# Atheistic / evolutionary philosophy of the will



## a mere housewife (Feb 10, 2005)

What books can I read that would give me a good idea of what atheists / evolutionists think about the human will-- and how Christianity refutes it?

An atheist told me a couple of months ago that
1. Love, hatred, courage, fear, compassion, anger, etc-- all of these are chemical reactions that we have developed to further the species, &
2. That I am a Christian because the fundamental thing I can't stomach is unmeaning, whereas the fundamental thing that he can't stomach is that the will has no dignity.

I did wonder at the time, what dignity there is in a choice between merely chemical reactions, and also whether he even has a choice between them. Also, isn't the will non-material if it has a choice, even between material things? --He obviously doesn't believe in the non-material. 

This keeps stewing in my head, and I have been thinking, isn't the dignity of the will his version of "meaning"-- I mean, can he really stomach unmeaning any more than I can? If he once saw that under his evolutionary philosophy, his will had no dignity, wouldn't it be repugnant, unthinkable to him, because foundationally what he believes in is not matter, but his own will? Are most evolutionists so contradictory on this point?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 10, 2005)

You are right in your thinking. His "will" has no meaning if it's just a chemical process. Ask him to define "meaning" from his point of view that everything is material. "meaning" seems to have more of a immaterial significance to him which means he's contradicting himself. Also, his "will" is really no will at all if it's just the arbitrary chemical process of the brain, hence if he's really a materialist, in order to be conisistent he must be a fatalist, subject to the arbitrary process of molecular physics. He has no rational foundation for his "meaning."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 10, 2005)

The atheistic perspective on the human will (and it's important to remember what Paul Manata says, there is no such thing as atheists, or as I have heard it expressed, "God does not believe in atheists") reduces man to matter and in so doing tries his best to extinguish the spark of divinity in man (I mean by that not something unorthodox but rather that man is made in the image of God with an immortal soul). 

This world view, however, destroys the basis for morality. Without God, without love, all is relative and right and wrong have no objective basis. Why all atheists don't commit suicide is beyond me. I know an atheist who believes in altruism instead of morality. Evolution, likewise, is a religion to most atheists. In the vacuum left by removing God and morality from their world view (ie., suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, see Rom. 1) they have to replace these things with their own values or else go stark raving mad. But in no way are they truly consistent with their world view because that world view can only end in death. 

Christian anthropology is a major theme in Calvin's _Institutes_, Book I, and the bottom line is that the knowledge of God must preceed self-knowledge.


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 10, 2005)

Patrick, from what you said it seems like the atheist philosophers are going to be fatalists. I mean, that it's going to be the scientists who don't go into philosophy, or the everyday evolutionists, that are going to try to maintain at the same time materialism and the "dignity" of the human will...?

Andrew, yes, I don't see how anyone can consistently reduce man to matter on go on living: but then, even their choice to die is an act contrary to, or maybe above? matter. I've had it hammered into me from discussions on the board that the atheist has to borrow from the Christian to have any meaningful thought. But (and this has probably been discussed, I just missed it) I am trying to learn more about how the atheist has to borrow from Christianity to have any meaningful action. I'm wondering if when it comes down to it, the average evolutionist does not cling harder to his "freewill" --his right to make meaningful choices for himself-- than to his materialism? Because the two are at odds, but it seems that the atheist I was talking to had retreated into evolution because he couldn't stand the Christian doctrine of the will-- when ironically he has to borrow from that doctrine for his will to have any significance.

Yes, it's strange to me that atheistic evolutionists can condone behaviour such as homosexuality that brings about disease, when survival of the species is really the only fixed moral point they seem to have. They aren't even consistent with their own version of morality, which shouldn't pose much of a problem for them since it's so relative.

Do you know of anything besides Calvin that I can read that discusses the atheistic and evolutionary philosophy of the will, specifically, and of the morality of atheism and evolution? I'd like to read more about it.


----------



## LaMontre (Feb 10, 2005)

There is a book (I cannot ever remember the authors name) called, "If there is no God, why are there atheists?" At least I believe thats what it was called, as I can't find anything even remotely titled that on the net (so maybe I imagined reading it?)

Anyway, in one of the chapters he discusses the question from Romans 1 about "holding the truth in unrighteousness".

He suggests that this phrase (if we were to bring some "modern psychological language" to it) might say "*supressing* the truth in unrighteousness".

I think the last couple posts here hit on some very good points in that regard?

To me it seems that evolution and science have taken the place of "an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things."

