Why Christianity is More Logical Than Atheism

Posted in Politics
Wed, May 28 - 9:00 am EST | 4 years ago by
Comments: 77
Be Sociable, Share!
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    The Wright Perspective

    I was taught my whole life that the Christian Church was a bastion of unreason, not just a nursery where men believed in superstitions as rank as a belief in Santa Claus, but also a lunatic asylum where men believed three equaled one and dead men could live again. Hence, no surprise was greater to me than to discover that not only was the Church not illogical, but that atheism had a weaker claim to logic and reason than she did.

    I am not here claiming the atheist model is illogical. Rather, I claim that the Christian story of the universe is a better story than any atheist story. More to the point, I claim it is also a better model than any atheist model, in that it explains more with more parsimony of assumption.

    There are many brands of atheism, but they all have some points in common. First, one common point is that none have a rational explanation of the objectivity of moral rules.

    Not all cultures agree on what priority to place on various moral rules, but one thing that is so obvious about moral rules is that they are objective. When guilt pricks us, it does not say we betray a matter of taste or opinion; the feeling of guilt is the feeling of having offended a law. When injustice rankles, we do not accuse those who trespass against us of having breached a matter of taste or opinion; we refer to a standard we expect the other to know and acknowledge. We cannot help it.

    In all human experience, everything is open to doubt but this. No man with a working conscience can escape the knowledge. It is the one thing we cannot not know. And yet atheists are at a loss to explain it.

    I do not call atheists immoral, but I note they cannot give a rational reason to account for morality.

    In any atheist worldview, moral laws are an invention of man and serve his contingent purposes, or an imposition of Darwinian survival mechanisms that serve the contingent purposes of the Selfish Gene. Such purposes as the preservation of life or the pursuit of happiness are subjective, hence not laws at all. Whether selected by nature or by man, if moral maxims are selected merely as a means to an arbitrary end, they are merely expedient conveniences.

    If I avoid murder and theft only because this decreases my odds in the lottery of reproduction, then when circumstances arise where murder and theft increase rather than decrease my odds, what reason can any man give me to avoid murder and theft? If I eschew lying only because it causes me self satisfaction to live with a sense of integrity, what reason can any man give me to eschew lying on the day when I discover lying satisfies me more?

    A second common point is that no atheist of whatever school can account for the rationality of the universe: that is, none can account for the fact that the abstractions of math and the concrete things of physics so perfectly happen to match.

    Atheists either must take rationality as a given, or assume that the processes of the universe evolved man to think in a procedure called logic. But if an unthinking Darwinian process formed our thinking process, we have no reason to assume the thinking process is truly rational, as opposed to a merely useful self-deception.

    Again, atheism admits of no supernatural causes or effects or dimension to life, making philosophical questions about the nature of reality, the nature of truth, and the nature of logic all suspect. These things cannot be a product of a divine decision for the atheist; but neither can any natural process account for reality, truth, logic.

    Nor can there be an account of the origin of the laws of nature, which, by definition, cannot be older than the Big Bang.

    Nor is there a good reason not to be selfish. A Selfish Gene theory explains nothing: I am too selfish to listen to my selfish gene urge me to sacrifice myself half the time for my child and one fourth of the time for my uncle.

    Nor is there any hope of life after death which alone makes acts of ultimate self-sacrifice, heroism, or martyrdom rational. I am not saying that an atheist caught in the grip of a powerful passion cannot lay down his life for a loved home or loved flag. I am saying it is a lapse of logic, a thing for which he cannot account.

    Christianity provided the West with three glorious concepts the pagan world before Christendom, the heathen world outside Christendom, and the parasitical Postchristian world leaching from Christendom all lack: The first concept is that the world is rational, the second is that time is linear, the third is that truth is knowable.

    Pagans think the world is ruled by the caprice of gods, and Postchristians that the world is not ruled at all, but is a blind and unthinking machine, orderly perhaps, but without purpose or meaning.

    A rational world is not possible in either of these worldviews. The first requires endless propitiations of utterly arbitrary spirit beings, and the second proposes a nihilistic void where men are abandoned, each left to his own utterly arbitrary will.

