Joel Marks, professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of New Haven and a scholar at the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University, recounts his loss of faith in a recent New York Times article. Don’t misunderstand, he’s always been an atheist, but now he’s lost his faith in morality.
I had thought I was a secularist because I conceived of right and wrong as standing on their own two feet, without prop or crutch from God. We should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, period. But this was a God too. It was the Godless God of secular morality, which commanded without commander – whose ways were thus even more mysterious than the God I did not believe in, who at least had the intelligible motive of rewarding us for doing what He wanted.
The honest atheist makes the point that so many Christian apologists have been making for so long, that atheism has no grounds for moral absolutes. And Marks seems to be okay with that. Since he doesn’t want an authoritative God over him, why in the world would he want such claustrophobic morals?
But there’s a dark side to Marks’ conclusion and he’s not quick to hide it:
[I]f there was one thing I knew in this entire universe, it was that some things are morally wrong. It is wrong to toss male chicks, alive and conscious, into a meat grinder, as happens in the egg industry. It is wrong to scorn homosexuals and deny them civil rights. It is wrong to massacre people in death camps.
But suddenly I knew it no more. I was not merely skeptical or agnostic about it; I had come to believe, and do still, that these things are not wrong (emphasis mine).
While Dr. Marks plays intellectual dodgeball in the halls of New Haven, we can only hope that he, and others like him, continue to brake for small children who run into the street. But this doesn’t keep Marks from persuading others towards his desires:
My outlook has therefore become more practical: I desire to influence the world in such a way that my desires have a greater likelihood of being realized.
Yikes! It’s very convenient that Marks uses Mother Teresa as an example of one influencing the world toward her desires, but with no moral foundations, Hitler and Pol Pot become a more likely consequence.
But the rest of the world can’t live this way and, I’m assuming, neither can Marks. For throughout his essay, he still uses words like “victim” and “perpetrators.” Without assuming some sort of moral framework, these words are meaningless and empty, yet he uses them with much conviction.
As Christians we know that the presence and authority of God is everywhere, even on the lips of atheists (Ps. 139:7). And most certainly there is evil. We see it played out on our TV’s, in the newspaper, and in our own hearts. And we know it’s a most hideous and costly evil, one that would cost God his only Son to make right.
John Starke’s careless cutting and pasting skills have left me with an insatiable desire to do the right (ethical/moral) thing: I must put Dr. Marks’ words back into context. I understand Starke’s desire to spin the true meaning of “the atheist’s” words so they will confirm his obvious bias and suit the theistic tastes of his audience, but guess what? That’s not right/ethical/moral. I didn’t need to tell you that, now did I?
Starke has deliberately misrepresented the meaning behind the New York Times article written by Dr. Joel Marks…but wait, Christians don’t do mean and spiteful things, do they? That wouldn’t be Christ-like! The reason he was allowed to churn out his own twisted interpretation is because more often than not, we humans are too slothful to read anything in its entirety for ourselves. We’re into brevity, so we’ll take the abridged version, thank you. Oh, and if there’s any blatant prejudice, we’ll just let it soak right in because we don’t want to form our own opinions when we can take those of others. If he’s a Christian writer, that’s all we need to know. Christian readers tend to do this: they are cloistered in the religion section of the library and they never stray. Something very important to mention straightaway: Dr. Marks states openly “I am not attempting to justify anything; I am trying to motivate informed and reflective choices.” And here’s where he’ll lose a whole lot of Christians. See, Christian thinker is an oxymoron. Christians are not allowed to question the moral teachings of their god any more than legitimate scientists are allowed to simply give us their “best guesses based on gut feelings.” (Although this best guess/gut feeling technique is indeed the modus operandi of the Intelligent Designers.)
Here are some important words that were left out of Starke’s take the atheist’s “dark side”:
It is wrong to toss male chicks, alive and conscious, into a meat grinder, as happens in the egg industry. It is wrong to scorn homosexuals and deny them civil rights. It is wrong to massacre people in death camps. All of these things have met with general approval in one society or another. And yet I knew in my soul, with all of my conviction, with a passion, that they were wrong, wrong, wrong. I knew this with more certainty than I knew that the earth is round.
(Underlined portions denote those calculatedly omitted by Brother Starke.)
Starke fails to make clear to the reader the author’s well-explained philosophy, which is actually quite logical, meaningful, and kind. After all, how many Christians extend their circle of compassion to all of God’s creatures, including farmed animals, as the Bible commands? This atheist does it, and he’s not quick to hide it.
Here’s another example of the slice and dice journalism employed by Starke:
But suddenly I knew it no more. I was not merely skeptical or agnostic about it; I had come to believe, and do still, that these things are not wrong. But neither are they right; nor are they permissible.
