It’s quite a common at the moment for evangelical Christians to use the rhetorical device of arguing against materialism in this way: “If there’s no god and materialism is true then people are all merely atoms bouncing around. Therefore there can be no objective morality and if I kill someone I am no more morally blameworthy than if I take a baseball bat to a piece of electronic equipment.” Here’s a specific example:
[A]ccording to Darwinian evolution man is not instrinsically (sic) valuable at all. The basis that one has to condemn the London bombing is completely arbitrary in an atheistic worldview. If man is merely atoms bouncing around would it matter if it bounces even more in a bombing? Source
This is just in case there was doubt that there are people who think that way (or at least claim to), but I have seen the sentiment expressed by some prominent Christian debaters who I can’t remember at the moment. I don’t think it’s meant as a logical argument and so probably warrants mockery and outrage rather than refutation. Of course it’s also an emotional argument and so the best counterargument would be an emotional one. Until yesterday I didn’t have an illustration that was sufficiently powerful.
While driving, I was listening to the Geologic Podcast 164 and George Hrab read out a newspaper article that almost made me lose my shit. Here it is in its entirety. It it’s too long for your liking scroll down to the bottom but for maximum effect you should read it all:
Local boy with cancer turns into a superhero for a day (by Katherine Long)
Erik Martin, who is living with liver cancer, has always wanted to be a superhero. On Thursday, the regional chapter of the Make-A-Wish Foundation granted him that wish with an elaborate event that involved hundreds of volunteers in Bellevue and Seattle.
Thursday was shaping up to be just another school day for 13-year-old Erik Martin, but then something extraordinary happened: Spider-Man called.
Spider-Man happens to be one of the few people who knows that Erik, too, has a secret identity — he’s Electron Boy, a superhero who fights the powers of evil with light.
And Spider-Man needed Erik’s help.
Erik, who is living with liver cancer, has always wanted to be a superhero. On Thursday, the regional chapter of the Make-A-Wish Foundation granted him that wish with an elaborate event that involved hundreds of volunteers in Bellevue and Seattle.
The local chapter, which serves four states, grants more than 300 wishes every year to children with life-threatening medical conditions, but only a few of them involve so many participants.
Pulling off a wish like this one required a big story, and a lot of heart. And so, with a note of panic in his voice, Spider-Man explained the dilemma: “Dr. Dark” and “Blackout Boy” had imprisoned the Seattle Sounders in a locker room at Qwest Field. Only Electron Boy could free them.
Erik got into his red-and-blue superhero costume, and called on the powers of Moonshine Maid, who owns a DeLorean sports car. For good measure, more than 20 motorcycle officers from the Bellevue Police Department and King County and Snohomish sheriff’s offices escorted Electron Boy to Seattle.
“They shut down 405 — they shut down I-90,” marveled Moonshine Maid, aka Misty Peterson. “I thought it would just be me, in the car.”
At Qwest Field, Electron Boy was directed by frantic fans to the Sounders locker room, where the entire team was shouting for help behind jammed doors. With a little help from Lightning Lad, the alter ego of local actor Rob Burgess, Erik opened the door with his lightning rod. The Sounders cheered.
“Thank you, Electron Boy,” said defender Taylor Graham.
“You saved us!” exclaimed forward Nate Jaqua.
“Good job, big man,” said defender Tyrone Marshall. And forward Steve Zakuani mutely bowed his thanks.
Electron Boy seemed a little dazed by his powers. Out on Qwest Field, the Sounders gave Erik a hero’s congratulations, posed for pictures and gave him a jersey and autographed ball.
Everyone was startled when, overhead, the Jumbotron crackled to life.
“Electron Boy, I am Dr. Dark and this is Blackout Boy,” sneered an evil voice, as the villain — Edgar Hansen, and his sidekick Jake Anderson, both of Discovery Channel’s “Deadliest Catch” — taunted the young superhero. “We are here to take over Seattle and make it dark!”
On the Jumbotron, a video showed a Puget Sound Electric employee Jim Hutchinson trapped in the top of his bucket truck in front of PSE’s Bellevue headquarters. Only Electron Boy could save him.
As Electron Boy’s motorcade — the DeLorean, the 25 motorcycle officers and a white limo — rolled through downtown Bellevue, pedestrians stopped in their tracks and pulled out their cameras to take pictures. Clearly, somebody famous was in town. But who could it be?