    Ancient Greeks as well as modern Hindu believe that time is a serpent eating its own tail, and that all events are endlessly repeated, without original, change, process, cease or escape. An infinite number of births before this birth are behind each man, and an infinite number of deaths beyond his death.

    Of the pagan faiths, only Buddhism promises an escape from the wheel of ever-repeating time, into a state of desirelessness and selflessness called Nirvana, which is as near to oblivion as those who believe in circular time can imagine. This same Buddhism, and its modern epigones in the West – theosophy, the New Age movement, various forms of mysticism – all hold the world to be forever beyond human comprehension.

    Mohammedans in the Thirteenth Century rejected the Thomist notion that God could and would grant an innate power of order and motion to creation. For them, all events occur by the will of an absolute and immediate Sovereign, who is not bound by honor nor logic to act tomorrow as He did today. Everything happens because Allah says so; which is to say, for no reason at all. The Thirteenth Century saw the end of Mohammedan confidence in reason, ergo also saw the end of Mohammedan contributions to the march of science, and ergo also saw the onset of the stagnation which chains them to this hour.

    The postmodern world is likewise postrational. If the world is nothing but matter in motion, and our brains nothing but meat computers blindly forced to follow blind programming imposed by blind natural processes, there is no reason to believe that our brains conform to objective truth, indeed, nor that truth exists at all. To the postmodern, the human soul is a sand dune thrown together by a freakish quirk of the wind, and just so happens to have fallen into a self-aware combination more complex than a grandfather clock, but which a change of the wind will blow apart as blindly as it was blown together.

    Far from being suppressed, reason triumphs where the Church is triumphant. The great civilizations of China, India and South America had no reason to eschew the use of magic, and so they never cleared away the underbrush of superstition needed to allow science to grow. The medieval Church, far from being the enemy of science, was its nursemaid; the Church was the enemy of witchcraft and astrology, and suppressed them.

    And a glance at the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries shows that where Christianity retreats, science also ebbs. The French Revolution guillotined Lavoisier; the secular National Socialists of Germany criminalized skepticism toward state-mandated conclusion concerning the pseudoscience of Aryan eugenics just as Stalin did toward the pseudoscience of Lysenko, just as modern seculars are trying their damndest to do toward the pseudoscience of global warming.

    The Christian worldview alone is where reason and science flourish without being strangled by superstition or corrupted by cults, political or otherwise.

    John C. Wright is a retired attorney and newspaperman who was only once hunted by the police. He is a graduate of St. John College (home of Mortimer Adler’s “Great Books Program). In 2004 he foreswore his lifelong atheism and joined the Roman Catholic Church. He has published over 10 SF novels, including one nominated for a Nebula award, and was described by Publisher’s Weekly as “this fledgling century’s most important new SF talent.” He currently lives in fairytale-like happiness with his wife, the authoress L. Jagi Lamplighter, and their four children.

    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Related Posts

      • 18235

        1900 years of Christians killing jews—-which suddenly became bad ONLY cause of Germany and ww2; anti-Semitism was the Christian norm before that.

        plus, there’s the 1600 years Christian belief that the sun revolved around the earth—with non-believers being tortured for that.

        • Alexander Macris

          Jews were the subject of violence and discrimination well before Christianity – as monotheists in a polytheistic world, who refused to worship the Emperor and the syncretic gods of antiquity, they were targets. Christians didn’t destroy the Jewish Temple.

          The theory of geocentrism was developed by the pagan philosophers of Late Antiquity. The mathematical model of heliocentrism was developed by the Catholic clergyman Nicolaus Copernicus, elaborated by the Catholic Johannes Kepler, and then further developed by the Catholic Galileo Galilei. Galileo’s theories of heliocentrism were supported by the Pope and the Jesuits. Galileo wasn’t arrested for heliocentrism, he was arrested for defaming the Pope. He wasn’t tortured; he was confined to house arrest. The number of people that the Christians tortured for believing that the sun revolved around the earth is zero.

        • 18235

          “ghetto” is an Italian word; jews, even in their old testament, jews didn’t have anything akin to 20th cenntury Germany.

          giodarno Bruno—-burnt at the stake in 1600 for believing in people living on other planets.

