vastly different from ourselves, or (what is more likely) no beings at all! Why would these abstract moral laws exist if the odds were staggeringly high against any creature arising who could discover them?

What's left then? From where then can such a standard originate?


We've seen that neither man, matter or abstract moral laws cannot explain why morality exists. To explain the why behind morality, you have to assume a moral authority; someone who is capable of explaining why the universe works the way it works (just like you need George Lucas to explain Star Wars). Someone who is a qualified authority to whom we can appeal. God, as the creator of the universe, fits this criteria nicely.

The standard must be a person, because morality deals with behavior; what men ought to do or ought not to do. Only a person has the capacity to care about matters like this! Again, God is a qualified candidate.

You have to have someone transcendent to man. Man cannot be the basis of morality, because one man's opinion or interpretation of scientific data is as valid as that of another man. (That is not to say that either of them are true. However, to say that one is true and one is not, is to say that there is an external standard of truth by which the opinions and interpretations of both men may be judged. This external standard is then the transcendent someone to which we refer.) God is again the only candidate uniquely qualified for this criterion.

The author says that moral judgment depends on reason and information. The better we understand how the universe works, the conditions under which life thrives, where responsibility lies, and the consequences of our actions, the better our moral judgment becomes. However, this again shows how one can discover morality, not why morality exists!

Furthermore, he is assuming reason exists without giving a basis for its existence. He simply expects us to believe that a bunch of hydrogen atoms bumping around at random eventually coalesced into larger atoms, these became soil and chemicals on a little, far-flung planet in a dusty corner of the Milky Way, and through some lucky accident, formed into a structure capable of replicating itself. Then somehow, with no directed guidance, no benefit of a designer, this odd little structure became capable not only of replicating, but of understanding the universe around it.

Now we all take reason for granted! Indeed, you can't even argue against reason, because you must use reason to do so, and the minute you open your mouth, you lose the debate! So reason obviously exists; that however is not my point. I'm questioning why reason exists! With astronomical odds against a self-replicating structure (life) ever forming in the first place, the odds against that structure becoming capable of reason without a designer to guide its development is unfathomable! Once again, it seems we need God (who was mind and reason before matter came into being in the big bang) to instill reason in his creation.

According to the video, moral choices are required for moral progress. In making these choices, religion needs science, but science doesn't need religion. So why involve religion in moral choices, when it has nothing to offer?

But as we've seen, science and reason may help you discover morality, but they are powerless to explain why morality exists! And if God created the universe, including humanity, and has expectations of how men should behave, and designed us to operate a certain way inside of this universe he created, then it seems logical that we should be interested in what he has to say on the matter. It is logical that science should be capable of revealing some of this moral law, because it would be woven into the very fabric of space-time that makes up our universe! But what science should not be able to tell you is why it is there; and we see that this exactly the case!

The author slams religion for attempting to control people by threats, fear, and irrationality, and that the goal of morality is to ease the challenges of coexistence. Unfortunately, he is partially correct regarding the behavior of the church; the church has often sought for earthly power, even though Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world. But what he fails to point out is that this is a folly common to humans, not just Christians and followers of other religions.

Instead, he claims, a more "appropriate and principled function for morality" is to "ease the challenges of coexistence." Interestingly, the author claims that we have transcended our (in his view) creator! Darwinism is not built on easing the challenges of coexistence, but on the survival of the fittest.

While is is true that the most "fit" organism is necessarily the stronger, the best fighter, or the most ruthless, it is also true that Darwinism makes no moral judgement against stronger organisms preying on the weaker. Indeed, if this is what makes an organism more fit, then it is to the benefit of the species that such things be left undisturbed.

The author states at the end of the video, "Our collective moral progress depends on the extent to which we are able and -crucially- WILLING to examine our behaviour and most cherished beliefs." Once again, I agree. I'm certain that, just as I cherish my belief in Christianity, the author enjoys his atheism, and is convinced that he believes the truth. As a Christian, I have done the hard work to examine my beliefs. I've considered whether other religions such as Islam or Buddhism might be the true religion, or whether there is any God or gods at all. In all of my search, Theism in general, and Christianity in particular have emerged as being the most consistent with the world I live in.

I had a college professor who said, "If you don't know where you're going, how will you know when you get there?", and "If you aim at nothing, you're sure to hit it!"  I would ask the author, to what exactly are we collectively progressing toward? Who determined what the goal was? How did they come to such a determination? Why do we want to get there?

Christianity doesn't answer the question "to what?"  Instead, it answers the question "to whom"? In Jesus Christ, we find the embodiment of love and moral perfection. As the unique incarnation of God in human flesh, he is the only person qualified to be the moral lawgiver. He is the standard, and He is our goal. He doesn't offer a rule book, but a relationship--an endless eternity getting to know an infinite God. We didn't choose the goal, He did. He designed us for this, and we demonstrate that need for relationship in our everyday lives with our own families and friends.

