Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Richard Dawkins funds atheist summer camp (aimed at changing the way children think)
The First Post ^ | 7/1/2009 | Rachel Helyer Donaldson

Posted on 07/01/2009 9:49:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, has helped launch an atheist summer camp for children. Alongside the more traditional activities of tug-of-war, swimming and canoeing, children at the five-day camp in Somerset will learn about rational scepticism, moral philosophy, ethics and evolution.

Camp-goers aged eight to 17 will also be taught how to disprove phenomena such as crop circles and telepathy. In the Invisible Unicorn Challenge, any child who can prove that unicorns do not exist will win a £10 note - which features an image of Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary theory - signed by Dawkins, Britain's most prominent atheist.

Dawkins is not personally involved in Camp Quest, which originated in the United States, but helped subsidise the cost of the camp through his Richard Dawkins Foundation. The former Oxford professor said Camp Quest provided children with a summer camp that was "free of religious dogma", unlike many adventure breaks which are run by the Scouts and faith-based groups. All 24 places at the camp, which runs from July 27 to 31, have already been filled and more camps are planned for next year, including Easter.

Camp Quest was founded in America in 1996 by Edwin Kagin, an atheist lawyer from Kentucky and the son of a church minister. The woman bringing the concept to Britain is a 23-year-old postgraduate psychology student from London, Samantha Stein, who was inspired to work at an atheist summer camp in America after reading The God Delusion.

Stein said the atheist adventure breaks were "not about changing what they think, but the way that they think. There is very little that attacks religion; we are not a rival to religious camps."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: atheism; atheists; dawkins; richarddawkins; summercamp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-115 next last

1 posted on 07/01/2009 9:49:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Curious that an atheist would care what others think.

I suppose atheism is a religion of sorts.


2 posted on 07/01/2009 9:51:05 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
And in other news, people who believe otherwise fund their own Creation Museum, to change people's minds.

yawn.
3 posted on 07/01/2009 9:51:43 AM PDT by Rebel_Ace (Tags?!? Tags?!? We don' neeeed no stinkin' Tags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“we are not a rival to religious camps.”

Just a very multitudinally impoverished rip-off.


4 posted on 07/01/2009 9:52:13 AM PDT by CaspersGh0sts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
moral philosophy, ethics and evolution

Now this, I'd like to see....

How is ethics and morality going to be objectively true and binding without God ??... that would be interesting reasoning.
5 posted on 07/01/2009 9:52:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yep, Dawkins, of all people, certainly wouldn’t want the little Darwinians to put their beliefs into practice when they assume power. The “survival of the fittest” certainly wouldn’t include one as severely handicapped as he is.


6 posted on 07/01/2009 9:54:27 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
How is ethics and morality going to be objectively true and binding without God ??... that would be interesting reasoning.

That's like trying to make the moon orbit the Earth without involving gravity.

7 posted on 07/01/2009 9:55:00 AM PDT by Zeppelin (Where have you gone, Joe McCarthy, oh? A nation turns illiberel eyes to you...oo oo oo...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Hey Kids! You’re all nothing but evolved biological units who will die with absolutely no hope of salvation or eternal existence! Now go have fun at camp!!”


8 posted on 07/01/2009 9:57:49 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (When you put Democrats in charge, stupid things happen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
In the Invisible Unicorn Challenge, any child who can prove that unicorns do not exist will win a £10 note

You can't prove unicorns don't exist.
9 posted on 07/01/2009 9:58:32 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (we also have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Does Mr. Dawkins allow any skepticism of Global Warming “science?”


10 posted on 07/01/2009 10:00:07 AM PDT by Boiling Pots (B. Hussein Obama: The final turd George W. Bush laid on America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

Invisible pink unicorns do...


11 posted on 07/01/2009 10:00:47 AM PDT by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

They’re going to sit around and try to convince themselves that there is a reason for their existence.


12 posted on 07/01/2009 10:01:28 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Billy Ray’s take on CAMP GO-TO-HELL.....

WELL GOOD MORNIN’ THERE JOHN BOY & BILLY — AND GOOD MORNIN’ TO ALL OUR BELOVED FRIENDS OUT THERE IN RADIO-LAND. THIS HERE’S THE REVEREND BILLY RAY COLLINS FROM THE SWORD OF JOSHUA INDEPENDENT FULL-GOSPEL PENTECOSTAL ASSEMBLY...JUST OFF STATE ROAD 23 ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD.

