CatBus, I saw this article and it made me think about your post about Trump, not you.
I’ve got to make another post, because that article is just frustratingly dumb.
In a Hail Mary-like attempt to reconcile the inescapability of objective morality and their assurances of atheism, two possible answers are launched.
Morality is the result of socio-biological evolution.
Morality is logical.
What about 3; morality is based in empathy? People learn about the “golden rule” in kindergarten. It’s an idea that existed before Judaism and Christianity, in very distant parts of the world. It’s convenient that he left that one out, despite it being the most common argument against his line of bullshit.
Intelligent people ask serious questions.
And sometimes unintelligent people ask serious questions, as proven here by Mr. Henderson.
Serious questions deserve serious answers. There are few questions more serious than the one I’m asking. How do we explain objective meaning and morality that we know are true? If a worldview can’t answer this question, it doesn’t deserve you.
One sign that your worldview may be a crutch is that it has to appeal to an answer outside itself — becoming self-contradictory, unable to reasonably account for the question. Any atheist who recognizes objective meaning and morality defies the atheism that he contends is true.
Not a worldview. Despite your insistence that it’s something more, atheism really is just a lack of a belief in God.