Existence is Futile
Every true Trekkie, at least the TNG sort anyway, will tell you that the turning point for Star Trek: TNG came with the introduction of the Borg. Before those cybernetic aliens graced the sci-fi scene, TNG was just….well, blah. We, the viewers, needed a real villain, something to make us feel that the crew of the Enterprise didn’t have to win. And, of course, even non-trekkies can quote the infamous “Resistance is futile” line. That phrase summed up how most story lines when with the Borg. Practically everybody, including the great Jean-Luc Picard, had felt the sting of defeat before the Borg. It was that line that helped make the series what it was. Resistance is futile.
In last week’s post, I talked about how the absence of God leaves us without ultimate value, morals, or purpose. While I’m writing this week’s ahead of time, I’m guessing that the atheists in my readership might already have a response ready. Namely, they will be very quick to point out that a negative consequence doesn’t make a belief wrong. They’re right about this. Some of us have had to accept the hard facts of a very sad afterlife for those we love, but we do not throw out our entire faith simply because of negative consequences.
What I’d like to challenge atheists to do, though, is to live their lives consistently in light of atheism. Or, actually, let me take that back. Please, atheists, don’t live out your lives in light of the absence of God. The chaos, carnage, and despair would be horrendous. Devorah Hilsenrath, a survivor at Auschwitz said: “”In Auschwitz, the Nazis interpreted the [Ten] Commandments backwards.” In Auschwitz, a swift murder was almost merciful. Starvation and cruelty were commonplace. Dr. Josef Mengele, the so-called “Angel of Death” was especially known for his cruelty, even performing vivisections on pregnant Jewish women.
There isn’t much difference between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Consider Richard Wurmbrand‘s experiences at the hands of Russian torturers:
“What the communists have done to Christians surpasses human understanding….I have seen communists whose faces while torturing believers shone with rapturous joy. They cried out while torturing the Christians, ‘We are the devil! There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.’ I heard one torturer say, ‘I thank God in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to see this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.’”
In a prison in the USSR, Wurmbrand met men who had seen their children murdered before their eyes, simply for refusing to renounce Christ. Christians were crucified and made to eat and drink excrement and urine in mockery of Communion. But, if atheism is true, none of these snippets of history should really make you cringe. You see, if there is no Divine Lawgiver, there is nothing wrong with what happened to these men and women. This entire planet is Auschwitz. This entire planet is Soviet Russia. Everything is permitted, provided you can get the government to make it legal.
Atheists don’t behave this way, though. In fact, I know plenty of atheists that are very moral people. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both have a very strong sense of morality. I once sat in on a talk Hitchens gave about the dangers of Islam in Western countries, and I actually applauded at the end. He recognized the atrocities that come with an Islamic state, and he wants nothing of it for America. The man told of nearly winding up in a concentration camp himself for daring to mark out a Nazi swastika graffiti. He knows right from wrong, but is painfully ignorant of the fact that he has no grounds for condemning the actions of militant Islam. Dawkins is no better, stating that there is no absolute morality, only “pitiless indifference”, only to turn around and condemn religious instruction as child abuse.
This is all rather embarrassing for the thinking atheist. Bertrand Russell was opposed to war and sexual restrictions, but wrote that he could not live as though ethics were a matter of opinion. In light of atheism, he found his moral sense to be incredible, saying “I do not know the solution.” Nietzsche believed in living beyond good and evil, yet he condemned anti-Semitism. In 1991, Dr. L. D. Rue addressed the AAAS on the topic of morality, saying that humanity had only three options. We can turn the world into a madhouse, living only for self. We can turn to benevolent dictators for safety, or we can choose to believe what he called “the Noble Lie.” Rue said that we must believe in respecting human life and rights in order to trick ourselves into doing good for someone other than ourselves.
In the end, it’s impossible to truly live out atheism in all of its ugliness. While atheists are right in pointing out that a negative result is not proof that a belief or philosophy is wrong, they have a very difficult time living life in light of God’s absence. Christianity is a far superior belief system in terms of morality and rights. It provides us with a God Who reigns and loves us, and a Heaven to belong in when this life is done. I’ll be getting to arguments for Theism a little later, but for now let us at least agree that we’ve identified the implications of either belief system. Existence is either meaningful or futile.
2 Comments »
Leave a Reply
-
Archives
- July 2010 (4)
- June 2010 (3)
- May 2010 (1)
- April 2010 (2)
- March 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (2)
- January 2010 (2)
- December 2009 (3)
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (4)
- June 2009 (13)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Horsepucky.
Sorry, but it is. Keep in mind that morality and ethics alter through time, and certainly between cultures and societies across the board. It was morally sound not very long ago to own and keep slaves, remember, and the bible has lots to say about the benefits of having them, and how well they ought to be treated. Still, we don’t buy into that now do we? No, because it’s criminal to treat people like property. The very idea is appalling.
You cannot with complete and total assurance say, “Christianity has the moral high ground and we’re exactly right” — what Christianity has is popularity and power to create a morality that exists independently of countries and state lines.
It’s a morality and style of ethics that will try to claim an exemption every time a court of law tries to lay a law down that Christians don’t like – whether it’s gay marriage or the right to abortion or assisted suicide, or whatever the current big issue is. Then it’s nothing at all to do about ethics or morals or any of that bible stuff, no matter how much official voices might cry out that it is.
What it’s really about is the power and who gets control over the hearts and minds of the people. The Church, by god, wants it. Who cares if it makes for inequality and injustice, unwanted children and second class citizens? The Bible said it was wrong 2000 years ago so it’s still wrong now? End of story?
Move with the times, I say. You want to add meaning to existence? Then make damn sure everyone’s existence means something. Don’t pretend you love gays when deep down you’re glad they’re going to hell. Don’t say you love all the little children in the world and then stand silent as priests and pastors everywhere are making headlines in abuse cases. Don’t say you want to feed the world but then only give food to the ones willing to listen to a solar bible while they chew. Everyone deserves the right to their own lives, their own choices, their own bodies. Everyone.
And while you’re at it, quit comparing atheists to Nazis. That’s just plum stupid, and it’s been done to death already.
So methinks you missed the whole point of the post, possibly because you have an axe to grind with some of the things Christians have done wrong. Did I ever say that Nazis were atheists? No. My point, sir (or ma’am?, I’m afraid I don’t know your gender), is that, given atheism, there’s nothing really wrong with the Holocaust, or Communist Russia, or OT slavery, or even abusive priests for that matter. There’s nothing right about those things, either, but the closest you can really get is to say that abuse by priests is illegal. Who are you to judge another person’s actions if that person’s society said it is ok? You blast the church for meeting physical needs in the hopes of evangelizing, opposing abortion and gay marriage, etc., but you have no basis for doing so unless you have an objective basis for morality. If all you can do is appeal to the State, you have a subjective basis of morality incapable of judging something another culture in another time has condoned or condemned.