I feel that the general revelation through the creation is something that (obviously) does not save the soul, but (also obviously) does penetrate there, so that men are indeed without excuse regarding the *existance* of God. However they supress that knowledge through different sorts of distractions such as, "the next great scientific finding" and that with a hope that the supression of that knowledge (that God does exist) will indeed be vindicated eventually.

The "morality" question is one which is surely hypocritical for anyone who denys that mans laws are made based upon it. (and many do deny it).

Not to mention in Romans 2 that men "without the law", who keep it never-the-less (because of conscience).....thereby prove that Gods law is written upon their hearts. And thus also (however inadvertently) prove that God exists as a result. 

I believe this is truly the case. What they know (God exists) they supress through many distractions, and God eventually just turns them over.......causing their very morality (whatever they may have begun with) to become no morality at all.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by LaMontre]


----------



## JohnV (Feb 10, 2005)

Heidi:

Just keep asking him what he means. No matter how intelligent he is, he cannot undo even the slightest thing about truth, he can only mask it with something else. He has as much chance of overthrowing God as and icecube in ..., well, you know the rest. Don't let it upset you. Just be at ease with your firm belief, and patiently let him refute himself. It won't take long, and he will show definite signs of coming face to face with his own inconsistencies. The usual response is, though, to avoid further conversation, and even contact. That's because they choose to disbelieve. Its not because they are convinced of their doctrines. 

I would only disagree with part of what Andrew said, that without God and without love all is relative. In actuality, and then in practice, it isn't even that anymore. Relativity presupposes that some things have meaning, but if there is no basis for meaning, then there nothing to be relative to anymore. 

But the rest I agree with: it becomes meaningless; and dignity means nothing if there is nothing for it to mean.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by a mere housewife_
> Patrick, from what you said it seems like the atheist philosophers are going to be fatalists. I mean, that it's going to be the scientists who don't go into philosophy, or the everyday evolutionists, that are going to try to maintain at the same time materialism and the "dignity" of the human will...?



If athiests were consistent they would be fatalists and relativists. But they can't be consistent with those presuppositions because deep down, they know there is more to life than materialism. They aren't designed to think that way. They are designed to glorify God. That is why they write their own moral systems to justify the way they live and try to give themsleves some meaning to life. They have no hope so they must prop up a false hope (existentialism, utilitarianism, humanism, etc.) or more correctly, an idol, made from their own minds and bow down to it.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Feb 10, 2005)

this is exactly my experience from dealing with and debating Atheists.

Invented morality...


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 11, 2005)

Heidi,



> An atheist told me a couple of months ago that
> 1. Love, hatred, courage, fear, compassion, anger, etc-- all of these are chemical reactions that we have developed to further the species, &



Ask him why he is forming an argument with you? If you and he are merely "reaction containers of a specific mixture of a certain set of chemicals". Then, by his own defined concept, you merely believe what you do because of your chemical reaction/equilibrium and himself his own chemical mixture also. Thus, by his own concept he is pointless to argue with or even form arguments to persuade you. A beaker of H2O with NaCl dissolved in it does not argue with a beaker H2O and C6H12O6 dissolved in it that 'saltiness' is the truth over 'sweetness'. And then ask him to send all his money to you because since he's but chemicals he need not worry himself with money.



> 2. That I am a Christian because the fundamental thing I can't stomach is unmeaning, whereas the fundamental thing that he can't stomach is that the will has no dignity.



Why is he worried about the dignity of his will if he is merely an organic chemical reaction bag? 

Larry


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 12, 2005)

Some recommended readings from a friend of mine:

Atheist: Michael Martin: Atheism, morality and meaning. John Searle: Consciousness explained. Daniel Dennet: Darwin's Dangerous Idea. V. S. Ramachandron: Phantoms in The Brain.

Theists or secular dualists: Reppert: C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea. Alvin Plantinga's argument against Evolution found in his trilogy (Warrent and Proper Function; Warrant: The Current Debate; Warranted Christian Belief). John Foster: The Immaterial Self. J.P. Moreland's chapter on the mind in: Scaling The Secular City.


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 17, 2005)

Thanks everyone: Patrick, I printed out the list of books. Thanks very much: exactly what I was looking for.

"In actuality, and then in practice, it isn't even that anymore. Relativity presupposes that some things have meaning, but if there is no basis for meaning, then there nothing to be relative to anymore. "

Wow. I hadn't thought of that.


----------



## Michael (Mar 4, 2005)

Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will by Arthur Schopenhauer is a good place to start. Schopenhauer was a pivotal influence on the likes of Einstein and Nietzsche. And yes, his views were the epitome of fatalistic.


----------