“It’s Electron Boy,” Erik’s older sister, Charlotte Foote, shouted out the window of the limousine.
More than 250 PSE employees gathered outside the company’s headquarters and cheered as Electron Boy freed the trapped worker. “It was so loud, people in office buildings were looking out the window,” said Make-A-Wish communications director Jeannette Tarcha.
But Dr. Dark and Blackout Boy were still at large. Electron Boy got a tip that the evil duo were at the Space Needle, where they had disabled the elevator and trapped people on the observation deck. Racing back to Seattle, Electron Boy stepped out of the DeLorean to a cheering crowd of dozens of admirers, and confronted his nemesis.
“How did you find us, Electron Boy?” Dr. Dark demanded.
Erik wordlessly leapt at Dr. Dark with his lightning rod, freezing the villain. Then he unlocked the elevator and freed the people trapped upstairs.
Bellevue police Officer Curtis McIvor snapped handcuffs on Dr. Dark and Blackout Boy, who couldn’t resist some last words: “How can we thank you for saving our souls?”
A tiny smile played around Electron Boy’s mouth. Just for good measure, he held his lightning sword to Blackout Boy’s throat again. The crowd went wild. “Hip-hip, hooray!”
Seattle City Councilwoman Sally Bagshaw stepped forward with a key to the city and a proclamation that Thursday was Electron Boy Day. Afterward, Erik posed for the TV cameras, flexed his muscles and spent some time astride a Bellevue police motorcycle.
“He’s over the moon,” said Foote. “This is definitely beyond anything we thought it would be.”
Watching her son run across the plaza in front of the Space Needle, mom Judy Martin said Erik goes to school when he’s able, but is often too tired. “He hasn’t had this much energy in a long time,” she said. “They called it the power of the wish, and they’re right.”
Like any good superhero, Electron Boy kept his innermost thoughts to himself. But he did have one important thing to say:
“This is the best day of my life.”
The whole point of the story (other than the fact that it really is the kind that floors you) is this: according to the religious argument the fact that Erik might die of his cancer tomorrow would mean that the hundreds of volunteers did it all for nothing. Or forget that, even if he recovers he will eventually die and then it was all “meaningless” — whatever the fuck that means.
But it’s worse than that. Even if thanks to nanotechnology or mind uploading or whatnot, our lifespan increased to be virtually infinite, even if Erik was to remember and treasure this moment until the heat death of the universe, this is STILL supposed to be meaningless. Because Erik is “merely” a bunch of atoms bouncing around, by participating in this tremendous day, the hundreds of volunteers did nothing especially different than if they had melted him for spare parts since him being made of atoms makes him worthless. Whichever way you pick it, according to the religious argument I mentioned, it was a completely worthless act.
If the emotional offensiveness of this idea doesn’t swallow-up the callousness of such an anti-materialist viewpoint, then nothing will.
UPDATE: Sadly Erik died in September 2011, less than a year after this post was originally published.
12 comments ↓
If theists want to demonstrate that a god exist, is real, true, what have you, then asking the question, “if there is no god, what is the point?” is counter-productive to proving that. Because by asking, “what is the point without a god,” they are in effect, suggesting we only believe because the belief provides utility. It is an appeal to consequence. They are basically saying, if a god exists, then there is an objective purpose and therefore your life has meaning. But this is a blatant admittance that they only want us to believe because they believe it provides value to our lives. They are not suggesting we believe because there is evidence to support it or because it happens to be true, no they are suggesting we believe because they think we will get something in return, that is, comfort from having an objective purpose. This question only discredits them further since it is again an attempt at misdirection from the reality that they have nothing of substance to support the idea that a god exist.
It’s hardly worth taking the site
http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/
seriously. The owner of the blog doesn’t even allow for comments.
Takis, I definitely wasn’t taking it seriously (although not sure what the lack of comments has to do with the content), just giving it as an example in case people find it hard to believe some really do think like that. There are more respected apologists who use the same line (I think Dinesh D’Souza) but I couldn’t find the quote.