        • Alexander Macris

          “Bruno’s astronomical views were at most a minor component of the theological and philosophical beliefs that led to his trial.” (Wikipedia) He was tried for, among other things, dealing in magic and teaching that the Trinity was false and reincarnation was real. I don’t advocate burning anyone at the stake for any reason, but positing Bruno as a martyr for science is like positing Joan of Arc as a martyr for witchcraft.

          The problem with claiming that the Catholic Church executed men and women for science is that many, if not most, of the scientists of the time were members of the Church, and that very few scientists were in fact punished in any way. The Renaissance began in Italy – the seat of Catholic power. Learning was spread in Universities – which were created by the Church and staffed by clergy. Claiming that Catholicism was against science is a claim that simply doesn’t stand up to the historical facts. The scientific revolution occurred under and during it.

          As far as nothing being akin to 20th century Germany, nothing in history until then was really comparable to the Holocaust… that’s why we had to invent a new word for it. But the Old Testament seems to have rather many sections devoted to the continuous enslavement and woe of the Jewish people.

          Moreover, the 20th century Germans who perpetrated the worst of it, Nazis, were avowedly anti-reason and anti-Christianity, and even pre-Nazi Germany was largely in the grip of related philosophies, such as Nietzscheanism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, which were anti-Christian and anti-Reason.

        • Shawn Smith

          Now that’s not very nice. You’re offering this poor man facts. You’re supposed to support his hateful illusion of history. You’re a bully . . . or . . . oppressing him or something.

        • Tom Kratman

          Under it, during it, and _because_ of it.

        • 18235

          just yesterday I accidently came across an article of a Spanish town changing its name, which in English translates to “camp kill jews”; name given it in 15th century.
          put ‘Spanish kill jews” in search engine.

        • Tony Jiang

          “Jews were the subject of violence and discrimination well before Christianity – as monotheists in a polytheistic world, who refused to worship the Emperor and the syncretic gods of antiquity, they were targets”
          they perscution they had under the romans was NOTHING compare to under the Christians, as they werent charged with killing Jupiter, and they werent forced to wear yellow stars and live in ghettos. The temple wasnt burnt down because Titus was an anti-semite it was because of plotical reasons

        • John C Wright

          I was once an atheist, and a good one, strong in my unfaith, and able coherently to argue in favor of atheism. You, on the other hand, are a disgrace to the forces of evil. If you cannot win the argument by sticking to the
          topic, or by sticking to the truth, you cannot win at all.

          It is tactically unwise to use the progress of geocentric astronomy, a science created only in Christendom, and found nowhere outside it, as evidence that either prechristian or postchristian worldviews are more universal, coherent or robust.

          It is also, sadly, irrelevant. Even were it true (and it is not)
          that even one man, Christian or non-Christian, were prosecuted for
          heresy for an astronomical theory, it would not detract from anything
          said in the column, since it has nothing to do with anything said in the column.

          As for pagans, the Chinese and Indians also thought the sun went around the Earth, and the Aztec thought the sun needed to be fed human blood to continue to shine.

          As for postmoderns, you think the world orbits around you. Hardly an improvement.

          All kidding aside, the postmoderns do not have a coherent metaphysic to explain the scientific method, why it works, or how. Christians do. Modern astronomy is something we created and Moderns inherited, and the scientific progress here is running on inertia we imparted.

          To accuse us of hindering the progress of astronomy, something we invented and exists outside of our sphere only where we planted it, is foolish.

        • Shawn Smith

          Modern society is founded on the Christian society which preceded it, and is enthusiastically tearing apart that foundation, like a man sawing off the branch he is sitting on imagining the rest of the tree will fall down. Its collapse is only a matter of time, and there are many who seem to be doing their damnedest (literally) to accelerate that.

        • Tony Jiang

          so its founded on religous intolerance and hate and anti-semitism?

        • Shawn Smith

          So much stupid in so few words. I’ll reply to your idiotic charges in more detail later.

        • Tony Jiang

          So much stupid in so few words indeed shawn!