And so there you have the true function of morality... it's not just to ease coexistence... it's something much higher, and harder, than that. True morality demands that we love... not only our neighbors, but our enemies as well! It's a higher goal than mankind can attain! And so Jesus came to Earth, and demonstrated by living here as a human exactly what that kind of life looks like. And it's not always what you might think! Sometimes, it means you get angry, as he did in the temple at the moneychangers who were preying on the poor. Sometimes it means you speak plainly as he did to the pharisees. And sometimes, it means that you show compassion, as he did to those sick and needy.

This video is very well done, and the author's arguments are well presented, but any "morality" presented here is a pale imitation of the real thing.

Review: Stephen Maitzen – Can Theism Ground Morality?

An atheist friend that I chat with online directed me to search for this topic on Google:

CPBD 025: Stephen Maitzen – Can Theism Ground Morality?

My review of the interview that I found on YouTube is too long for me to post on the message board on which we chat, so I'm posting my findings here.


First of all, Maitzen professes to be a "former Christian"... however, he then admits "I was probably an atheist even when I was a professing Christian". This discredits any so-called profession of a conversion from Christianity to Atheism. How can one call oneself a Christian when you don't believe in God? So whatever he was, the fact that he went to church at a younger age is irrelevant  as it's been said, going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going into a a garage makes you a car!

A few general notes regarding the overall tone of the interview; first of all, Maitzen seems especially harsh toward Christianity. He presents a lot of negative evidence against Christianity, and in some few cases, theism in general, but not a lot of positive evidence for his own world view. Secondly, the vast majority of his arguments are specifically against straw-men that he has built as a caricature of the Christian faith.

On the Death of Children

His first major point is his claim that Christians should be happy when a child dies; perhaps they should even facilitate the child's death because this ushers them out of this, I think the term he uses is "concentration camps that is life on Earth" into the presence of God. He doesn't see Christians acting in this way, therefore Christianity is false.

Maitzen obviously hasn't been to a few of the funerals that I've attended. I have personally attended funerals where, while mourning our own loss of the fellowship of a loved one, the mourners broke into spontaneous praise for the God who has erased the suffering of the deceased, and given us assurance that death is not the end.

So, Maitzen's point, while correct in some few ways, is obviously not the whole story. Yes, when a child dies (or any Christian for that matter), a part of us rejoices for that person, even as we weep for ourselves! Christians do, and should, mourn the loss of an infant, but we have an assurance that no other group of people have... the assurance that our relationship with that child will be restored. This assurance is why we rejoice.

When my father passed away, I mourned his passing and the loss of his presence in my life, but I did not mourn for him. He was a very sick man in a lot of pain and discomfort. As he was a Christian, I rejoiced for him for he was no longer in pain, but you couldn't see it on my face because of my grief for myself.

To say that Christians should celebrate the loss of a child is true... but only to the extent that we rejoice for the child and his being present with God. That doesn't heal the loss that we experience personally, nor is it reason not to grieve.

This reason is multiplied when a child dies from neglect, abuse, abortion, or any other form of maltreatment at the hands of other humans. No Christian should celebrate sin at any time.

On Love and Free Will

His second point is this syllogism:

A. If God exists, then there would be no non-believers.
B. Non-believers exist.
C. THEREFORE: God does not exist.

Now a syllogism is only true if it's premises (A and B above) are true. Point B seems to be obviously true, but what of point A?

Maitzen states that if a perfectly loving God exists, and this God wants to relate with humans, then there would be no non-believers. In essence, he states that God would force us to recognize his existence because, being all-powerful he can do so, and being all-loving, he would do so.

Maitzen however ignores the proper definition of "love" in his argument. Love must be given, not demanded. For love to be real, it must permit the option not to love. You can have a robot wake you up in the mornings and say, "I love you, dear!", but it's meaningless! Why? The robot has no choice. It must follow it's programming. (As Maitzen seems to be a determinist, he probably feels this is true for humans as well, but I'll address this point later.) But when your three-year-old daughter climbs up in your lap, gives you a hug and a smile and says, "I love you!", it's priceless! That is love given freely!

So if God were to intrude into our lives and say, "I am GOD and you ARE GOING to love me!", then that "love" is meaningless, God becomes a dictator, and we become robots.

Instead, God says, "I love you, and I want your love in return." But because of the nature of love, He cannot demand our love. Therefore the premise A of the syllogism above is incorrect. God cannot force himself on us. Some of us have turned away from him to the point where we deny his existence so that we can ignore him. And because he desires love, not robots, he is not free to intervene to change that directly. He can place events and people in our lives to call us to himself, but he cannot change us directly.