OUR 2005 VACATION BIBLE SCHOOL WAS A SATAN-SMASHIN’ SUCCESS. ALTHOUGH, I DID GET SOME PHONE CALLS SAYIN’ “PREACHER...YER BEIN’ WAY TOO NARROW IN WHAT YOU TEACHIN THESE YOUNG’UNS.” WELL... DON’T WORRY, SKEPTICS AND AGNOSTICATORS — YER GETTIN’ SOME EQUAL TIME OUT THERE IN THE MIDWEST. FELLER’S GOT A SUMMER CAMP SPECIALLY FOR...ATHEIST TEENAGERS. READ A STORY BOUT IT IN THE NEWSPAPER. LISTEN AT THIS:

“UNGODLY FUN: SUMMER CAMP FOR KIDS OFFERS MEALS WITHOUT GRACE, CAMPFIRES WITHOUT BLESSINGS, AND LIGHTS OUT WITHOUT PRAYERS.”

SEE, THERE’S THE PROBLEM WITH KIDS TODAY: THEY’S JUST GETTIN’ WAY TOO MUCH GOD. SO WELCOME TO “CAMP GO-TO-HELL.” THAT’S A ATHEIST FER YA — FIRST THEY KICKED GOD OUTTA THE SCHOOLS...NOW THEY’S TRYIN’ TO KICK HIM OUTTA THE WOODS, TOO.

“ADVERTISED AS A FREE THINKIN’ ENVIRONMENT, CAMP QUEST BOASTS THAT THE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ATTEND WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FREE INQUIRY — EXCEPT, OR COURSE, THE IDEA OF GOD WILL NOT BE PART OF THE EQUATION.” SO MUCH FOR FREE-THINKIN’.

WE KNOW THE PARENTS HAS GOT PROBLEMS. WHY WOULD A KID WANNA GO TO ATHEIST CAMP? WELL... HERE’S WHAT ONE GIRL SAID: “I DIDN’T LIKE HAVING TO SAY A MILLION PRAYERS A DAY AT OTHER CAMPS.”

LET’S SEE HERE: GOD IS GREAT...GOD IS GOOD LET US THANK HIM FOR OUR FOOD AMEN.

THAT TOOK PURT’NEAR 5 SECONDS. YEAH BOY...THAT’S A REAL KILLER. DO THAT FOR ALL 3 MEALS...YER WHOLE DAY IS SHOT!

THE FOUNDER OF “CAMP GO-TO-HELL- IS...BRACE YERSELF...A LAWYER. HE SEZ “WE TEACH CRITICAL THINKING. WE TEACH SCIENCE. WE TEACH EVOLUTION. WE HAVE A STRONG EMPHASIS ON SCIENTIFIC METHOD.” IN OTHER WORDS...HE’LL HIT YER YOUNG’UN OVER THE HEAD WITH EVER’THING BUT THE TRUTH.

“AT THE OPENING CAMPFIRE CEREMONY, THE DIRECTOR ISSUED A SET OF CHALLENGES FOR CAMPERS TO RESPOND TO IN SKITS. ONE CHALLENGE: HELP RESIDENTS OF THE FARAWAY PLANET QUESTERION UNDERSTAND HOW LIFE ON EARTH CAME INTO BEING.
ANOTHER CHALLENGE: PROVE THAT THE TWO INVISIBLE UNICORNS IN RESIDENCE DO NOT EXIST.

THERE YA GO: QUESTERIONS AND INVISIBLE UNICORNS. NOW DON’T THAT SOUND REAL ENLIGHTENED AND SCIENTIFIC?

BUT THAT AIN’T ALL — THE CHILDREN ALSO GET A WEEK OF SEMINARS THAT SALUTE FAMOUS ATHEISTS AND HUMANISTS LIKE MARGARET SANGER: THE FOUNDER OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD. ALBERT EENSTEEN: THE FELLER THAT WROTE THEORY OF RELATIVI-TISM.
AND TED TURNER...THE FELLER THAT STARTED CNN, THE COMM’ANIST NEWS NETWORK. WELL NOW — MAKES THAT “MTV BEACH HOUSE- SOUND LIKE A BOOGER, DON’T IT?

