In response to atheistic claims on God being evil and obnoxious, I have often heard the response, “On what grounds do you condemn God?”. I used to think the question of where the atheists’ morality come from is far too philosophical and ethereal to be of any real significance. The theist would argue that there are objective moral laws and that objective moral laws would require an objective moral law giver, which would be God but such a framework does not exist within atheism.
The more I consider this question however, the more I think the tangible implications of the atheistic world view could be far reaching and have real world impact. I think atheists have very subtly colonised and usurped moral grounds which the basis of their world view does not afford them.
In the Darwinian framework where the strong flourish and the weak die off in light of limited resources due to the brutal process of natural selection, where the aim is survival (which is an individualistic end), where does sympathy for the weak and oppressed come from?
But strangely, when atheists come to criticise the Bible, all of a sudden they become human activists moved with compassion for their fellow men; the Bible endorses slavery! they say, the Bible tramples on women and treats them as second class citizens! they say, the Bible endorses rape! they say, the Bible recommends execution of homosexuals! they say. But to do this is to make certain assumptions which they take for granted…to wit, “Slavery is wrong!”, “Women are equal to men in every conceivable way”, “Oppression is wrong!”, “A woman has rights to her own body!” and “human life has value and should be respected!”.
Quick question, where the hell has all of this come from? Charles Darwin borrowing from Empedocles had condemned weakness. the weak were destined to die off, the strong were to flourish and this is the way of the world. If this is the case, is it not fitting, yea even the natural state of affairs that weaker human beings be enslaved or exterminated by higher ones? Was this not the principle that drove Empires of old during the days of conquest? Did Aristotle, before the advent of Christianity, not state that some men are born slaves and it is thus fitting for them to remain slaves? If human beings descended from apes and are no different from any other species, why is human life more precious than those of any other species?
The very assumptions underpinning the atheists’ critique would have been laughed at in the Roman Empire where the weak were crushed without mercy. Rome’s lordship over its subjects was to be enforced through ruthless oppression. The men in Rome were allowed to use at their pleasure any of the orifices (holes or openings) of their slaves, male and female, without question and a man had the legal right to kill his sons if they angered him. Emperors, like Nero, could, on a whim, order women (even those of the Aristocrat) to prostitute themselves for the pleasure of the entire kingdom.
What is the roadmap from Darwinist tenets to sympathy for mankind and emancipation from slavery? If weakness is to be crushed and sympathy non existent, why does the atheist care about the Holocaust? or slavery? On what ground is it wrong? Remember Nazism, using Darwinism as its base, had as its aim, the elimination of weaker races so that the strong super races could flourish. Christianity was the one thing that ideologically stood in its way, Bible verses about charity to the poor and non-oppression of the weak was the one contradiction to Nazism. So much so that Hitler remarked,
“The Mohammedan religion would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”
On what ground can the atheist condemn Hitler’s mentality? The best refutation it might be able to offer is that Hitler had no evidence that the Jewish race were the weaker race or that Germans were the super race. Other than that, it is difficult to argue against his actions based purely on atheism.
The concept of “universal human rights” might pose a garrison from which the atheist may oppose Hitler (or condemn slavery or oppression of women or the sanctity of human life) but what is the basis of universal human rights? Surprise surprise, it is scripture! Universal human rights only work on the basis that God created all human beings in His own image and likeness. America got it right when its declaration of independence states that these rights have been given to men “by their creator”,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Women’s rights and claim to equality again have scriptural basis as scripture records that God created both male and female in His image. This is the basis of the claim, even in the days of Augustine and Aquinas, Christians advocating against the mainstream denigration of women (admittedly by fellow Christians), had been making.
“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
This is the rationale for human beings having sanctity of life and having rights solely on the basis of being human. It was on this very basis that Christians spearheaded the abolition of slavery in the US and in Europe. In fact it took some serious convincing for Muslim nations (like Morocco and the Ottoman Empire) to abolish slavery and they were the last to do so precisely because they do not have or share this Biblical view of humanity based on Genesis.
The atheist might argue that morality has evolved from within the human race as everything else but it would seem civilisations which are not Christian in outlook have for some reason missed this memo.
Citizens of western nations look to Shariah countries for example and kick up a fuss about how women are treated or death for apostates or persecution of those who change their religion or criticise the government. They superciliously deem the culture barbaric but in the same breath mock Christianity which are the basis of the values upon which they judge other nations. If these “universal human rights” and “oppression” as defined by the west were traits that had evolved alongside morality, why is it that for some reason, civilisations which are not predominantly Christian in outlook do not seem to share these values?
A tangible evidence of this was the very fallacious assumption of George Bush that the middle east believed in the same values as the west and if Iraq’s oppressive government was toppled, its citizens’ hearts would melt and western values which would flourish there-in. This however proved to be “Alice-in-Wonderland-esque” thinking. America invaded and what was the result? flipping ISIS!
Same can be said of communist regimes where oppression, deaths and deprivation of basic human rights are the order of the day. Why have they not partaken of this moral evolution? remember these are atheistic governments! These are civilisations which partake of the bread and wine of evolution on the table of Darwin.
Once again, I return to this very pressing issue. On what Darwinist basis, drawing purely on the atheistic framework, can anything be condemned as evil? On what basis can slavery be condemned? On what basis can Hitler be condemned? On what basis does human life have value over and above any living thing if it originated from a mindless process of the universe and is ultimately heading into the dark abyss of nothingness? On what ground can an atheist have sympathy for fellow men which they are not related to or even know at all? Why is the western notion of morality not shared by nations in which Christianity has not taken root? Why is it not shared in Communist regimes?
The simple answer is this, the standards by which atheists judge God and morality are themselves Christian.
In conclusion, there is no roadmap to concern for oppression or human life or human liberty from Darwinism. The truth is the west and the world in general is so steeped in Christianity that it has taken certain facts for granted (which are not so taken in Communist or Shariah jurisdictions) so much so that the atheist can lay claim to these without needing to prove why their world-view sustains it. This is only further proof of how deep the teachings of Christ has sunk its tentacles into western civilisation.
The point of this article is to make atheists, to borrow a woke term, “Do the work!”, make them show their workings, make them justify their moral stances rather than taking them for granted based on western civilisation. I really want to know what the road map is from Darwinism to the morality upon which they deem God, Christianity and Hitler wrong or abhorrent.