        • Tony Jiang

          if it wasnt we wouldnt see so many christian states banning the worship or severly resitricting the right to worship for anyone else outside their offical church. At teh same time begging the Chinese emperor to be kind to christians

        • Shawn Smith

          Religious intolerance, right, fine. Where outside of Western civilization (aka Christendom) do you find religious tolerance? Communist China? No. Any majority Muslim country? No. As understood today, religious tolerance comes from Western civilization, which means it comes from Christianity.

          Tell me please, Tony, what Christian states have made apostasy a crime punishable by execution? I’m not aware of any.

        • Tony Jiang

          I still remeber when the Swedish state destoryed the native religon of the Sami people by excuting anyone who refused to convert to Christianity. And in Norway and England and Danemark and Hungary and Rome and Russia and Spain and Ethipoea and Bugaria and Hawaii……the only reason they evetually stopped was because of secularization or incase of Hawaii re-paganization No. As understood today, religious tolerance comes NOT from Western civilization, which means it does NOT come from Christianity. Nothing in Christianity suggests that religous freedom and tolerance is a good thing from god being a jealous god to all unbelievers get thrown into hell

        • Shawn Smith

          Okay, Tony, I need you to focus here. I have a very simple question I would like you to answer. Just one question, with a fairly simple answer, do not go off ranting about things from history five hundred or a thousand years ago: Where in the world today, outside of the influence of Western civilization, that is, Europe or countries still maintaining the traditions of Europe after being colonized, does one find religious freedom and tolerance?

        • Alexander Macris

          “You, on the other hand, are a disgrace to the forces of evil” is officially my new favorite insult.

        • Tony Jiang

          “Modern astronomy is something we created and Moderns inherited, and the scientific progress here is running on inertia we imparted”

          no it wasnt there is a reason why the reneasiance only started with the rediscouvery of the old greek books

          The religion dominated the whole of the Western world from the fifth to the fifteenth century, and yet in all those thousand years there was no scientific revolution. Nor did any scientific revolution occur in Eastern Christian world, such as the Byzantine Empire, even though the East was just as prosperous and largely peaceful for five centuries.

          Apologists may dismiss Byzantines as somehow the “wrong kind” of Christians (Lynn White Jr. “What Accelerated Technological Progress in the Western Middle Ages?” in Scientific Change, ed. A. C. Crombie (New York: Basic Books, 1963(pg.272-91)); however, in addition to being a No true Scotsman fallacy, the point remains that largely Christian civilizations took over a thousand years to develop science.

        • Shawn Smith

          the point remains that largely Christian civilizations took over a thousand years to develop science.

          And . . . umm . . . who developed modern science faster?

        • Montague

          Oh yes, that’s why the pope got upset when rioters attacked jewish populations during the Crusades. Riiiiight. Oh, and Chesterton warning us of the evils of eugenics and German “science” years before Hitler took over? Oh, that has nothing to do with his ardent and well-spoken Medievalism and Catholicism. Not to mention his saying, in “The Everlasting Man,” that the Jews had given civilization our God. Hmmm…

          As for geocentricism, that is a Greek belief which the Christians adopted because the Greeks were the foremost scientific authority of which they knew; furthermore, their mathematical models using heliocentricism were more accurate that Galileo’s geocentric models. It wasn’t until Kepler’s elliptical orbits that the math fully matched. And no one wanted to put Kepler in house arrest for THAT. (note also that Galileo was only so harshly treated due to the circumstances of the time, when Protestantism and Islamic invasion were heavy on Catholic minds. It may have been too harsh, but it’s not unprovoked). Really, the only thing we can blame the Christians for, in the matter of the sun, is trusting the pagan Greeks too much.

          Oh, Mr. Macris, looks like you already got this :P

      • XX

        “plus, there’s the 1600 years Christian belief that the sun revolved around the earth—with non-believers being tortured for that.”

        Hey look, another MAKE SHIT UP GUY. We need more of those right?

        • 18235

          are YOU so clueless about what people believed in centuries ago?!

          the black plague, supposedly, came about, cause Christians…hung…cats as being witches, with rats spreading diseases cause cats were being killed.

          Italians, hundreds of years ago, also ate spaghetti without a fork—cause the pope thought forks were…evil!