Oddly enough, the movie "Bruce Almighty" got this point perfectly. When Jim Carrey's character takes over as God, he's told that "The one thing you can't do override someones free will." Carrey later laments to God, "How do I make someone love you if I can't interfere with their free will?"  God says something like, "If you find out, you tell me... I've been trying to do that for centuries!"

Love properly understood is a verb... not a feeling. It's committing to do what's best for an individual even at your own expense. It was love that drove Jesus to the cross... although it cost him everything, he willingly gave his all to die in our place. He did this freely... that's love from God to us. But what of love from us to God?

The late atheist, Christopher Hitchens stated that heaven would be hell to him because he wanted no part of it. Would a loving God force you into his presence when you did not want to be there? If we consistently in this life push God away and reject him, we are saying that we don't want his love, we don't want him, we don't love him, and we want nothing to do with him. As Frank Turek says, "If you don't want God in this life, then you will not want him in the next!" If you don't want him, God cannot force you to be with him and be a loving God, and so he cannot force you into Heaven!

On Morality

Maitzen then launches into an attack on Christian Morality. He asserts that Christians believe that killing a child is wrong because it brings harm to the child. But the child goes to Heaven, so isn't the child actually helped by being murdered? Therefore Christians who murder children would actually helping the child, and not sinning.

Again, this is a straw-man argument. Murder is wrong, not because of the harm it brings to the victim, but because it destroys a human being made in the image of God himself, and it usurps God's authority as the Giver and Taker of life in a manner not delegated to men by God.

Murder, indeed, all sin, is an offence against God. We see this illustrated in scripture where Jesus forgives sin. But many of those he forgave had never met this man called Jesus; how could he forgive them when they had never even been around him to sin against him? This enraged the religious leaders who said, "This man puts himself in the place of God!"

Exactly!

And being God, he could forgive sins against God.

He then asserts that God's perfection destroys moral responsibility. "Adding God to Morality turns Morality upside down!"

So, how does Maitzen arrive at his conclusion?

He claims that a good God could not allow suffering unless it was somehow for the sufferer's greater good. Therefore, Christians have no moral reason to prevent, and a moral commandment not to prevent suffering; anyone who attempts to relieve suffering is going against the will of God. Maitzen and the host claim that since Christians view the world as being in the control of a perfect being, then we have no obligation to relieve suffering!"

This argument is simply sophomoric. Did Jesus himself not alleviate suffering while he was here? Are we not commanded in scripture to help those in need?

The argument makes God the author of evil; classical theology views evil as the absense of Good, just as darkness is the absence of light. Maitzen's claims turn God into the enforcer and author of karma, which is not a Christian concept. Therefore, his entire argument is a straw man argument.

But that doesn't address why God allows evil to abound. Maitzen then begins a long discourse explaining why the Christian view that Free Will is the greatest good is incoherent. And his explanation is superb! He's exactly right... except for one important fact....

In Christianity, the greatest good is not Free Will... it's Love! Therefore, he again is raging against a straw man.

We've already seen how Free Will is required for Love to have meaning. Free will must exist if love is to exist.

On the Nature of Evil

The host then responds to Maitzen by saying that evil must be for a higher purpose. This is the old, "everything happens for a reason" claim, implying that God is behind every event, both good and evil. This view is not biblical.

The bible tells us that God cannot sin, cannot be tempted with sin, and is not the author of either sin or temptation. It never asserts that evil happens because God intends it for a higher purpose. What it does claim in Romans 8:28 is that "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

God doesn't cause evil, but he is able to work through evil to bring about good.

So why then does God not stop evil? I'm always curious to know if the person asking this question would be happy if God replied, "Okay... let's start with YOU! You want to listen to dirty jokes?  I'll take away your hearing so you can't sin in that way. You want to tell lies? Let's remove your ability to speak! You want to beat up on your wife and kids? I'll put you in a wheelchair!"

But again, that's not love, and it doesn't fix the problem. The problem is in the heart of men. The book of Jeremiah says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked..." (17:9)

Doctors who focus on treating symptoms instead of root causes lose a lot of patients. God wants to fix the root cause by transforming the heart of men by establishing a relationship with them. But because of the nature of love, he cannot force them to be a part of this relationship. It's their choice!

When a parent appropriately disciplines a child, he is showing love to that child. However, there comes a time when the parent must allow the child his freedom. One cannot live one's children's lives for them. If they choose to walk away from you and have nothing to do with you, do you really make any progress with them by having the police pick them up and bring them back to your house so that you can lock them away in the basement?  That's not love, and it's certainly not love being shown from the child to the parent.

