Atheist's Secret Morality
Offline I think it’s about time that atheists admit their secret belief. You say one thing to the public but in privacy you share another truth with each other. Or perhaps you only admit it to yourselves, because to even share the secret with others would lead to increased difficulties that you don't want. You play with your cards close to the chest.
Is anyone here brave enough to admit publicly this long kept secret? We all know, really, that in a naturalistic worldview there is no reason to be "good" if one does not wish to be. I know the mantra, "atheists don't need God to be good". It's true, if you change the meaning of the word "good". What is "good" under the atheist's worldview? Well...anything, really. Some people might say the greatest good is to pass on your genes to ensure their survival. Some might say happiness is the greatest good. Some might say that good is whatever society defines it as. But, all these definitions of good are *subjective*. ie, they're only true within certain parameters, and not universal truths, or commandments written into the fabric of the universe. Sam Harris thinks that rape was once good, but no longer is.
So let's just say that you personally found a wallet stuffed full of hundred dollar bills. What stops you from taking out the money for yourself and throwing the wallet into the fireplace? Fear of being caught? Years of evolution that caused an ingrained sense of social duty? Perhaps just a reflexive response resulting from your parents’ teaching? Or perhaps you would in fact just keep the money…
We live, according to the naturalist, in a universe which contains only matter and energy. What difference is there between you invading a house and murdering a family of five, and a tree falling on a house and killing five? At its core, you are no more a moral agent than the tree or the lightning. So what stops you from doing what society calls "evil"? Surely these are subjective concepts, no more meaningful than your tastes in art? How is your decision to not murder any more meaningful than your decision that you don’t like a particular painting? What does it matter, on a grand scale, whether you like a picture, hate a sculpture, or murder people for amusement? There is no judge, no entity beyond the universe that gives meaning to our morality. Only that meaning we define for ourselves.
I am convinced you atheists already know this is true, but you fear to admit it publicly because of what it would mean to your reputation or chances of popular acceptance. People intuitively feel that right and wrong exist objectively, and so it makes atheism a hard pill to swallow for most if the secret is out. To believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong - that in a million years the murder of a family of five may no longer be wrong - is just untenable for most people.
You wonder why people say atheists are immoral, but you shouldn’t. Since you have no objective foundation for right or wrong, you have no true set of moral laws – only guidelines, which you get to choose for yourself. Theists believe atheists have an ability to be moral because of a God-placed sense of right and wrong. We don’t think atheists are completely without morals. What we say is that if atheism is true, then there is no reason for anyone (theist or atheist) to be good or evil.
Sam Harris and other atheist authors, who write about the “evils” of religion and how the world would be much better without theism are seriously deluded and confused about their own beliefs. A world without a God is a world where any set of beliefs can be justified for any reason. There is no objective reason to feel a duty towards rationality, consistency, or good. Just subjective personal tastes and inclinations, much like your fondness for a particular piece of art.
Atheists should realize that the picture of a world you paint in public is far different from the one that hangs on the wall in private. A world without God would be a terrible world, because there would be no objective morality. I don’t know why you can’t see this – so I think it must be that you can see it, but you lie in public about it. Under atheism, anything goes. This new atheism which speaks of a utopia without religion is a farce, and the paradise will never be realized even if your goal of no religion is attained.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm pretty sure I understand what deludedgod is saying, but I don't think that the words "evil" or "wrong" necessarily need to be used to describe behavior that runs contrary to ingrained neurological ethics.
- Login to post comments
Offline Morality is derived from secular causes, both the good and the bad. We see religious extremenist and secular terrorist organizations. Both take their ideas to the extreme, in terror attacks, suicide bombings are not exclusive to religious extremists.
As I said before, atheism isn't bad, Theism isn't bad, people are bad.
- Login to post comments
Offline Also, any neurologist worth his or her salt will acknowledge the fundamental relationship between ethics and reason. Humans decide on right and wrong based on reason. Obviously, the two functions are not identical, but without a rational engine, there can be no ethical code, a man cannot decide what is right and wrong without it. It is utterly absurd to state that such ethical codes are handed to humanity by a magical vindicator in the sky, and as todangst pointed out, under Kohberg's stages of moral reasoning, it is bankrupt, completely and utterly bankrupt, reducing humans to mere engines of obedience to the whims of a magical being. He pointed out, succintly, that the religious notion that humans are spoon-fed absolute truths about right and wrong from a magical being, devoid of the necessity to make such decisions for themselves. to be so absurd, so foolish, that I almost cracked a rib trying not to laugh.
I used to serve on a hospital bioethics committee. Yes, I realize it may be extremely difficult to accept that an atheist, who, after all, being an atheist, must rape puppies and barbeque kittens, could do such a thing. Anyway, some of things we had to decide were quite nasty, like which transplant patient needed the liver more and which had to die...but, imagine, just imagine for a moment that one of the doctors came in with a leather-bound Bible and said... it's OK! Everyone! Why don't we just consult the bible, there is no need for discussion? Would this douchebag be taken seriously?
Did not Spinoza say: True virtue is life under the direction of reason?
{Edit: Spelling}
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline To everyone else: Sam Harris, Dawkins and others think that atheism will cure the world's ills and offer other miraculous remedies to evil.
I tend to avoid the term 'evil' because I don't believe in evil. It implies some things that I don't think is possible. something would need to be objectively wrong. Someone would need to know that it is objectively wrong. They would need to do it, not in spite of it being wrong but because it is wrong.
Some atheists use the term evil to mean something else. Usually using evil to mean something very destructive for mankind.