THERE YA GO, JUNIOR HEATHERNS — Y’ALL HAVE FUN SITTIN’ AROUND TALKIN’ BOUT THE GOOD OL’ DAYS WHEN OUR TAILS FIRST FELL OFF. HAVE YOU A GOOD OL’ FASHIONED SINGALONG LIKE “IF YER HAPPY AND YOU KNOW IT BECAUSE OF A CHANCE COMBINATION OF INORGANIC CHEMICALS 4 BILLION YEARS AGO, CLAP YER HANDS!” BUT ONE DAY WHEN IT’S YOU INSTEAD OF A MARSHMELLER ON THE END OF THAT STICK...AND YER BEIIN’ ROASTED ON THE DEVIL’S BONFIRE...DON’T SAY I DIDN’T TRY TO WARN Y’UNS!

BY THE WAY...I HOPE IT AIN’T RUDE FOR ME TO POINT OUT THAT THE ATHEISTS THERE AT “CAMP GO-TO-HELL” WILL BE GLAD TO TAKE YER MONEY...EVEN IF IT DOES HAVE “IN GOD WE TRUST” WROTE ON IT. BUT THE CHURCH IS THE ONE THAT’S FULLA HYPOCRITES.

I TELL YA, BELOVED — THIS COUNTRY IS HEADED FOR SATAN’S RUMPUS ROOM FASTER’N OL’ OKRA WINFREY GOIN’ THRU THE LINE AT GOLDEN CORRAL!

IF YOU DON’T WANNA BE A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF CAMP GO-TO-HELL, COME ON OUT THIS SUNDAY MORNIN’ FOR A DOUBLE-DOSE OF THE GOD’S HONEST TRUTH AT THE SWORD OF JOSHUA INDEPENDENT FULL GOSPEL PENTECOSTAL ASSEMBLY...JUST OFF STATE ROAD 23, ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD. THIS HERE’S THE REVEREND BILLY RAY COLLINS REMINDIN’ Y’UNS IT’S TIME TO TURN...SO YOU DON’T BURN.

JOHN BOY & BILLY — Y’ALL KEEP ‘EM STRAIGHT UP THAR...


13 posted on 07/01/2009 10:05:04 AM PDT by envisio (Sexual Beer & BBQ Ribs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Myself I have no patience with these lost and very useless people and they need to stop the chimpanzee references to humans.
14 posted on 07/01/2009 10:06:23 AM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib
Perhaps you are confusing Steven Hawking (a self described agnostic British theoretical physicist - who is handicapped with ALS)with Richard Dawkins (who is not handicapped - except by his “Atheist Delusion”)??
15 posted on 07/01/2009 10:13:55 AM PDT by arfan (Think Critically... Act Decisively... Reflect Constantly...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

And at night they’ll all scream up to the sky, “GOD, YOU DON’T EXIST!!!!!!!!!!”


16 posted on 07/01/2009 10:14:03 AM PDT by MuttTheHoople
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist, evangelical atheist, and he is proselytizing.
17 posted on 07/01/2009 10:15:17 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"any child who can prove that unicorns do not exist will win a £10 note."

Don't think any of the them are going to win that one!


18 posted on 07/01/2009 10:26:43 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

I was just thinking of the Narwal Unicorn and saw your post.


19 posted on 07/01/2009 10:32:18 AM PDT by DocRock (All they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 Gun grabbers beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DocRock

Too bad Dawkins doesn’t see it.

He might change his mind about the ‘challenge’.


20 posted on 07/01/2009 10:33:19 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic
“Hey Kids! You’re all nothing but evolved biological units who will die with absolutely no hope of salvation or eternal existence! Now go have fun at camp!!”

LOL!

21 posted on 07/01/2009 11:25:46 AM PDT by fortunecookie (Please pray for Anna, age 7, who waits for a new kidney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"How is ethics and morality going to be objectively true and binding without God ??... that would be interesting reasoning."

Ask and you shall receive ...

Virtue Ethics

22 posted on 07/01/2009 12:11:24 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

RE: VIRTUE ETHICS

I read it and the essence is that it places less emphasis on which rules people should follow and instead focus on helping people develop good character traits, such as kindness and generosity.

