The Maverick Rabbi, author of The Confused, Illusory World of the Atheist speaks up on the unmentionable subject in “A Plea to Atheists: Pedophilia Is Next On the Slippery Slope; Let Us Turn Back Before It Is Too Late” (Algemeiner, August 29, 2011) Moshe Averick points out that materialist atheism is intrinsically amoral. One results is capsuled by the journey of a philosophy professor:
Joel Marks, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the U. of New Haven, who for 10 years authored the “Moral Moments” column in Philosophy Now, made the following, rather shocking about-face in a 2010 article entitled, “An Amoral Manifesto.”
“This philosopher has been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t…The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality…I experienced my shocking epiphany that religious fundamentalists are correct; without God there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.
Marks then quite boldly and candidly addresses the implications of his newfound beliefs:
“Even though words like “sinful” and “evil” come naturally to the tongue as say a description of child molesting. They do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God…nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality…yet we human beings can still discover plenty of completely naturally explainable resources for motivating certain preferences. Thus enough of us are sufficiently averse to the molestation of children and would likely continue to be…
At this point the utter intellectual (and moral) bankruptcy of Marks’ position becomes apparent. After correctly concluding that a world without God is free from the shackles of the illusory concepts of morality and immorality, he pathetically attempts to have his cake and eat it too by suggesting that there is something “good” or “better” about the preference to being averse to child molestation.
Well, Darwin – the materialist atheist’s only true deity – could explain the preference of some for molesting girls because it sexualizes a girl early, resulting in more selfish genes being spread later. Of course, he can’t offer quite the same explanation for molesting boys. Oh wait, Darwinian theory accounts for homosexuality because gays can help siblings raise children, thus spreading some of their selfish genes more successfully. Thus molesting boys gets them into the habit of helping others spread their selfish genes.
What about those uptight folk who oppose the practice? Darwin can explain that too, as it happens: They evolved in such a way as to conserve their selfish genes until there is a high chance of success.
It all lays waste to any argument for protecting children.
In this context, “atheists” means “materialist atheists,” of course. The Dalai Lama (as other Buddhists) is technically an atheist, but the heart of Buddhism is the idea that the cosmos is – among other things – profoundly moral. Thus karma forbids any escape from the consequences of one’s actions. That kind of atheism is unlikely to catch on seriously in today’s West.
The Darwinian atheist, by contrast, thinks that morality is an illusion, as Michael Ruse puts it – maybe useful, maybe not. But the atheist decides which it is, depending on the preferences dictated by his selfish genes. That’s just so much more attractive.
How will it end? In “Our atheist commenters have kindly explained why atheism is doomed”, we see how atheists will destroy atheism: From time immemorial, people who flirt with “no actual morality” are easy prey for people dedicated to an evil morality.
See also: “Rabbi: Dawkins claimed that a debate he lost had never occurred – until it was posted online”, featuring yet another rabbi who doesn’t play rollover for Darwinists.
Follow UD News at Twitter!