I have never met an atheist who claimed that leaving religion behind would solve all of the world's problems. That's ridiculous. What some of us do believe thought is that religion does cause many problems for mankind and we would be better off without it.
If you are one of those atheists who agrees that morality is subjective, then I have no quarrel with you. But there are a number who seem to think that on their worldview they can justly say that, say, child rape is wrong.
We say it is wrong because it causes harm. We are social animals, we live in a society and allowing harm to members of society harms society.
This is a response to those atheists who attempt to describe an atheistic society based on objective morality when their worldview permits no such thing.
I can't speak for all atheists but I believe in a society where rules (people are welcome to their own ideas of morality) are based on rational examination of the result of behaviors on society and the rights of individuals.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline Did not Spinoza say: True virtue is life under the direction of reason?
Did he not also say: "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." ? But that's another subject entirely, I think. Still, one should be more prudent when ending an argument with a quote.
Also, it's "Kohlberg," unless I'm mistaken and there actually was a Kolbert who did work with moral reasoning. 
- Login to post comments
Offline If there were such a thing as an absolute moral standard handed down from a magic authority, why is it no one within the same religion can even agree on what these so-called absolutes even are.
We derive part of our moral code naturally from feelings of self-preservation, empathy and reciprocity that have helped our species to survive for some time. We also derive a great deal of it from social constructs. (the average person's fear of cops, fines, jail, court, the chair, etc.)
Biblical moral standards (for example) pale in comparison to our current hodgepodge of social norms and law. Graven images! Who are these hurting? They wasted 10% of the commandments on this shit! Instead of, i dunno, thou shall not blow up busses in crowded markets.
Bible didn't outright forbid having slaves, we do. Haven't seen any brimstone cast down to everyone working and trying to feed their family by working Sundays. "Good" acts are done not just to help others, but rather as a means to avoid eternal fire. Why not just do something good, just to reduce someone's suffering? Why isn't that enough?
Your god, whether or not it exists, isn't up to MY moral standards and isn't worthy of even a minute of worship.
- Login to post comments
Offline Thanks for the spelling correction. And I agree, one should not argue with a quote. I was not. I was merely supplanting my argument with a quote. Nothing wrong with that, eh?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline I think it's time to be honest with yourself and admit your true purpose here. It's not to ask atheist where our morality is, but to discover where yours is. This is good i'm glad you are asking these questions, it shows signs of repair...
I can sympathyze with you it must really frighten you to see people standing on their own without a religous crutch.
Trust me the inefficiencies that you have been taught about morality are just lies to obscure your self-confidence. We're living proof....
Set down the bible and step away from the religion you'll be just fine.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
- Login to post comments
Offline Thanks for the spelling correction. And I agree, one should not argue with a quote. I was not. I was merely supplanting my argument with a quote. Nothing wrong with that, eh?
Supplanting?
- Login to post comments
Offline I wrote supplanting? Shit. I think I've been drinking too much. I meant supporting.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline I wrote supplanting? Shit. I think I've been drinking too much. I meant supporting.
I had thought as much. To be fair, though, my first reaction was that it was such a clever malapropism that it must have been intentional. I sat, staring at my computer in amazement and awe for about a minute before I even paused to consider that it might have been a simple mistake.
- Login to post comments
Offline Lately I've been only monitoring the forums, not necessarily posting in them, and I see exactly the same problems that have been posted (and answered) hundreds of times over...
Many religions claim, as an a priori truth, that objective morality exists. The only way we can hold that belief is if we believe that there is a God.
Really? What is objective morality? Can you name me one moral percept (be it inspired from religion or not) that we can say is definitely and surely objective, and that any breaking of it is considered "immoral" in any case? Just try...
I see "objective morality" as morality that does not depend on the whimse of someone, morality that springs from our condition as humans and as part of nature itself. I don't think I should say anything more on this.
1. If God does not exists, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore, God exists
I believe that the word you are looking for is not "objective", but "universal"... And I don't think any human being (atheist or not) has ever claimed a modified 2.
As I said before, atheism isn't bad, Theism isn't bad, people are bad.
VGP (Very Good Point), Pineapple...
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
Offline This is so ridiculous that I have actually coined a fallacy to describe it, which I will call, in lieu of a better term the “fallacy of axiological composition”. Imagine:
1. A cellphone is worth $100
2. A cellphone contains printed circuits
3. A printed circuit is worth $10
4. Therefore, a cellphone should be worth $10, and we are all being totally ripped off
That's a good example. You should call it the Cellphone Fallacy or something like that, so it's easy to remember. The strength of your example is that it's such a common device, anyone can relate to it.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
- Login to post comments
Offline
To everyone else: Sam Harris, Dawkins and others think that atheism will cure the world's ills and offer other miraculous remedies to evil. If you are one of those atheists who agrees that morality is subjective, then I have no quarrel with you. But there are a number who seem to think that on their worldview they can justly say that, say, child rape is wrong. This is a response to those atheists who attempt to describe an atheistic society based on objective morality when their worldview permits no such thing. So again, if you're an atheist who says there is nothing objectively wrong with raping a cihld, then this argument concern you. I'm sick of reading about atheist authors who claim that religion is evil.
Sam Harris and Dawkins aren't here. If you wish to address their statements posting arguments here is not a fruitful use of your time.
If, on the other hand, you wish to attempt to back up the drivel you are dispensing then reply to the comments offered.
Child rape is wrong because it is detrimental to survival (both societal and individual) to inflict pain (both mental and physical) and harm on another. If humans were not to consider this type of activity wrong then societies could not exist as humans would not be safe in the presence of other humans and as a result humans would have a much more difficult time surviving.
Now, why should we consider child rape wrong if there is a god?