But that does not answer the following questions :

1) Given that there is no God, WHY are we bound to be kind and generous and why are the above traits any “better” or “worse” than NOT being kind and NOT being generous ?

2) If people decide NOT to be kind and generous, what rule in the universe (given that we simply are the accidental results of a collision of atoms), tells us that these people are bad or evil ?

3) If someone decides NOT to practice virtue ethics, does that make him a bad person ? Who says so and by what authority ?


23 posted on 07/01/2009 2:28:21 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

So will they make the sequel to “Jesus Camp” called “Atheist Camp”?


24 posted on 07/01/2009 2:28:57 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
1) Given that there is no God, WHY are we bound to be kind and generous and why are the above traits any “better” or “worse” than NOT being kind and NOT being generous ?

The essay I referred you to made no comment with regard to the existence or non-existence of God. The good news is that people seem capable of discussing moral issues and coming to some rather strong agreements without having to agree on their positions with regard to God.

God exists, and that fact is very important, and ultimately figures in as the most important component of morality. But it seems that God created the world in such a way that lots of people of good will of varying faiths and lack thereof can come to common agreement from just what they witness in the world and in the behavior of their fellow human beings. And this common agreement seems in many cases to jibe with Christian morality and theology.

The problem with requiring everyone to agree in whole (or in great detail) with your own beliefs regarding God, is that you have a whole lot of stuff to prove before you even get around to saying whether it is right or wrong for X to do Y. You have to fully describe the nature of your God. You need to provide proofs of His existence, and that He exists as you believe. You then need to show that God defines morality, and that it is not the other way around, whereby God does what is moral. All of these are very contentious areas of philosophical discussion which would require multiple tomes to work out in sufficient detail. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica is only one such example.

Why not try to meet people half-way? Why not try to engage them on the moral questions alone, especially if there is common agreement on lots of things? Most people have no clue how their cars work and yet they are able to drive them quite adequately. Just because lots of people don't understand where their moral values come from, doesn't mean they can't come up with a decent set of moral values and make reasonable attempts to live by them.

"2) If people decide NOT to be kind and generous, what rule in the universe (given that we simply are the accidental results of a collision of atoms), tells us that these people are bad or evil ?"

There appear to be physical laws that govern matter and energy in the universe. Why can't there be laws that govern the behavior of human beings? Atheists have convinced themselves that there is a way for physical laws to just appear out of nothing and they are quite happy to live by these laws without knowing exactly where they came from. Deontologists have a similar view of morality: they are certain that there is a moral code that is discoverable through reasoning and intution, but they can't identify a source.

Christians and atheists can work together to build a bridge even though they have different beliefs about why F=ma. Similarly, Christians, Deontologists, Virtue Ethicists, and Utilitarians can work together to create societies. These societies are based on laws, which in turn are based on moral beliefs, that can be similar even if the different groups have different ideas about where the beliefs come from.

3) If someone decides NOT to practice virtue ethics, does that make him a bad person ? Who says so and by what authority ?

There is "philosophy of science" and then there is science. Scientists use certain methods to gather data and confirm theories. The "philosophers of science" analyze the methods to see if they are indeed good ways to go about validating theories. A lot of philosophy went into developing set theory, which is a major underpinning of mathematics, which is the universal language of science. Scientists may think that philosophers are a bunch of over-intellectualized layabouts wasting their time on unanswerable questions, but science wouldn't be as rigorous and useful as it is without the input of all of the philosophy that went before.

Similarly moral philosophy is the underpinning of political philosophy and the actual practical workings of politics. The people who tell so-and-so that he is wrong for doing such-and-such are the police and the courts and the populace that has put those people in office.

If a good philosophical case can be made against a specific practice, then that will be put into law, and people that do that will be suitably punished either through the law or through public denegration.

Those of us who believe in an afterlife believe that rewards and punishments can be infinite. Those who don't believe in and afterlife believe that rewards and punishments can only be finite. Regardless of this difference we can both agree that the same sets of behaviors either need to be rewarded or need to be punished.

So we haven't convinced the majority of "secular humanists" that abortion is an abomination. We have helped people see that slavery is wrong, that racism is wrong, that sexism is wrong, that radical feminism is wrong, etc.