Were God to override our will and change our hearts without our permission, then he is no better than this parent, and our response back to him is not love.

And so, Maltzen is outraged that God will not stop the torture of babies for fun. How would he have him do so? By killing or maiming the torturer? By forcing him to capitulate and overriding his free will, destroying all chance for the man to every know God in a true relationship of love?

And by what moral code does Maltzen judge God in this matter? Though he rages against the supposed immorality of God, he never establishes how morality exists in the first place! If it's simply his opinion that God should behave differently, then I daresay that you, I, or God himself can simply have another opinion?  Whose morality shall we follow?

On Free Will vs. Determinism

Maitzen also professes a belief in determinism, which is the only logical recourse for the atheist. He states that "determinism is compatible with our legal system", but free-will is not.

What??

Let's try to unpack this: Determinism, a philosophy that says that all of man's actions, thoughts, behaviors and desires are caused by material causes and free will is an illusion, is somehow compatible with our legal system? To believe this, one must believe:

1. "Criminals" cannot be "guilty" of the crimes they commit, because they had no choice.
2. Lawmakers had no choice but to make the laws they make.
3. Judges and juries have no choice but to rule the way they do.

So if criminals cannot be guilty, why not simply abolish all laws? Oh, wait, you would have to be pre-determined to do that...

In other words, the entire experience of our lives is something over which we have absolutely no control. You didn't choose what to have for breakfast this morning; that was predetermined, actually by the big bang. What was set in motion then will play itself out, and we're simply along for the ride. You are at the mercy of the biochemical reactions going off in your head.

What then, and what good then is consciousness? Life becomes nothing more than a roller-coaster careening wildly out of control to the whim of impersonal, uncaring, natural forces, headed toward oblivion and we have no choice but to watch without even the option to jump off, because even one's suicide would necessarily be a pre-determined action!

"Why" is a meaningless question, because the only answer the determinist can give is "because".

How then is this belief compatible with our legal system which is based on belief that men should behave in accordance with the law, and that society has the right to inflict punishment on them when they do not obey?

On Meaning and Morality

Maitzen asserts the existence of morality with no justification or basis for it. As a determinist, I can't imagine how the concept is even coherent with his position, but he seems to place some value in the concept of morality.

Regarding meaning, as in Ultimate Meaning, he says the concept is incoherent, we shouldn't seek it, we shouldn't want it.

He correctly understands that God has something to do with the end purpose of mankind and ultimate meaning as defined by the Christian faith, but his misses the mark.

Maitzen understands Christianity to assert that following God's commandments are the meaning of life and the end purpose of man. He is wrong. God Himself is the meaning of life and the end purpose of man. Man's highest purpose is to know God in a relationship, not simply to do what he says. The value of relationship is something that he ignores throughout the interview, and something as a former church-goer, he should have known.

In past conversations with atheists, they seem to agree that life is ultimately meaningless, but they do find meaning in relationships with their spouses, their children, their families. This should be a huge clue that ultimate meaning would also be relational.

But because God is an infinite being, it would take an eternity to fully come to know him in his infinity. This is exactly what the Christian faith teaches, that those who want to do so can spend an eternity in a relationship with an infinite God who loves them, and is in turn loved by them.

Maitzen's interpretation of Heaven is sitting around on a cloud, playing a harp, prasing and glorifying a narcissistic God. Unfortunately, popular media, and even some Christians, agree with this. But our main goal in Heaven is not to glorify God (even though we will), or to serve God (even though we will), but to know God.

In Summary

Maitzen is a professor of Philosophy of Religion. He states that the "Philosophy of Religion is too important to leave to the theist."  I'd love to ask him why he thinks so; after all, if our lives are predetermined, then I have no choice but to believe in Christianity, he has no choice but to be an atheist, and those he teaches have no choice but to believe what they believe. Then again, he would have no choice but to teach!

I have to ask myself if he believes he had a choice in coming to his deterministic position. If not, then the position is not one arrived at by considering the evidence, it's just his particular biochemical makeup. Why then should I believe anything he says, because none of it has been properly thought out. How are the results of his biochemical processes different than the patterns of sediment left on the streets after a muddy rain. No one would contend that these patterns had any meaning; why then should I trust the biochemical reactions of his brain?

Determinism leads to all sorts of absurdities, but is ultimately self defeating. If behavior is determined, then you can never know that, because your own thoughts are predetermined.

All in all, the interview was a sophomoric attack on Theism in general and Christianity in particular, built on straw man arguments, misconceptions and poor reasoning. I must thank Mr. Maitzen though; his fallacious arguments convinced me even more deeply that Christianity is true. Many of his objections would be fatal to other religions, but Christianity, properly understood, withstands every charge he lays against it.