        • DanG

          Ok, let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that there have been times, perhaps even numerous times, that Christians have gotten things wrong and behaved badly. How does this detract from the main points of this essay? “Christianity provided the West with three glorious concepts the pagan world before Christendom, the heathen world outside Christendom, and the parasitical Postchristian world leaching from Christendom all lack: The first concept is that the world is rational, the second is that time is linear, the third is that truth is knowable….The Christian worldview alone is where reason and science flourish without being strangled by superstition or corrupted by cults, political or otherwise.”

        • Gary Keith Chesterton

          Don’t feed the troll. The guy’s an idiot.

        • 18235

          I, me, state facts—-YOU made a personal insult.

          very…Christian…of you.

        • Gary Keith Chesterton

          I wasn’t talking to you. And who said I was a Christian? Idiot.

        • 18235

          ok, so you are…just…a bully.
          the end.

        • Shawn Smith

          Ah, so in addition to other foolishness, you also participate in the corruption of language such as debasing the word “bully”. My (previously small) respect for you has diminished even further.

        • 18235

          it is comical how posters like yourself are…unable…to debate facts, and instead make personal insults—while regarding yourself as being morally and intellectually superior.

        • Shawn Smith

          I see that Alexander has provided plenty of factual refutation of your anti-Christian delusions below. I didn’t need to contribute to that further. I suspect you’ve gotten a good deal of your information from McFarland and Tyson’s deceitful Cosmos special. If you’d like, I can provide a link to factual correction of that as well.

          By the way, you clearly have no idea how to actually construct an argument and instead simply throw out random things that you don’t like about Christianity, whether they are true or entirely imaginary.

        • Shawn Smith

          Let me give you a tip about how to construct an argument. If you actually want to convince someone, what you have to demonstrate, or at least provide evidence for, is that societies lacking the moral and intellectual structure of Christianity advance scientifically faster than societies with this structure.

          What you have done so far is merely throw out various unpleasant stories about the Middle Ages, some of which are of dubious veracity at best.

          I’m not arguing with you because you’re not providing an argument. If you’d care to provide an actual argument I might respect you enough to argue with you.

        • ellipsis

          ellipsis….

        • 18235

          p.s

          YOUR OWN POST, ELSWHERE:

          “I know the truth of all of this. It is a cross. It is a real and undeniable participation in the suffering of Christ for the redemption of the world. May He deliver me and everyone else from it one day; and if it pleases Him not to, may it somehow be joined to His suffering”

          YOU are most definitely a Christian who makes personal attacks.

        • Gary Keith Chesterton

          You got me! You’re still an idiot.

        • Montague

          Saint Nick’s a Christian who makes personal attacks. Now, 18235, have you been a naughty boy?

          But seriously, Mr. Gary, is that your real name? If so, I envy you. Or emulate, if that’s the more proper word for “desire to be like.”

        • Shawn Smith

          Calling a person who has demonstrated a very poor grasp of the facts of history and how to construct an argument an idiot is not an insult, but a recognition of facts. Saying you’re ugly and your mother sells sexual favors would be an insult.

          Do you see the difference?

        • 18235

          yes, once again YOU demonstrate how YOU resort to immature personal attacks

        • Shawn Smith

          I didn’t attack you at all. Why would you claim that I did?

        • 18235

          pythagoreanism—-math as a…religion!

          Pythaogorus was a greek philosopher 500 years before jesus.

          no 21st century Christian still knows for sure how the giza pyramids, 2,600 years before Christ, were made.

          michalengelo’s david has his p-nis exposed!

        • http://batman-news.com Richard A

          Which means that religionists doing math is probably safer than mathematicians doing religion. Twenty-one hundred years before Kepler (a Lutheran working unmolested as court mathematician for the Catholic emperor of Austia) slogged through actual observations and demonstrated the elliptical orbits of the planets,your Pythagoreans had already worked out that the sun was at the center of the cosmos. Because since fire is the noblest of the four elements, and the sphere is the most perfect of the geometrical shapes and the center is the noblest location in a sphere, clearly the sun must be the center of the cosmos. You don’t even need a telescope.
          Michaelangelo’s David? What the …?

        • Gary Keith Chesterton

          You’re a kid, aren’t you?