We either need to live with those that God has chosen to place around us and come to some acceptable level of working truce, or we must move into the hinterlands and wait for the collapse of society and the return of The Remnant.

Of course we could remain physically among the unbelievers and close our ears and shout "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus!" at the tops of our lungs hoping that that might work to convert the unbelievers. That in my mind is just an intellectual form of withdrawal no different than hiking to the top of a remote mountain peak and waiting for the radiation to drop down to survivable levels.

25 posted on 07/01/2009 3:53:04 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
Why not try to meet people half-way? Why not try to engage them on the moral questions alone, especially if there is common agreement on lots of things?

I am working on the assumption that Dawkins is RIGHT -- That God doesn't exist.

If this is the case, I don't see the objective virtue of even needing to meet people halfway. Whether you want meet them halfway or agree with them or NOT agree with them or NOT meet them halfway is a personal preference with no intrinsic virtue *IF* there is no God.
26 posted on 07/01/2009 5:21:03 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Please provide me with the logical proof that an objective moral system requires a God.

You might want to send a copy to any of a number of philosophical journals, because if your proof is valid and correct, then it will be among the greatest accomplishments in philosophical history.

As a starting point, you might want to come up with an answer to this age old question:

Euthyphro Dilemma

27 posted on 07/01/2009 5:31:38 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
We have helped people see that slavery is wrong, that racism is wrong, that sexism is wrong, that radical feminism is wrong, etc.

Notice that in some of the cases you mentioned --- SLAVERY -- VIOLENCE determined what was right or wrong. The party with the stronger, more powerful weapons DETERMINED what was right. Racism ( e.g. anti-Semitism ) was wrong because Hitler and the Nazis were defeated. The Allies happened to have the more powerful weapons.

Let's say that Dawkins is right, that there is NO GOD...

What objective reason do we then present if :

A) The pro-slavery group were the more powerful party and defeated the anti-slavery group ?;

B) Hitler and the Nazis defeated the allies ?

If God doesn't exist, I cannot see any logical basis for calling Hitler or the pro-slavery movement "evil". Evil simply becomes a label based on personal preference and may the side that has the most powerful weapons impose its morality on the weaker side. That in essence is what it logically boils down to --- DECISION OF THE FITTEST. That is, if atheism is true.
28 posted on 07/01/2009 5:33:50 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
Please provide me with the logical proof that an objective moral system requires a God.

Here is how I see it...

If God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, then He decides for everyone else what is good or evil. Anything that does not conform to what He says is good, is evil. Why ? Because He is the ultimate arbiter. Nothing exists beyond the ultimate arbiter.

At least the above viewpoint is more coherent than someone insisting that good or evil objectively exists without an ultimate arbiter.
29 posted on 07/01/2009 5:37:36 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Regarding the Euthyphro Dilemma, which for the benefit of the newbies, asks the question -— Is a thing good simply because the gods say it is? Or do the gods say a thing is good because of some other quality it has? If so, what is that quality?

The challenge forces us to consider an important detail in any discussion on the nature of morality: GROUNDING.

The word “ground” originally meant “the lowest part, base, or bottom of anything.”

The task is to identify the logical grounding of piety or virtue. What base does morality “stand on” ? ( this isn’t the only question believers in God must answer, this is the same questions atheists ( those who insist that we must be “good” ) must answer as well.

As I see it, A law is only as legitimate as the authority upon which it rests. The U.S. government can’t pass laws governing Canadians. Our federal laws apply only to the people of this country. Individuals can’t make up laws that apply to their neighbors. They don’t have that authority.

The founders of our country argued that even governments are subject to a higher law. Certain truths are transcendent, they argued, grounded not in human institutions but in God Himself. This appeal to higher Law was their rational justification for the morality of the American Revolution.

The problem of grounding morality is a difficult one for atheists who claim one can have ethics without God. Certainly, an atheist can act in a manner some people consider “moral,” but it’s hard to know what the term ultimately refers to. It generally means to comply with an objective standard of good, a Law given by legitimate authority. However, without a transcendent Lawmaker (God), there can be no transcendent Law, and no corresponding obligation to be good.

A ‘moral’ atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn’t believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or cooks. He believes the food just appears, with no explanation and no sufficient cause. The atheist’s morality has no grounding.

