Atheism is Morally Bankrupt

, we still must fault him for not furthering his case in a fashion that clarifies what he says in his original opening statements. As I said in my previous rebuttal: "Pro has not adequately presented a case that would establish the above proposition: 'Atheism is morally bankrupt. '" I made this claim to suggest that Pro's argument is not false because of the inadequacy of his case (i. e. , didn't define terms) but rather that because his argument isn't clear on the terms (yet to be understood) we are unable to accept his argument as affirming the proposition before us (because he is not clear). While this issue can easily be fixed, Pro has not fixed this problem even here in the second round. In his response (ii) he writes in affirmation of his original claim that "if God is dead, then morality that derives from God, which is all morality, is without foundation and must be rejected. " He says further that "[t]his claim is clearly affirmed by Marquis de Sade, Nietzsche, and Max Striner explicitly and Lenin and Margaret Sanger, at least in the quotes mentioned implicitly. .. " This was my point in responding to Pro as giving an Argument from Authority. I could care less what those men/women said on the subject of morality and its relationship with atheism, it does not add to the substance of (or even, probability of) accepting the proposition "Atheism is morally bankrupt. " Furthermore, to make this claim as well as affirm it is to go farther than merely quoting authorities on the subject (assuming for argument's sake that they are in fact authorities). Pro also says: "I content that nihilism is the only consistent morality of atheism. I contend that moral atheism cannot exist. " We appreciate Pro for merely stating this; although, he has demonstrated nothing thus far to have us accept this premise. Response (iii)In his response (iii), he claims: While Con has correctly identified my argument to be that atheism denies the ontological foundation for morality he has drawn a mistaken inference from my syllogism. In what way did I draw a mistaken inference? He says again: "My claim is not that 'atheists cannot know what is moral because they lack revelation', but that they cannot from their own philosophy justify the moral truths they claim to support. " If he thinks that I am in fact saying that, then it is Pro who is unfortunately mistaken. I am not even concerned with the epistemological claim (which he misunderstands in itself), and never even so much as claimed its relevance in this debate. He believes that he has not committed the genetic fallacy in his argument. I would have to say that this is so, contrary to Pro's belief. He has not shown, let alone argued, that other alternative explanations (natural as well as supernatural) apart from theism are impossible ontological foundations for morality. In a similar way, where Pro says (a) "it is the case that God is the transcendent foundation of morality" he is still logically saying (b) "it is not the case that not-God is the transcendent foundation of morality. " Why should we accept (a) if we aren't given restrictions, limitations/objections to (b)? Furthermore, I have defined atheism to be the doctrine that "it is not the case that there is a unique, necessary, eternal, immaterial, personal being who created the universe and who possesses all perfections - specifically omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence" (see my first rebuttal). Therefore, atheists can have a plethora of beliefs separate from other atheists (Buddhists, nihilists, existentialists, etc. ) and yet still be labeled as atheists. However, how does Pro's argument not commit the genetic fallacy if atheism were understood in that way? If he says:If one is an atheist (A), one lacks the ability to justify conventional morality. (C)Is he saying that the naturalist, the Buddhist, the nihilist, and the humanist (who are atheists) all "lack the ability to justify conventional morality"? Surely, his more naive definition of atheism as merely being "one who denies the existence of a deity" is not so fair a definition as the one I have used above in my first rebuttal - since I allow for the existence of nihilists to even moral atheists. However, jump ahead to Response (iv) to see Pro's treatment of this problem. He first says: "atheism cannot justify morality (which implies a naturalistic justification). " What Pro needs to understand is that although the naturalist is committed to atheism, the atheist is not committed to naturalism. So, atheism in fact does not imply naturalism or anything with a naturalistic justification. In fact, some of the non-theistic religions (e. g. , Jainism) actually hold an atheistic view of the world while maintaining the immortality of the soul and a grand cosmic plan of salvation. Again, I refer Pro to my definition of atheism I stated above. Louise Antony and the Naturalistic AlternativePro makes the following claim: Con cites Louise Antony and her argument that: "we as human beings have evolved in such a way so as to develop brains and nervous systems that support a psychology. " Now we have here a genuine genetic fallacy Mrs. Antony is giving a description of how our faculties might have developed and then concludes that the moral concepts generated by these evolutionary and cultural forces are true. This response is rather ignorant. From this statement alone that Pro has quoted, it cannot be deduced that she is describing how our faculties might have developed and thence conclude that moral concepts generated by evolutionary processes' are in fact true (that is jumping the conclusion a bit - a conclusion that is not even Antony's actual position). Furthermore, Antony's explanation can be taken as a mere possible solution to the challenge that no other alternative explanations are available in light of theism's explanation. If we can give a possible solution, then the challenge is met. Rebuttal (iv) We are encountered with the issue of Pro not being clear on the nature of his case. If he is to argue any of the following propositions given the truth of atheism, (1) Human life is meaningless. (2) Human life is absurd. (3) Human life is worthless. then Pro needs to develop reasons/arguments for why this is so. However, I find problems with these three above statements if Pro is suggesting that they are true for these following reasons: (4) There is no cosmic purpose. (5) Each human life is finite. (6) Human life in general is finite. The question thence should be, is (4), (5), and (6) the proper prerequisites that justify (1), (2), and (3)? A few things are to be noted here. The first is namely that "atheism per se is not committed to the naturalistic world view of science" [1] that entails (4), (5) and (6). The second is that "if pessimistic conclusions do follow from a naturalistic atheism, this does not show that such an atheism is false" [2]. To quote philosopher Michael Martin on this issue, This is not to say that the practical implications of a theory have no relevance in theory choice. However. . . although practical implications might play some role in theory choice, their role should be very limited. There is a presumption that practical considerations should play no role in theory choice and there is a presumption, if practical considerations do play a role, that they should be used only when nonpractical considerations cannot decide. . . Thus a rational person might regret that so well justified by the evidence has pessimistic implications, but one should not abandon it simply for those reasons. [3] Hence, even if Pro were correct in his assessment that "atheism is morally bankrupt," (which I do not think he is) that still does not show atheism as false. Moreover, Pro is claiming more than perhaps what he thinks. The argument he puts forth demonstrates that not only do atheist have no ontological foundation for morality, but that they are also morally bankrupt; they are simply animals where nothing is forbidden. They are in fact, nihilists. Pro has demonstrated nothing! He has not shown why (1) "there is no cosmic purpose" entails (4) "human life is meaningless", or why (2) "each human life is finite" entails (5) "human life is absurd. " It is far more than evident that Pro has the Burden of Proof here and has not even begun on the path so as to come close to it. To conclude here, I will simply say again to vote in the negative on the grounds of Pro's inadequacy to further proper etiquette of debate. _______________________Notes:[1] Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Temple University Press: 1990) pp. 14-15 [2] Ibid. , p. 15 [3] Ibid.