Travis, I agree except it need not be described as the only reason to believe — someone could use it as a side effect (ie. god’s existence happens to be true but it is also nice for the following reason etc)
Michael, yes, they COULD appeal to these things as mere side effects, but most of them don’t. They present these things as though they the reasons they believe, and go on to submit them as the reasons we should believe too. I mean, if it is just a side effect, then why always appeal to the side effects instead of the main reasons? Of course, it is because they don’t have anything to support that “god existence happens to be true”. So they must appeal to consequences, to our feelings, to arguments from ignorance, etc… because that is all they really have.
there is no god. “god” is a myth of many different forms in many different cultures and that’s ok. but, please don’t tell me that you can never be a “good” person unless you’re a “god” person – that’s just stupid
Eric, who was this comment to?
the universe……….
Hmmm. I think what people mean when they say “what’s the point?” is that if we are basically only chemical machines that respond to external stimuli based on these chemical reactions, then we are no better than a pot of water that boils when exposed to heat (like bouncing atoms). If that is all we are, then arguments that are pro atheism are just as silly as those that are pro Supreme Being.
In the end, what does being a good or bad person do if we are just a biological robot? When you die, the computer crashes and there is no memory of it either way. Those that you affect will die in time as well, and the best you can hope for is to be remembered in some historical context, not that you would care because you no longer exist.
Also, being contemptuous of the morals of those that believe in a “higher power� is pretty pretentious. People do or don’t do things because of consequences and our programed aversions to them. People do or don’t do things because they think they will go to Hell, or maybe because they will go to jail, or maybe because it would cause a chemical reaction that would make them have an unpleasant emotional response.
For my part, I’m agnostic. Yes, that is sitting on the fence you might say, but when you look at how small each of us is, it would be pretty arrogant of me to pretend like I know one way or the other what the deal is. I am not saying I have the answers, but I am smart enough to know that I can’t discount an idea outright because neither I or anyone else on the planet could really know one way or the other.
Is there a third choice I am not aware of? Wouldn’t it be cool if we were all just stuck in a holodeck? That is just as likely as any of the religious or atheist arguments. “End program!” Damn…
I’m very sad to report that Erik has died 2 months ago: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016228224_electronboy17m.html
Hi Agno,
You might not see this since I’ve only been able to reply now which is ages since you’ve posted but I still thought it was worth doing a full response.
Yes, we are made of atoms, that is what we are but I wouldn’t say that’s “all” we are since that expresses the value judgement of disappointment that I don’t share. But regardless, how does that make “pro atheism” arguments silly?
No disagreement that when you die the best you could hope for is the memory of people which you no longer care for — but tautologically being a good or bad person does just that — the state of being a good or bad person. If that’s not meaningful during a person’s life, why is it then meaningful in an afterlife? Why does meaning require being deferred unto eternity to be activated?
As for being contemptuous, I think for everyone there is at least someone whose morals they are contemptuous of — I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. But I doubt many people are contemptuous of the morals of anyone who believes in a “higher power” simply because they do. As you said, this group is diverse with diverse moral behaviour. I might think it’s ridiculous for people to claim that as the CAUSE of their morals just as the idea that the shape of your skull is ridiculous to us. But that does not speak to having contempt for the specific morals of religious people (or believers in phrenology in the 2nd case).
The psychology of human motivation has a long way to go as a science so we probably can’t speak of “why” people do things — but we know that it’s for a complex set of reasons. We also know that a particular consequence needn’t play a crucial role. For instance, there seems to be no correlation between having the death penalty and reduced crime. Which means that it’s unlikely that people do or don’t commit a crime “because they think they will go to” the electric chair, or at least that this influence is dwarfed by other influences. But in any case, I’m not sure what you mean, are you saying that therefore the idea of hell is a useful means of social control?
You mention “discount[ing] an idea outright,” which I assume is what you think atheists do — but surely you can’t be serious? If I’ve ever seen someone discount the idea of a god outright it wouldn’t have been more than a few times out of hundreds, do you really think that’s the prevailing MO for an atheist?
Each of us might be small but we can still assign probabilities to any questions that arise — in the case of the universe, whether it’s a simulation or not, whether it’s one with a god or not and so on. Are you really saying we have to assign all claims of that nature are equally probable? What about the claim that the universe was created by an omnipotent god who hates squirrels and vowed before said creation to never allow them to develop?
If you do want to respond let me know first and I’ll promote this discussion to a new top-level post, thanks.
Ok, this is now a full-fledged blog post here:
http://anadder.com/an-agnostic-speaks
[...] on this I thought it might be interesting to look at a comment Agno the Agnostic made on my post If There’s No God, What’s The Point? where I addressed [one form of] the idea that everything in life is meaningless if a god does not [...]