As to your argument for the existence of god you might need to look harder at P1 than at P2. P1 is an assumption that we have no reason to think true. Even if I could not give an explanation for where objective moral values are grounded without a god this would not support the claim that "If god does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist."
Now to the straw man of atheism ushering in Utopia. Show me any atheist who makes this claim. It is just a silly little emotion based claim you are whining on about and it has no place in a reasonable argument. Religion (theism) is a means by which wrongs can be justified without ever considering the effects on society. What a god "says" one must do, regardless of what is actually good or bad for humanity. If a child needs to be raped in god's mind in order for there to be some greater good then child rape would not be wrong. Apparently there are many Catholic priests who think this the case. That's straying from the point though.
When you consider the fact that theism is a system of belief which readily lends itself to this type of abuse, as well the fact that there is no good reason to believe in the existence of god and there is nothing that theism can accomplish that can not be accomplished without it, then it is obvious that it is a belief system the world would be better off without. That is a realobjection to theism. Now drop your little strawman Utopia whining and address the actual points people make.
As to a grounding point for good and bad, right and wrong, from the atheist perspective, evolution is that point. The survival of the genes, the survival of the greatest number of individuals, the survival of the species are all made easier, possibly only possible for a social species like us, when we consider certain things good and certain things wrong. If only morality could be so well grounded it theism. Sadly, it can't.
Again you seem to be stating that some objective basis for human morality needs to exist removed from humanity which is ridiculous. Not only is it not necessary, but we have no reason to consider such a basis for morality should apply to humanity in any way. We would have no reason to think that what was good was actual good in relation to us.
In truth, from the human perspective, which is the only perspective that can possibly matter to us, a morality based in the natural means by which we have come to exist is a morality that is objective. We can not chgange it based on our whims. What is good for our survival is good for our survival whether we desire it to be or not. This is the only possible place to base a morality that is both objective for humanity as a whole and actually has some relevance to the humans affected by it.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
- Login to post comments
Offline If your claim is that there can be no objective morality without god because then morals would be based only on human judgement, then there can be no morality even with god, as then morals would only be based on god's judgement, which is subjective to its beliefs.
You define god as good, and so claim that anything god decrees is good, and from there draw your "objective" morality.
I claim human life is good, and so claim that anything that benefits human life is good, and from there draw my "objective" morality.
What's the difference?
- Login to post comments
Offline ...
So let's just say that you personally found a wallet stuffed full of hundred dollar bills. What stops you from taking out the money for yourself and throwing the wallet into the fireplace? Fear of being caught? Years of evolution that caused an ingrained sense of social duty? Perhaps just a reflexive response resulting from your parents’ teaching? Or perhaps you would in fact just keep the money…
I would get the wallet back to the owner because I've lost my wallet, and it sucks. As for the cash, I'd leave it be because that's what I'd want done if I lost a wallet full of cash.
We live, according to the naturalist, in a universe which contains only matter and energy. What difference is there between you invading a house and murdering a family of five, and a tree falling on a house and killing five? At its core, you are no more a moral agent than the tree or the lightning.
This is blatantly false. Lightning does not have what I or (I am guessing) you would call "free will" which means they cannot possibly be considered moral agents. That's like blaming water for wet clothes.
Someone who knows more about this can probably chime in with more detail.
So what stops you from doing what society calls "evil"? Surely these are subjective concepts, no more meaningful than your tastes in art? How is your decision to not murder any more meaningful than your decision that you don’t like a particular painting?
Personally, I don't do "evil" things because I don't want to live in a world where people do "evil" things to each other. So, I control what I can directly: my own actions. "Evil" has as many definitions as there are people, but it generally boils down to some version of "evil is YOU doing something I think is wrong."
My decision to not murder is more meaningful due to my acknowledgement of my fellow humans' ability to suffer. The painting will not suffer one whit no matter how much I hate it. Are you claiming that people are no different than art?
What does it matter, on a grand scale, whether you like a picture, hate a sculpture, or murder people for amusement? There is no judge, no entity beyond the universe that gives meaning to our morality. Only that meaning we define for ourselves.
The capacity for suffering is the difference. Is this a problem?
We don’t think atheists are completely without morals. What we say is that if atheism is true, then there is no reason for anyone (theist or atheist) to be good or evil.
I think you have that wrong. If theism is wrong, then there is no reason for people to treat each other differently except for their actions. Religion is a wonderful excuse for all kinds of ill-treatment based not just on someone's actions, but often on just what they're thinking.
Sam Harris and other atheist authors, who write about the “evils” of religion and how the world would be much better without theism are seriously deluded and confused about their own beliefs. A world without a God is a world where any set of beliefs can be justified for any reason. There is no objective reason to feel a duty towards rationality, consistency, or good. Just subjective personal tastes and inclinations, much like your fondness for a particular piece of art.
This is a complete strawmanning (that's a verb now!) of the actual position Harris takes. Have you read either The God Delusion or The End of Faith? I admit I only got through the first half of EoF before I had to take it back to the library (egads, that book is a dense read), but it seemed pretty clear to me that Harris' position at that point is that the world would be much better without irrationality of any kind, not just the irrationality of theism.
Atheists should realize that the picture of a world you paint in public is far different from the one that hangs on the wall in private. A world without God would be a terrible world, because there would be no objective morality. I don’t know why you can’t see this – so I think it must be that you can see it, but you lie in public about it. Under atheism, anything goes. This new atheism which speaks of a utopia without religion is a farce, and the paradise will never be realized even if your goal of no religion is attained.