I highly recommend reading Dr. Joel Marks’ article yourself. You will see that he is an ethical and intelligent, highly inquisitive and logical human being who uses data, not dogma, to form his conclusions about ethics and morality. He doesn’t strike me as the type of atheist who would run children down in the street with his car. That’s a different type of atheist altogether. That’s the much feared “Atheist Noir.” Here are a few more words from the dark side:
…the sort of desire that now concerns me most is what we would want if we were absolutely convinced that there is no such thing as moral right and wrong. I think the most likely answer is: pretty much the same as what we want now.
Why has Dr. Marks abandoned referring to “morality” when trying to convince others to do what’s right and kind? Because it doesn’t work.
For to argue that people who use animals for food and other purposes are doing something terribly wrong is hardly the way to win them over. That is more likely to elicit their defensive resistance. Instead I now focus on conveying information: about the state of affairs on factory farms and elsewhere, the environmental devastation that results and, especially, the sentient, intelligent, gentle and noble natures of the animals who are being brutalized and slaughtered. It is also important to spread knowledge of alternatives, like how to adopt a healthy and appetizing vegan diet. If such efforts will not cause people to alter their eating and buying habits, support the passage of various laws and so forth, I don’t know what will.
So nothing has changed, and everything has changed. For while my desires are the same, my manner of trying to implement them has altered radically. I now acknowledge that I cannot count on either God or morality to back up my personal preferences or clinch the case in any argument. (My emphasis)
Dr. Marks’ methods of educating others are clearly abandoned, but his ethics are still going strong….and they’re much stronger and well-intentioned than those of many Christ-followers. How many Christians truly care enough about the suffering of other animals enough to actually live their principles of compassion and to obey the Golden Rule? I guess atheists can have pretty stringent moral standards after all. If every Christian simply followed the morals put forth in their Bible, we’d be….oh, wait, most of us would be stoned to death. Never mind. My advice to Christians, look to the atheists for answers in morality. They’re the ones free to question and investigate, and yeah, they’ll be the ones reading the entire article.
Question Everything is absolutely correct. Christians don’t need to be moral because they can always ask for forgiveness. If they actually were indeed moral and lived by the words in the bible, the world would be a much better place. But when one can to horrific things to other people and animals, then simply ask for forgiveness and still get to heaven, they have no strong motivation to act morally. If an atheist determines morals based upon the live they live now, then they are likely to treat others as they wish to be treated. They don’t believe in a god-given moral superiority.
If a child believes in an imaginary friend for too long, they refer to it as a psychological disorder. When an adult does the same thing, they call it religion.
This sophomoric essay is rich with your opinion, and, inflammatory accusations. You have taken and put up, piecemeal quotes from this man’s essay to fit your own agenda; the agenda of being a blind follower of a fake man in the sky. You wouldn’t know a theoretical framework if it drove up and almost ran YOU off the road. Your accusations that this man, or any other atheists might run over babies is as twisted as it gets. If you are a Christian, why aren’t you out right now doing philanthopic works? I suggest you remove your buttocks from the seat, one hand off the keyboard, and the other hand off your tool and go make a real difference in the world as opposed to inciting anger amongst your fellow “moral” Christians. Your quote: “And we know it’s a most hideous and costly evil, one that would cost God his only Son to make right.” Well, now what? THAT sure didn’t work!!! Your academic speech isn’t publish-worthy.
The underlined portions referred to did not show up as underlined once published to this page. The quoted material below is what Starke omitted. Taking words out of context, as you can see, changes the author’s meaning considerably. Please see below.
Paragraph 3; sections omitted in Starke’s article (The “underlined” portions): “All of these things have met with general approval in one society or another. And yet I knew in my soul, with all of my conviction, with a passion, that they were wrong, wrong, wrong. I knew this with more certainty than I knew that the earth is round.”
Paragraph 5; sections omitted in Starke’s article: “But neither are they right; nor are they permissible.”
As you can see, some very important information was left out of Starke’s article seemingly in order to make his point.
I know the difference between a Christian and an agnostic. I became a believer at the age of 37, before that time I was an agnostic. It is very difficult to be a believer in this world. It is much easier to be an unbeliever. There is very little persecution of unbelievers. Most secular societies are dictatorships where Christians are persecuted and often murdered for their beliefs. Look at the China and other dictatorships. I grant that few Christians live up to their beliefs, yet I would rather fail than live any longer with a confused and doubtful mind. Though I may be unsuccessful and ignorant and despised by the intelletuals of this world, I have found peace in my life.
John Starke a typical Christian twisting words to accomodate his twisted belief.