        • http://batman-news.com Richard A

          “Christians…hung…cats as being witches, with rats spreading diseases cause cats were being killed.” You’re demeaning a medieval Christian attitude toward cats that you’re not even sure medieval Christians held? How did the plague spread in Alexandria, where cats were held in honor? You think medieval Christians were ignorant? You should read some of the idiocies modern Americans believe about medieval Christians.

          “Italians, hundreds of years ago, also ate spaghetti without a fork—cause the pope thought forks were…evil!”
          Your inserting yourself into a dispute among Italians about how best to eat spaghetti? I’ll give you props for bravery, if not wit.
          Actually, I’ve been to Italy recently. They eat spaghetti with forks.

        • John C Wright

          Actually, the Empress of Byzantium was criticized for eating with a fork in roughly the Fifth Century, when forks were a new invention, and only the ultra rich used them. Spaghetti made its way into Italy thanks to the Voyages of Discovery, something Christendom did and no other civilization of any period of history ever, when Christians went to the Far East. So the so-called historian you are rebutting is off by about a millennium, and is confounding the Lombards with the Byzantines.

          And even if all these random squirrel-running-in-the-backyard slurs and sneers were true, they do not answer, nor even speak to, the column, which was about the point that atheists cannot account for the rationality of math and physics, nor the epistemology of the moral faculty. No one said one thing one way or the other about forks or cats or whatever random insane nonsense our local troll is spewing. He is not Christian, was not trained by Jesuits, and therefore does not know how to use logic.

          There is a reason why all the errors and parts of logic have Greek and Latin names. It is because the science of rational thought comes from Christendom.

        • Tony Jiang

          “the Voyages of Discovery, something Christendom did and no other civilization of any period of history ever, ”
          you mean like Norse people? At anyrate have you been to Christian Eithopea or Christian Congo? those are indeed example of the progress of Christendom can give and no others!

        • Shawn Smith

          It took me a while to sort this out of the general foolishness you’ve spouted here, but I just realized you clearly haven’t thought this through in the slightest and are just repeating idiotic myths you’ve swallowed whole.

          Imagine, please, trying to *hang* a *domestic cat*. You can’t do it. They don’t have sufficient body mass to make this an effective method of execution. There are any number of ways you could kill cats, but hanging is not among them. You really aren’t that smart.

        • Ye Olde Statistician

          The best response to being called the MAKE SHIT UP GUY is not to make up more shit.

        • Gary Keith Chesterton

          We can hope Mike Flynn will drop by and take this guy to school, but it probably won’t have any effect beyond cementing him further in his certainty that he knows everything about it.

        • 18235

          my hobby IS history.

          I don’t play video games, I don’t have a tv, I don’t even own a cell phone.

        • Lol

          You are either very bad at your hobby, or you are actually insane. Your English is so bad that it is legitimately hard for me to tell.

        • 18235

          I am enjoying how…Christians….like yourself are making nothing but personal attacks, instead of debating facts.

        • Lol

          Gross oversimplification of the historiographical narrative coupled with random and unsupported statements —all of it established in a vacuum of context and without a clear argument— offers nothing to debate.

          Also, to the best of my knowledge we have never spoken before. You don’t know me from Adam. Suggesting that I am a Christian simply because I think that you might benefit from classes on the English language and World History is a fallacious position.

          And honestly, why are you bringing up genitalia in Renaissance art?

      • James H, London

        Aww. Only one troll, and he’s had his scrotum handed to him so many times he’s grown boobs!

        Come on Freethinkers! Where y’all?

        • Cambias

          The real Freethinkers are sitting here enjoying watching you guys dismantle that retard.

        • Montague

          Now now, you don’t have to have major medical issues with your brain to be massively deluded these days, what with our horrible educational system and massive anti-christian propaganda. If it weren’t a human birthright to have and a gentleman’s (or lady’s) duty to defend and practice one’s capacity for reason, I’d even wager it wasn’t his fault he’s so bad at speaking logically and arguing coherently. It’s actively trained out of folk these days.

        • Shawn Smith

          I’m kind of picturing you as Heath Ledger with clown makeup saying, “This blog deserves a better class of troll. . . . And I intend to give it to them.”

        • Centurion13

          Okay, *that* made me chuckle!