Does the believer in God fare any better, though? I believe he does.

I believe Euthyphro Dilemma us a false one. There are not two options, but three.

The believer in God can reject the first option, that morality is an arbitrary function of God’s power.

And he can reject the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.

The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the IMMUTABLE CHARACTER of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but ROOTED in His INTRINSIC HOLINESS.

Could God simply decree that torturing babies was moral? I think the answer can be “No,”, “God would never do that.” It’s not a matter of command. It’s a matter of character.

Morality is not anterior to God—logically prior to Him—as Bertrand Russell suggests, but rooted in His nature.

Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands.

In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good.

Now let’s say Dawkins is right — that God is non-existent... on what objective basis do we *GROUND* our beliefs that one act is better than its opposite ?

If we are all but products of accidental collision of atoms, then what we observed in the late 1930’ and early 40’s in Auswitz or Treblinka was the natural phenomenon of an accidental collision of atoms called Nazis hitting upon accidental collision of atoms called Jews. It’s all NATURE. Where is the evil or good there ?


30 posted on 07/01/2009 5:48:53 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“There is very little that attacks religion; we are not a rival to religious camps.”

Which is why they’re also having another of these camps during Easter time right?

Wow, liberals truly have no shame.


31 posted on 07/01/2009 5:59:30 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; metmom; GodGunsGuts; valkyry1; Fichori; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; CottShop; MrB; ...

“There is very little that attacks religion; we are not a rival to religious camps.”

Which is why they’re also having another of these camps during Easter time right?

Wow, liberals truly have no shame.


32 posted on 07/01/2009 6:00:18 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca
I suppose atheism is a religion of sorts.

They're sure beginning to act like it despite their denials.

33 posted on 07/01/2009 6:14:50 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Ethics are for people who don’t have morals.


34 posted on 07/01/2009 6:17:22 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

First they copy the Christian fish, and now they are copying our summer camps. But the Temple of Darwin is not a religion!


35 posted on 07/01/2009 7:42:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Thanks for the ping!


36 posted on 07/01/2009 8:27:40 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“How is ethics and morality going to be objectively true and binding without God ??”

See Aristotle’s (rational) Nichomachean Ethics (of happiness) at

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html

Or in .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics

... where it is written ... “Aristotle states in the opening chapter that eudaimonia, often translated as well-being or happiness, is the highest goal of all human deliberate actions, and coincident with the aim of Politics, the subject of another closely related work of Aristotle. He takes this as a starting point, going on to describe what is necessary to be happy.”


37 posted on 07/02/2009 8:29:09 AM PDT by OldNavyVet (The essence of evil lies in the irrational.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"VIOLENCE determined what was right or wrong"

Violence only determines what is "right or wrong" so far as the law goes. It has no impact on basic morality or ethics.

I would hope that you would be able to see the distinction between what is lawful/unlawful and what is moral/immoral.

Also, your claim that if there is no God the only valid philosophical opinion with respect to morality is nihilism is problematic. Certainly there are those that believe as you do, but they are in the minority.

If God can do anything then He could choose to remove Himself from His creation. At that point would we be free to do whatever we wanted? Or would it be best to live morally upright lives?

38 posted on 07/02/2009 10:02:01 AM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Regarding the Euthyphro Dilemma, etc.

Yours is a very good counterargument to the Euthyphro dilemma. Thanks.

Your arguments with regard to morality requiring some grounding are good, but not compelling. Another possible grounding would be human nature. For example, it seems to some that we humans evolved in such a way that we need to be both cooperative and competitive in order to best succeed in this world. This is the basis, I believe, of why democratic free market governance is better than dictatorship or anarchy.

39 posted on 07/02/2009 10:08:08 AM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Ethics are for people who don’t have morals."

Pithy comment, though not particulary useful.

'Ethics' and 'morals' are generally interchangeable terms in philosophical discussions. So your statement would read either:

Morals are for people who don't have morals.

or

Ethics are for people who don't have ethics.

40 posted on 07/02/2009 10:17:54 AM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
Another possible grounding would be human nature. For example, it seems to some that we humans evolved in such a way that we need to be both cooperative and competitive in order to best succeed in this world. This is the basis, I believe, of why democratic free market governance is better than dictatorship or anarchy.

Given a universe where we are all but products of chance collision of atoms ( as per Dawkins ), why would NOT wanting to cooperate and live with each other be deemed "evil" ? It is simply different. After all the ultimate destiny of every single living thing in this world ( you and me and this planet included ) is to deteriorate and eventually disappear. Accelerating the process isn't anymore evil than allowing it to occur slowly.

You are going to die, and so am I. What does it matter in the whole scheme of things if I help you achieve your ultimate destiny today or 80 years later ?
41 posted on 07/02/2009 10:19:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
(aimed at changing the way children think)

In order not to be hypocritical, wouldn't any camp with a specific teaching goal be the same?

42 posted on 07/02/2009 10:21:51 AM PDT by Travis T. OJustice (I can spell just fine, thanks, it's my typing that sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
You are going to die, and so am I. What does it matter in the whole scheme of things if I help you achieve your ultimate destiny today or 80 years later?

Even if there is no God, I value my own life and would prefer to keep living out my natural lifespan. A society that does not have rules against murder would very quickly spiral out of control.

Rules protecting life are a neccesity for any functional society.

43 posted on 07/02/2009 10:26:44 AM PDT by Blackacre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Blackacre
Rules protecting life are a neccesity for any functional society.

And what is the intrinsic value of a functional society? You function for a few million years and then you cease to exist.

If a mad man (even the word "mad" is now relative with Dawkin's philosophy) wants to destroy the world with nukes, I see nothing that is intrinsically "evil" in what he wants to do.

Everything is simply a matter of preference if we subscribe to atheism.
44 posted on 07/02/2009 10:40:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
And what is the intrinsic value of a functional society?

That's a silly question. Most people prefer to not live in a society where barbarians roam the hills and the only law is who has the most weapons.

If a mad man (even the word "mad" is now relative with Dawkin's philosophy) wants to destroy the world with nukes, I see nothing that is intrinsically "evil" in what he wants to do.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean others won't try to stop him, seeing as the rest of us don't want to die.

45 posted on 07/02/2009 10:45:11 AM PDT by Blackacre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Blackacre
Perhaps. But that doesn't mean others won't try to stop him, seeing as the rest of us don't want to die.

Yes, and as I said before ( see above ), if Dawkin's worldview is correct, Hitler isn't really evil, just different. Your using the words -- stop him -- says it all -- the group with the stronger weapons win, and if whoever wins gets to establish what is right or wrong.

You can try to stop the next Hitler but he can also stop you and if (God ( who doesn't exist) forbid ) he wins, killing Jews and gays would be the norm. Not evil mind you, just the norm. In fact, not persecuting Jews would then be evil.

That HAS to be the conclusion if Dawkin's worldview is correct.
46 posted on 07/02/2009 10:50:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Blackacre
Most people prefer to not live in a society where barbarians roam the hills and the only law is who has the most weapons.

Translation -- what most people prefer is good and vice versa. So, you are simply saying that if most people prefer something, that *something* is good in itself ?
47 posted on 07/02/2009 10:52:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Translation -- what most people prefer is good and vice versa. So, you are simply saying that if most people prefer something, that *something* is good in itself ?

What I'm saying is that rational people can look at the history of societies and how they functioned and use that as a basis for their own rulemaking. Not surprisingly, functional societies (the US, Japan, Monaco) end up having many of the same rules while dysfunctional societies (Somalia, Zimbabwe) do not.

You don't need religion to tell you that a society that allows people to kill each other without consequences is one no rational person wants to live in.

48 posted on 07/02/2009 10:59:28 AM PDT by Blackacre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“If a mad man (even the word “mad” is now relative with Dawkin’s philosophy) wants to destroy the world with nukes, I see nothing that is intrinsically “evil” in what he wants to do.”

Any attempt to destroy the world is both irrational and evil.


49 posted on 07/02/2009 10:59:49 AM PDT by OldNavyVet (The sense of evil lies in the irrational.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Any attempt to destroy the world is both irrational and evil.

NOT IF DAWKIN's WORLDVIEW IS CORRECT. You may call it evil, but that's just YOUR opinion. The one who wants to destroy the world will call YOUR opinion evil. Who then ultimately decides who is really evil ?
50 posted on 07/02/2009 11:01:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-115 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson