And that is what atheism is. Its adherents call it “free thinking” but it is a new theology with man at the center of its orbit.
Atheism, in my opinion, is the ultimate in human arrogance. It is not only the denial of God but the denial of natural law.
I think that is at least a part of the attractiveness of atheism for some – the ability to ignore basic right and wrong and to assume that humans have the ability to supplant natural law with human law. When you can do that, you can justify anything – that is where I see atheism tying itself up in a ribbon of post-modernism.
What separates us from herd animals is the fact that we have that little unexplained extra – a soul – through which God’s standards of right and wrong are transmitted, to deny that when God cannot be reduced to a mathematics equation is folly.
Immanuel Kant – who, according to Monty Python, was “a real pissant who was very rarely stable” – actually asserted that, due to the limitations of argumentation in the absence of irrefutable evidence, no one could really know whether there is a God and an afterlife or not. For the sake of morality and as a ground for reason, Kant asserted, people are justified in believing in God, even though they could never know God’s presence empirically. He explained:
“All the preparations of reason, therefore, in what may be called pure philosophy, are in reality directed to those three problems only [God, the soul, and freedom]. However, these three elements in themselves still hold independent, proportional, objective weight individually. Moreover, in a collective relational context; namely, to know what ought to be done: if the will is free, if there is a God, and if there is a future world. As this concerns our actions with reference to the highest aims of life, we see that the ultimate intention of nature in her wise provision was really, in the constitution of our reason, directed to moral interests only.”
And furthermore, he hedged his bet by saying that if we can’t disprove it, logic would demand that we act as if it is proven:
“If one cannot prove that a thing is, he may try to prove that it is not. And if he succeeds in doing neither (as often occurs), he may still ask whether it is in his interest to accept one or the other of the alternatives hypothetically, from the theoretical or the practical point of view. Hence the question no longer is as to whether perpetual peace is a real thing or not a real thing, or as to whether we may not be deceiving ourselves when we adopt the former alternative, but we must act on the supposition of its being real.”
Atheism just seems to be such an intellectual cop-out to me. It is lazy scholarship, simply refusing to believe the wonders and miracles of creation before our own eyes because we don’t have the intellectual capacity to comprehend or explain them.