      • http://Outlawxrray.blogspot.com Outlaw-X

        I should have posted this here John instead of Vox’s place. Somebody actually hacked my profile and pit me In NY. Anyway below is what I should have posted here.

        There is another argument they can use. That conscious is genetic. But that would be a hard sell. The Psychopath who has no conscious is born that way, and that conscious is embedded in the DNA. But if true then the psychopath should be rulers of the world. Well, they have grounds now. Not believing in a soul and believing in genetics is not delusional. It can be said the same of species and sub species of the human race. But if they take this route they will have to rid themselves of genetic equality. That race and gender are not equal. Yet while professing this to be a truth they do not believe it. Therefore, they lie to others about equality, yet in action treat people differently according to genetics. In other words they lie. So don’t expect a logical JCW disposition from them. They believe one thing and appeal to another and in so doing try not to expose there Psychopathy.

        • Dominic Saltarelli

          “But if true then the psychopath should be rulers of the world.”

          Last I checked, they were.

        • bill

          Dominic, that is by far the most intelligent and insightful comment on here (including the article).

      • http://www.jacksonville.com/community/cc/bryant Tom “Papa” Bryant

        Mr. Wright, with your permission, I’d like to make a copy of this for future use as teaching material. I am currently looking for work as an instructor in Religious Studies on the collegiate level, and I think this would be a good reading assignment for any Comparative Religion or Theism/Atheism class I may teach.

        • John C Wright

          Granted, with pleasure.

      • Aleenum

        This article is filled with debunked augments, glib interpretation and misinformation.

        A single carbon atom is more spiritual than all the canons of Christianity.

        • Eerthlinguh

          What a compelling argument. You’ve convinced me beyond all doubt.

        • Shawn Smith

          And yet, you haven’t actually presented anything proving a single sentence he’s said false. You’ve asserted he’s completely wrong and then made a (practically speaking) meaningless statement of new age gobbledygook pretending to be deep wisdom.

          But in the interests of fairness, I will debunk your statement handily. The canons of Christianity, if presented in physical form, would be a very large book. This book would be composed of trillions upon trillions of atoms (a great deal of them carbon atoms). Therefore, if a single carbon atom is spiritual in any meaningful sense at all, the canons of Christianity are much, much more spiritual simply by virtue of containing many, many carbon atoms.

          Yes, this is glib and silly, but frankly, it’s taking your statement rather more seriously than it deserves.

        • Aleenum

          I didn’t say he was complete wrong ,the things he gets correct are insincere to the point of caricature.

          My gobbledly gook is simply to point out the absurdity of the headline.

          If you reread the article he gives assertions not evidence , so his claims can be dismissed with such.

        • Lol

          Yes, clearly you decisively overturned the premise of the article in your original post, and in just two sentences no less! I think we’re all convinced. I mean, so far you’ve offered nothing of substance but a vague insistence that you know more than everyone else here (with the possible exception of 18235) and a nonsensical claim involving “spiritual atoms,” but no matter.

          “I didn’t say he was complete [sic] wrong, the things he gets correct are insincere to the point of caricature.”

          So is he partially wrong? A little right? In what manner does his position caricature anything? Obviously you feel like it is beneath you to point these things out, but if you meant to offer no defense of your position at all you would have been better off being smug AND silent.

          “My gobbledly gook is simply to point out the absurdity of the headline.”

          The headline is “Why Christianity is More Logical than Atheism,” and so far you have yet to mention logic, atheism, the headline itself (with the exception of the above mentioned quote) or Christianity except insofar as you contrasted its laws to spiritual atoms. I might suggest that if you mean to point out some perceived inconsistency or fallacy in a headline you actually address that issue directly.

        • Shawn Smith

          “My gobbledly gook is simply to point out the absurdity of the headline.”

          The headline is comparing two belief systems and saying that one is more logical than the other. “Absurd” literally means “meaningless”. The headline means something. You may disagree with it, but it means something. Your atoms dribble means nothing.

          If he’s so wrong, please, offer me an example. Offer me one example of how terribly wrong Mr. Wright is and explain why. So far, you’re just gassing without giving a single specific arguable claim.

        • Shawn Smith

          By the way, would you care to define “spiritual” and then delineate for us the spiritual aspects of a single carbon atom. Then I might start taking you seriously.