Again you are resorting to a straw man. I think it was Harris who said "can anyone think of a society that has suffered for being too reasonable?" It seems that theists are fans of reason until it turns on them. Reason is a lot like free speech: in order to really believe in it, you have to believe in it even when it makes you uncomfortable. Are you still for it when you suffer for its presence?
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
- Login to post comments
Offline "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Nobel Prize winning Physicist Steven Weinberg
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
Offline "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Nobel Prize winning Physicist Steven Weinberg
Sapient you are quite wrong, it takes an evil person to do evil things, religion doesnt do anything on its own accord nor does it force a good person to do an evil thing, as it is taught by Jesus.
Luke 6:45 (Show me Luke 6)
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
Matthew 7:17 (Show me Matthew 7)
So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
Matthew 7:18 (Show me Matthew 7)
A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
Matthew 12:33 (Show me Matthew 12)
A Tree Is Known by Its Fruit
“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
- Login to post comments
Offline What good is an objective morality if that morality condones genocide, rape and piracy?
Hmm?
- Login to post comments
Offline theist, could you perhaps use different colors? That's almost impossible to read without getting eye strain
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Nobel Prize winning Physicist Steven Weinberg
Sapient you are quite wrong, it takes an evil person to do evil things, religion doesnt do anything on its own accord nor does it force a good person to do an evil thing, as it is taught by Jesus.
Luke 6:45 (Show me Luke 6)
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.Matthew 7:17 (Show me Matthew 7)
So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.Matthew 7:18 (Show me Matthew 7)
A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.Matthew 12:33 (Show me Matthew 12)
A Tree Is Known by Its Fruit
“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.
As the majority of Christians substitute the teachings of Jesus for those of Paul ("where there is no law there is no transgression" - Romans 4:15, "under grace, not under law" - Romans 6:14), why go here?
While you're at it (because I know you'll bring up Romans 6:15) explain why he contradicted Romans 6:14?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline paul was a man, he explains this in his teachins, let me show you.
Romans 3:5 (Show me Romans 3)
But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)
the colers are due to the search engine that i use, human way, paul was a human, he is not the logic of god incarnate like jesus was, he was a tool that the logic of god used to spread the truth of god, that passage right their proves that pauls teachings are affected by the same ignroance that all humans have, including myself. jesus is sepereate from paul, paul is not jesus, jesus wisdom stands for itself, it doesnt matter if you belive if he existed or not, his knowledge stands on its own, it is a refuge for those who believe.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Paul was a tool alright. 
- Login to post comments
Offline Theist, you're going to have to give something better than bible quotes if you want your opinion to have any weight. If you can't think for yourself, don't even bother trying to convince us of such things.
- Login to post comments
Offline what do you mean think for myself? i follow those who i recognize have wisdom, when i see wisdom i follow it, as we all should, do you consider yourself the wisest of all people? i consider jesus to be wiser than me, do you consider yourself wiser than jesus? please tell me your wisdom so i can follow you.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Jesus is a fictional character and the BuyBull is bullshit.
- Login to post comments
Offline Who is the fellow in your avatar, theist? He looks kind of like Steve Carell from Evan Almighty.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline what do you mean think for myself? i follow those who i recognize have wisdom, when i see wisdom i follow it, as we all should, do you consider yourself the wisest of all people? i consider jesus to be wiser than me, do you consider yourself wiser than jesus? please tell me your wisdom so i can follow you.
Wisdom comes from intelligence and experience. you follow people who are gullible and lack experience with real life.
I don't automatically agree with someone smarter than me just because they are smarter than me. Wisdom does not make one immune to mistakes. You need to use you own brain and figure out what is right. Don't believe something based solely on authority.
I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos. -- Albert Einstein,
God not only plays dice but also sometimes throws them here they cannot be seen. -- Dr Stephen W. Hawking,
Two men significantly more intelligent than me, to the point where I cannot discern which is smarter. Who do I agree with?
Hawking was later and so had more accss to data about the universe so maybe I should go with him. But then going with the bible makes no sense because we had a lot less information back then.
My personal opinion is that Einstein will be prooven right. Causality will win, I cannot accept that the universe is defined by statistics: the abuse of mathematics. But until then Hawking is right.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline what do you mean think for myself? i follow those who i recognize have wisdom, when i see wisdom i follow it, as we all should, do you consider yourself the wisest of all people? i consider jesus to be wiser than me, do you consider yourself wiser than jesus? please tell me your wisdom so i can follow you.
I don't follow anyone. I take in as much fact and wisdom as I can, and reason them to the best of my abilities. There have been billions of people throughout the ages, all of which had their own specialty, expertise, experience, and ultimately wisdom. We all have our own, and we all have eachother to draw from. Looking to one person's words, especially a fictional character, to supplant your own is simply foolish and lazy. If you can't formulate your own thoughts into your own words, at least for the most part, then you should really be asking yourself how much you actually believe those words.
Simply quoting someone else's words, and never using your own, only tells me that you don't really know what you're talking about.
- Login to post comments
Offline paul was a man, he explains this in his teachins, let me show you.
Romans 3:5 (Show me Romans 3)
But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)
the colers are due to the search engine that i use, human way, paul was a human, he is not the logic of god incarnate like jesus was, he was a tool that the logic of god used to spread the truth of god, that passage right their proves that pauls teachings are affected by the same ignroance that all humans have, including myself. jesus is sepereate from paul, paul is not jesus, jesus wisdom stands for itself, it doesnt matter if you belive if he existed or not, his knowledge stands on its own, it is a refuge for those who believe.
So you believe that Paul's christ is different from the one in the gospels?
Why should such contrasting pictures exist in the same book?
Or is this a "If Paul says something I like then he's speaking for God. If I don't like it, he's just an ignorant man."?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Why don't you admit the fact that most of your morality isn't based on your religion but on your own personal ideas of right and wrong and you only use religion to justify your morality. If not, explain why you don't follow all of the morality in the bible, and probably hold moral ideals not contained in the bible.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I have become so sick of this ridiculous nonsense that I am pulling together all my expertise in neurobiology and evolutionary cognitive neuroscience together with every single scientific journal I can lay hands on (being a scientist, I subscribe to six) to write a complete explanation of how ethical neurocircuitry and sense of morality of formed in the brain, how evolutionary functions have encoded certain of these senses into us, how sense of morals form in the human brain, how we differentiate between said sets of morals, how we can use neurology to undercover what right and wrong are encoded into human brains, the evolution of reciprocal altruism and . There will be no whiny philosophical debate about ethics, this sophistry will be crushed under the iron explanatory power of science. This nonsense regarding "no right and wrong" under "the naturalistic worldview" is little more than a poorly worded intuition pump, with no logical validity and no understanding of nuerobiology attached.
However, being that I am not finished, you may wish to consult this in the meantime:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/christians_must_steal_from_secular_morality
I also wish to point out a slew of fallacies you made equivocating philosophical materialism with lack of morality:
First, you made a denying the antecedent fallacy:
1. If the naturalistic worldview is true, there is no reason to be moral
2. The naturalistic wordview is not true
3. Therefore, there is reason to be moral.
Also, you made n absurd axiological fallacy of composition, because essentially you said:
There is no reason to be moral because everything is just a bag of molecules.
The materialist says these (love, justice, truth) exist, merely that they are reducible, because they exist in sentient brains, which in turn, can be reduced, which is to say that it can be explained by invoking its fundamental constituents. This is what some overemotional dualists mean when they say “it’s just a bag of molecules”.
This is undoubtedly meant to be derogatory, but anyone with half a brain should be able to see how fallacious it is. Essentially, it is a whiny way of saying reduction in constituency is equivalent to a corresponding reduction in value. This is so ridiculous that I have actually coined a fallacy to describe it, which I will call, in lieu of a better term the “fallacy of axiological composition”. Imagine:
1. A cellphone is worth $100
2. A cellphone contains printed circuits
3. A printed circuit is worth $10
4. Therefore, a cellphone should be worth $10, and we are all being totally ripped off
Presumably, what the dualist is afraid of when they shirk at the application of reductionist philosophy to things like morality, love, justice, truth, etc ad infinitum, and the like is that it is being explained. I can think of no reason for this foolishness except to say that they believe that the value of it stands only when it is shrouded in intangible mystery. This is so absurd I can scarcely believe anyone would entertain it. They say that by application of materialism to these supposed intangibles it is being “explained away” or dismissed. If this is the case, I always direct the sheep to ChaosLord2004’s excellent turn of phrase
ChaosLord2004 wrote:
It isn’t being explained away. It is being explained.
It is a non sequitor to state that something’s value is inherently dependant on that which it can be reduced to, as this would commit a fallacy of composition, which I have, as you known, specially christened the axiological fallacy of composition. You know that your consciousness depends on your brain. You know your brain depends on neural networks. You know that neural networks depend on neurons, which depend on cell supramolecular structures (organelles, enzyme complexes, ribosomes, proteasomes etc), you know that these structures depend on macromolecular structures (Fatty acid chains, DNA polymers, proteins and coenzymes etc), and you know these depend on atoms and molecules. So what? Having successfully reduced the process by five orders of magnitude, how does this detract from the value of the whole? It doesn’t. You might as well say:
The brain has a certain value X (value, recall, as a concept assigned by conscious entities)
The brain is made of neurons
Individual neurons have a certain value Y
Therefore X=Y
It screams fallacy of composition, just like this whole gamut of fallacies against materialism, much of it emotional. This, as I said before, is bad enough per se but worse, it isn’t even consistent!
Precisely how does the existence of the immaterial give rise to these abstract concepts? How does the injection of a mysterious and superfluous vital force into the equation satisfy any of the conditions upon which you are attempting to refute materialism? It is all very well and good to state that materialism eliminates love, justice and truth (which simply is not true), but more to the point, how does the addition of a soul or immaterialism satisfy what materialism does not?
So, then they say how abstract notions like value exist, or emotions and such, and you respond that these are created by sentient minds which in turn are created by physical brains as shown here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/vitalism_immaterialism_and_christian_dualism_have_long_since_been_debunked_response
Then they say how things like meaning can exist if everything is just a bag of molecules, and you point out this is a fallacy of composition and it is a non sequitor to state that value is dependent on reducibility.
But, now, you (the materialist) get to ask some questions of your own. Flip the dualist's assertions around. Ask them: How does the injection of this mysterious "soul" or "ether" into the equation satisfy these problems if materialism does not (which is a lie anyway, materialism can solve these problems). How does the injection of an atemporal, acausal aether of the "spiritual" suddenly give rise to notions of meaning and value? How does it satsify emotional needs (apart from the silly notion that it implies life after death and relieves Tillich's existentialist angst)? How does "vitalism" create meaning and value? How does this silly notion of the "spiritual", an invention of a whole new domain, essentially appealling to magic, solve conundrums that materialism does not. It seems to me merely that it is the addition of silly intractables into an equation which is already complex enough, which offer no solutions of their own, except to postulate some very odd metaphysical gargabe, making reference to incoherent notions such as "spirit", "essence", and "supernatural", and then, without any explanation henceforth-suggest that this silliness manages to give rise to meaning, value and other supposed abstractions. How? It is a non sequitor to state that a mysterious acausal, atemporal, immaterial non-spatial realm exists, and then suddenly- poof! So too, do abstractions of meaning, value etc.
So, if I were to stoop to the level of the dualist who insists that under the materialist worldview whereby everything is a "bag of molecules", I would say "OK. Now, everything is a bag of molecules with a dash of magical silliness added!". But of course, as I explained before, the dualist offers no explanation as to how the ability of all things to be reduced to fundamental constituents manages to detract from the value of the object as a whole. It is a fallacy of composition.
And by the way, it is a non sequitor to state that the existence of God is inherently giving rise to objective moral truths (another fallacy of denying the antecedent, I'm Impressed!), which I showed here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/religion_and_the_anthropocentric_fallacy
In which, you will note, that you made, as the title suggests, the informal anthropocentric fallacy, under which, the one which you invoked the most number of times (There are so many fallacies, mostly denying the antecedent, argument from emotion or non sequitor, that I cannot possibly count them all, so you will forgive me) is called the fallacy of false dichotomy.
1. There is no objective moral truth in the universe
2. Therefore, there is no objective moral truth for humanity.
Which is false, because it assumes that the actions of humanity need have meaning in the context of the universe for moral truth for humanity to exist (this informal fallacy is called anthropocentricm, and I count that on your paper, in which you made in excess of 100 logical fallacies, I would rank this is 4th most often occuring). It could also be described as a fallacy of non sequitor.
Also, it is, again, a fallacy of denying the antecedent (by the way, DTA ranks as number 2 most often invoked in your post, behind argument from emotion) because there are plenty of non-atheistic worldviews that reject a divine lawgiver (buddhism, pantheism, deism etc)
So
You made a factual error regarding human ethics and morality, which I am just in the process of completely destroying, as soon as I finish my paper of neuroethology and neurobiology, which, fortunately, I have studied for 11 years.
-You made a fallacy of composition by invoking the "its just a bag of molecules" argument.
-You made a denying the antecedent fallacy by implying that the materialsit wordview cannot account for moral truth, hence the immaterialist can.
-You made a fallacy of composition by your implication that value is nonexistent in the materialist worldview, by invoking the "everything is just a bag of molecules" argument.
I have a Tu Quoque objection: Under your worldview, you are essentially appealling to magic to give you moral truth, you hold that these things are immaterial. This is equivalant to saying that they have no composition (Descartes himself admitted that) This is equivalent to saying they are nonexistent). Hence, the argument that "everything is just a bag of molecules" falls flat on its face, because the implication (an insulting way of saying that everything can be reduced to constituency) is equivocating that they exist.
-You also made a fallacy of false dichotomy by equivocating atheism and materialism (If you are a materialist, you will automatically be an atheist, however, it is incorrect to state that an atheist must be a materialist), which means you made an affiriming the consequent fallacy.
You made another (actually, you made about five) denying the antecedent fallacy by your claim that your wordview automatically injects into the equation these moral truths if ours does not.
P>Q
~P
~Q
See the faulty logic?
You also made (on almost every line) an argument from emotion. Let me make this extremely clear:
The truth value of proposition X does not depend on whether proposition X is likeable. If that were true, my father (an oncologist) would be able to lie to his terminally ill cancer patients that they were cured, and they would be.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
If morals we imparted from 'god' they would be universal across the planet. They are not. If morals we from 'god' they would be universal throughout humanity and across all religions. They are not.
The fact of the matter is morals are subjective. They are the result of culture, society, upbringing and personal experience. Morals vary across the world, across religions and even within sects of christianity.
Flatly, you are wrong.
Your right that nothing stops me from doing evil things, well except the fact that i love my freedom and society would lock me up if i went on a killing spree, or a robbery spree. Also the fact that I have been taught by my parents, and by society what is wrong and right, as well, I do have empathy. I can relate towards others and how my actions would affect them. Education is also another factor in my personal moral choices as I have had the chance to study great philosophers on the topic of good and evil. So yeah nothing really stops me except all those factors, plus my sense of right and wrong. Yet nothing shows god to be a factor, nothing showing me anything wrong with how we as individuals and as we as a society develop our morality. For what is moral today may not be considered moral tomorrow.
250 years ago it was morally ok to torture an animal, as many stages would slowly drop a cat in to a fire during a show for the entertainment of the crowd, these days society would be morally outraged. 160 years ago slavery was morally acceptable in the US, not today. 100 years ago segregation was morally acceptable, not today. Morals changes as society changes, as education increase and scientific knowledge increase. Yet in all of this, societies that have the majority of atheism or secularism have the better lifestyles, less crime and far less abortion rates and STD's. So....what's the problem with atheistic view of morality? why do you feel that atheists have something to hide. I don't and never will. Show me otherwise now.
I'm also sick of this bullshit.
An emotion based rant. It could be persuasive in some circles but don't expect many to drop in awe of your emotional pleas here.
Now, where do you propose your little ghosty guy there gets its standard of morality? Now remove the incoherent token answer all you label 'god' and explain why humans can not get their morality in the same manner.
You seem to be saying that because a human moral standard does not exist removed from humanity that this would mean morality for the individual living within a society would be totally relative. Surely this isn't your contention. .
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Deludedgod, you seem to have a talent for missing the point, and clouding it in a whirlwind of links to other essays and half finished rebuttals, making my points for me.
Let me make this point clear from the outset: I believe that the denial of the existence of objective morality is compatible with theism. Theism does not guarantee objective morality. However, the existence of objective morality makes theism highly probable. My point was an objection to those atheists who say that a particular action is wrong, and that atheism is evil. Such concepts are absurd upon their worldview, and they are being self-contradictory.
You attribute to me an argument I didn't make. I did not say that morality does not exist for the atheist. I said that morality is subjective. You might be referring to my case of the murderer vs a tree destroying a family - this was an argument not against any morality, but rather specifically against the existence of objective morality.
This is you attributing to me an argument I did not make. I was merely saying that if God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Now for an important point: This does *not* mean that having a God means there is objective morality. I did not make that point. BUT: If we are to believe that objective morality does exist, then this can only be if a God exists. Just to repeat: God existing does not guarantee the existence of objective moral values and duties, but the existence of objective moral values and duties does near guarantee the existence of God...or of at least something external to the universe.
So I did not make the antecedent fallacy, because I did not make the argument you attribute to me.
Again - value and meaning exist: subjectively. And that is the point. Let me give you an example: Cats evolve to have near human intelligence and are able to replicate many of our inventions - engines, cars, buildings, etc. However, the cats have also evolved - both biologically and socially - to believe that rape is acceptable and murder is ok, as long as you are murdering only for personal advancement and no form of altruism. For the cats, some things that are "good" are "evil" for humans, and vice versa. This is the nature of subjective morality - it holds truth only for certain entities at certain times, and it can change. Thus, as I said, it is no more or less meaningful than someone's preference for a particular work of art.
As I'm sure you're aware, I do *not* agree with you that something being immaterial means it does not exist. So let's leave that argument for the appropriate place.
My words were written to those atheists who think that an evolutionary based morality is sufficient for a good society, and that the elimination of religion will help usher in some form of utopia. I prefer the candid honesty of atheists who do not pretend that there is some objective right or wrong to which they adhere.
As mentioned above, I did not make the denying the antecedent fallacy. Many religions claim, as an a priori truth, that objective morality exists. The only way we can hold that belief is if we believe that there is a God. Many atheists attempt to steal from theism and claim the existence of an objective right and wrong - but I am saying that on their worldview there is no right to believe that objective morality exists. To hold that 'there is no God' is true, and also that 'objective moral values and duties exist' is contradictory. Again, I'm not saying that the existence of God guarantees that objective morality exists - rather that if objective morality exists, so does God.
Theists are not acting incoherently to assert that objective morality exists. Atheists are.
The argument is thus:
1. If God does not exists, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral values and duties exist
3. Therefore, God exists
That is the theist's position. The atheist cannot assert 2 without contradicting himself.
Your self-praising and possessive worship of science that surrounds this sentence does naught but establish my point. On the worldview of atheists like Harris and Dawkins morality is nothing more than evolved likes and dislikes. You, as a follower of Ayer's logical positivism, should be well aware of this. Ayer himself said that morals were naught more than expressions of taste:
'If now I generalise my previous statement and say, "Stealing money is wrong," I produce a sentence which has no factual meaning - that is, expresses no proposition which can be either true or false. It is as if I had written "Stealing money!!" - where the shape and thickness of the exclamation marks show, by a suitable convention, that a special sort of moral disapproval is the feeling which is being expressed. It is clear that there is nothing said here which can be true or false. Another man may disagree with me about the wrongness of stealing, in the sense that he may not have the same feelings about stealing as I have, and he may quarrel with me on account of my moral sentiments. But he cannot, strictly speaking, contradict me. For in saying that a certain type of action is right or wrong, I am not making any factual statement, not even a statement about my own state of mind. I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments. And the man who is ostensibly contradicting me is merely expressing his moral sentiments. So that there is plainly no sense in asking which of us is in the right. For neither of us is asserting a genuine proposition' - Ayer, Language, Truth & Logic,1936 (1967 printing), pg 109.
To everyone else: Sam Harris, Dawkins and others think that atheism will cure the world's ills and offer other miraculous remedies to evil. If you are one of those atheists who agrees that morality is subjective, then I have no quarrel with you. But there are a number who seem to think that on their worldview they can justly say that, say, child rape is wrong. This is a response to those atheists who attempt to describe an atheistic society based on objective morality when their worldview permits no such thing. So again, if you're an atheist who says there is nothing objectively wrong with raping a cihld, then this argument concern you. I'm sick of reading about atheist authors who claim that religion is evil.
We have another asshat troll!
All submitted links are completed projects, not works in progress.
Wait? So are you making an emotive argument against naturalism, or an a posteriori argument for God? If the former, don’t bother. Emotive arguments are worthless here, if the latter, fine. I do not believe in objective morality. I believe that to a certain degree, right and wrong is ingrained in humanity by evolutionary mechanisms, things like reciprocal altruism etc. However, there is a growing body of neurological evidence which suggests that a person’s morality is, to a large degree, ie what a person considers right and wrong, to be formed from life experience, synaptogenesis, environmental factors and genetic-based personality. Regarding certain deep instinctual functions, it does not vary. Hence, regardless of whatever emotive arguments you wish to make, you must come to the inevitable conclusion that neurology trumps intuition pumps. However, there is also a growing body of neurological evidence which suggests that, for a person who has all the cogent mental faculties, certain things are considered universally wrong, and it is the duty of neuroethologists to search through evolution and brain functions to find out what these are, since they can be overriden by synaptogenesis and environmental factors, or upbringing. Being that, one could conclude that an inherently evil act is one which is contradictory to the finely ingrained neurological sense of right/wrong. Like I said, to a significant degree, this can bend and vary based on a thousand little factors, but there are certain brain functions which are meant to be fixed. Actually, unless I am mistaken (and I am not), neurologists can actually pinpoint areas of the brain responsible for empathy and
[quote-croath]
My point was an objection to those atheists who say that a particular action is wrong, and that atheism is evil. Such concepts are absurd upon their worldview, and they are being self-contradictory.
I think you mean that theism is evil. Anyway, like I said, there are certain things that we can declare inherently evil, we simply have to search through the human brain to find out what those are. That is what I am doing.
Fine, being that, I will no longer argue regarding the materialist account for such abstractions. I just thought originally that was your objection.
Not necessarily. We can find and uncover certain neurological functions pertaining to deeply encoded and intuitive sense of right and wrong.
However, I hold that even if there was a God, it would be irrelevant regarding moral truths (because that would commit the Anthropocentric fallacy). It is extremely improbable (as I showed in that article) that the existence of God would lead to the existence of objective moral truth.
As I outlined before, you are misunderstanding some basic neurology. There are certain neurological functions encoded into humans like empathy and reciprocal altruism, and humans do have neurological circuits devoted to ethical dilemmas, and there are many things encoded into human evolution which would cause most, if not all humans short of ones which do not possess all cogent faculties or have neurological disorder which damages that area of the brain (The Gage case is notable). You couldn’t even get a good chimp clan going without some foundational codes of right and wrong and some semblance of order (and chimps do possess such faculties, not nearly like ours, however) However, building upon that foundation, there is, as I said, a growing body of neurological evidence that much of a person’s sense of right and wrong does depend on environmental factors and life experience. After all, your memories dictate your personality. Neurology has successfully managed to link memory, personality, and ethics under synaptogenesis. So, being the case, morality is partially highly ingrained and objective. The trouble is, these functions can be overriden by environmental factors, such as brainwashing. We might conclude therefore that such things are inherently evil. For example, deliberately killing one’s own child. This is so counterintuitive, so deeply cutting through human instinct, so fundamentally at odds with encoded functions, that more or less always, the killer is found to have some damage to the brain’s ethical circuitry or have a mental illness. Hence, one could conclude, here is an example of something which the human brain screams at us is fundamentally wrong. There. Is that evidence of God? Of course not. Don’t be ridiculous.
Well, the elimination of fundamentalist religion would probably help. Fundamentalism is a form of brainwashing which can and does override some basic foundations of human ethics, thus making it inherently evil. How else but through such extensive indoctrination could the deep instinct of self-preservation be so well overriden such that a young man will happily fly a plane into a building.
Fine. Thank you for clarifying. But being that the existence of God does not guarantee objective morality, why only criticize atheists. Buddhists, pantheists, deists etc?
I would actually hold a more strong position. Rather than saying that “there is no guarantee of objective morality” I would actually state quite plainly that it is a non sequitor to make such a conclusion from the premise “God exists”, which I showed by pointing out that religion commits a grave anthropocentric fallacy.
Logically valid. Nuerologically unsound.
Such understatement! On the contrary, the sense of right and wrong which is ingrained in humans is ancient and finely encoded, but fragile. It can be broken easily by conflicting brain functions. It is the job of neuroethologists to help uncover possible moral truths by discovering what the human brain intuitevly considers right and wrong. As I said, the foundation of human morality is quite disjointed. On the one hand, we have encoded instinctual functions, on the other hand, we have coded plastic functions, which can change and morph and depend more on environmental factors than preestablished ones. The evidence, at presents points to (a) Variation in human opinion on right and wrong is due to the constructing of a moral code based on neurological functions, genetic factors, environmental factors, the interplay between memory circuitry and ethical circuitry,
(b) certain functions are not free to, or rather, not supposed to, vary. They are hard-wired.
(c) Hence, the attempt to distrupt such functions and override them is one thing we can regard as inherently wrong.
By the way. I am not a logical positivist. I do not reject a priori methods.
Also, did you read todangst’s work on consequantialism and Kolbert’s stages of moral reasoning, and why religion is on the bottom rung?
I just reread this and decided to rethink it:
Here, Every single fallacy I listed would apply. You have not shown how the addition of magical
You see? You are invoking the bag of molecules argument! You are clearly invoking it. What else could you be invoking.
You see, you again invoke this argument. In logical statements, this is exactly what the last three statements implied:
1. Only matter and energy exist.
2. Men and trees are both made of matter.
3. Therefore, a man is no more a moral agent than a tree.
I think the last post I wrote, was given this, slightly more on topic than you pretended it was not. Because, come now, this is absurd, being that your obvious implication is an attack of naturalism by the implication that everything can be reduced to a fundamental constituents. So, yes, every fallacy I listed would be appropriate here. A man is a sentient being capable of rationality and empathy. A tree can do neither. Being that, obviously, a man is clearly capable of being a moral agent, and a tree not.
You see...you accuse me of being off topic...and...you invoke this argument again. Note the phrase on a grand scale. Anthropocentric fallacy.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/religion_and_the_anthropocentric_fallacy
In which, you will note, that you made, as the title suggests, the informal anthropocentric fallacy
1. There is no objective moral truth in the universe
2. Therefore, there is no objective moral truth for humanity.
Which is false, because it assumes that the actions of humanity need have meaning in the context of the universe for moral truth for humanity to exist It could also be described as a fallacy of non sequitor. It is an Ignoratia elenchi to imply that the actions of men need have meaning at the level of the universe for them to be meaningful to us as sentient creatures. The universe is not sentient, we are, and, being that, morality and ethics is our domain.
Furthermore, this is a red herring on your part, being that theism teaches that man is incapable of being a moral agent (your OP demonstrates that aptly!) only an obedience engine.
Informal anthropocentric fallacy. Given what we know about our situation, it is absurd to claim that a universal moral truth exists in the universe. Furthermore, it is unnecessary for moral truths to be found in human neurology. Fallacy of non sequitor.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism