I can't help it. I like to read what Christians have to say about atheists. For the most part, the reading painful, I rarely find the insightful gem that I am looking for. This article is no different. I can sum it up in just a few words; atheism, eugenics, and anarchy.
A Tale of Two Cities: Resisting the Atheist Attack by Ken Connor
...Nevertheless, because ideas have consequences, one cannot ignore the recent push by big-name skeptics to persuade Americans that there is no God and that we should therefore adopt a new set of ethical standards. In previous times, most people had a solid enough understanding of moral truth that they were not easily persuaded by atheist rhetoric, but today many Americans are so influenced by relativism that they find it difficult to respond. Some men and women are beginning to wonder if they really believe America's founding principles, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."
"there is no God and that we should therefore adopt a new set of ethical standards" - is that what we are doing? Really - I like this version instead - There is no God therefor you should not push your pet deity down my throat. Are we really proposing to throw out our current ethical standards and replace them with some degenerate hedonistic alternative? Is Ken Connor reading the same books I read? I don't think so.
A Tale of Two Cites is just another atheist hit peace. This time it is the slipper slope of degraded moral standards based on a misinterpretation of the A Convenient Truth by Peter Singer. Singer accurately describes steps taken in the best interest of a severely mentally disabled child named Ashley. Surgens modified her body to make her adult life more comfortable. On the surface, the steps taken appear horrific, On closer examination, the steps taken seem reasonable are were made for ethically defensible reasons.
Connor attempts to take Singer to task by following the slipper slope of eugenics. If we (Atheists) can justify reducing the suffering while improving the quality of life for Ashley, we will certainly take more nefarious steps toward the old and enfeeble if given the opportunity. Which would be followed soon after with a program to put down all those imperfect babies. In a blink of the eye the master race will rise...
I like to look at the Christian alternative whenever I read a post like Conner's. He decrys the Atheist position, but what does he offer? His offer is bleak. What would the quality of life be for Ashley after 40 years of life confined to a bed in a state hospital? Confined because she is too large to be cared for by her now elderly parents. Besides the normal gamut of bed sores and skins infections, the poor child will have spent a great deal of time alone. I've seen this situation first hand myself. The daughter of a friend, too feeble and mentally handicapped to even recognize her parents. They loved her until the day they both died, if love can be discrbed as a lengthy visit, every day, for as long as I can remember.
Now she spends most of her time alone; an eating a pooping machine forgotten by just about everyone. Would it have been more humane to put her down? Maybe, but her parents were devout Catholics so it was never even an option. Am I a monster for suggesting Kathy (her name btw ) be put out of her misery? No, Kathy has never been self aware, ever. If you are not self aware, are you truly human?
For the devoted Christian the answer is simple - mankind is made in the image of God so all human life is sacred. But we know differently - life is function of consciousness - without consciousness, decisions about how to humanly treat people like Kathy and Ashley require much more latitude.
Of course, Ken Connor has a plan to combat the rise of Atheism:
How might we guard against the men and women who try to persuade us that God does not exist, that there is no inherent human dignity, and that some people have less worth than others? If ideas really do have consequences, this set of ideas will inevitably lead to great human suffering and utter cultural collapse. Therefore, how can America keep its "rendezvous with destiny" and protect the shining city?
He suggests Christian Re-write history, make great art (like the good old days), and get involved. We are doomed, doomed I tell you.
(written while listening to The Wallflowers - Closer To You - off Red Letter Days)
7 comments:
When you wrote "life is function of conciseness", "life is a function of *consciousness*"? I'm not sure what conciseness has to do with life.
Apart from that minor nitpick, I agree with you.
Whoa, some words went missing in my comment. I meant to ask you whether what you meant was "life is a function of consciousness".
Can you tell me where this picture of atheism comes from? Prior to coming to the rational position of being an atheist I was catholic. Inever thought of the "godless" as a threat to my religion or society. So what has occured to make their hatred/fear so strong?
Simon - a spelling and spell check error to start with, s/b consciousness.
my meaning - that what we view as human life is not the biological process as much as it our own self awareness. Without a sense of self, the uniqueness of human life that Christians hold so dear is gone.
I can only say ignorance. We are the convienient boogymen, easiliy blamed when rational minds arrive at a consensess which conflicts with their superstition.
I must say that I agree that putting her down should have been an option. I know some people would read "putting her down" and cringe because she's human but.. I don't really think I would want to live my whole life like that.
Without any conscious thought that's all I'd ever be, just as you described, an eating and pooping machine. A money black hole for anyone taking care of me. A burden of society without even the self awareness to realize it.
This sounds a whole lot like the Terry Schiavo debate. At least in that case Terry Schiavo had the opportunity to tell someone she wouldn't want to live like that, something this girl will never have.
Arguments delivered by the pious in the form of “god wants this, or god wants that” are the kind of thing I rail against. A simple “she must live because that is god will” can damn severely disable person in a life of perpetual torment. Especially, if you believe that this life is all we have. I admired my friends, they were willing to shoulder the burden of their daughter’s disability – but that only lasted as long as they lived. I do not know if I would have chosen the same option. I don’t think so.
Post a Comment