      • http://crowhill.net/ Greg Krehbiel

        I take your thoughts on the objectivity of moral rules a little further in this post. http://crowhill.net/blog/2014/05/on-the-objectivity-of-moral-rules/

      • Actual Scientist

        This is so scientifically simple.

        Both religion and atheism are ridiculous, as they both propose to solve an unprovable question, where neither is factually correct.

        Scientifically, only the agnostic approach is logical and that stands firm with application to anything that has no viable proof.

        As for religion, it certainly has hindered scientific and societal progress, without argument and provided death, torture and other forms of horror, well in accord with other similar societal forms of governance that will not be defied, or questioned.

        Lest we forget, the USA exists largely due to religious persecution and oppression!

        Perhaps religion has in some way provided an aid to scientific advancement, although it would likely be smaller than some imagine and would have to be proven as factual through some serious means of well conducted, unbiased historical research, since religion is typically not particularly well associated with scientific matters or methods and has often proved a significant hindrance.

        • John C Wright

          “As for religion, it certainly has hindered scientific and societal progress…”

          Absurd. The Church is the only source of scientific progress. Christendom invented science. Scientific progress was hindered or stillborn in pagan and Muslim societies precisely because the Christian metaphysical worldview is the only one which proposes a rational creator creating creature able to understand creation via reason.

          Find out what religion is before you ask it to use the methods and means of empirical research.

          Read some freaking history books, not just Howard Zinn, you blithering ignoramus.

        • Tony Jiang

          ” Scientific progress was hindered or stillborn in pagan and Muslim societies precisely because the Christian metaphysical worldview is the only one which proposes a rational creator creating creature able to understand creation via reason.”

          no and no, why dont you ask Eithiopea on how many scienists they produced, also you beg the question as well you clearly dont even understand what the word “reason” even means as if something exists even as a mere tauology it by defintion can be understood by reason.Read some freaking history books, not just Rodney Stark, you blithering ignoramus.
          Also why didnt the church invent gunpowder? or paper? or small pox vaccinations

      • Sensi Star

        If you study human history it’s pretty easy to see why man made God’s.

        It was the way to explain things we didn’t understand.

        The only purpose religion serves these days is to give comfort to people when they die.

        They just can’t believe that someone as special as themselves can end when they die.

        Get over yourself. Your not special. Your just a living organism like a trillion others on this Earth. If you can tell me what happens to a dog when it dies I can tell you what happens to you.

        • Christian_Guest

          Dogs, birds, bugs, and other organisms (with the exception of humans) just die, for they don’t have souls.

          God, on the other hand, created man to be special with a soul, so after death on Earth, he/she could rejoin him in heaven.

        • Gary Keith Chesterton

          Actually, no. Any living thing has a soul. That is the definition of a living thing. Check your Aristotle. Our English word “animal” is simply a Latin word that means “living thing”. Man has a rational soul, as distinct from the vegetative and sensory souls of plants and animals. This is all very basic stuff, no Christian revelations here.
          Sorry, didn’t mean to sound harsh. You’re almost completely correct.

        • John C Wright

          “If you study human history it’s pretty easy to see why man made God’s [sic].”

          For those who are not curious, not too bright, and do not read original documents, yes.

          Every mystery is easy to explain if you ignore the clues. Here, you are treating religion like an abortive form of physics.

          “It was the way to explain things we didn’t understand.”

          That is one possibility. The other possibility is that it is the explanation of what you don’t understand, such as who you are, what you are, whence you come, where you go. Obviously your speculation about nonexistence after death is not based on your empirical experience.

          “Get over yourself. Your [sic] not special. Your just a living organism like a trillion others on this Earth.”

          If you believed this, you would not say it.

          Since, by your own admission, you are not special, no better than a dog or a mollusc, what makes you bold enough to think that any rational creature wishes to hear your opinion?

          In an act of mind-boggling hubris, you dismiss the lore and learning of all mankind since the dawn of history, all of which springs from religious roots, with nothing more than a wave of your hand and an effete sniff, and YOU ask mankind to get over itself, and not yourself?

          You are indeed a living organism. But perhaps not a clear-thinking one.

      Be Sociable, Share!