The Secret Theism of Atheists

It never ceases to amaze me that so many theists are convinced that atheism somehow precludes a person from morality, or makes them incapable of comprehending and even validating concepts such as justice or ethics without somehow invoking a god. Usually their god, naturally. An example of this sort of thinking springs forth from an article written by Douglas Wilson, entitled Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Virginia Tech. A core argument he tries to make is summarized in this statement:

"The [ Virginia Tech ] rampage is an atrocity which Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all believe will never be put right. Justice will never be applied to it. And this lack of justice is just the way it is. So what is wrong with this lack of justice now? Given atheism, nothing is wrong with it."

Earlier in the article he poses his view that atheists are stuck with this detached position, except that "something" else permits us to escape our terminal apathy. He hints:

"My point is that atheists disapprove of this kind of thing [ of the Virginia Tech shooting ], but their disapproval cannot be derived from the premises of their atheism. It must therefore come from somewhere else."

Well golly, Wilson! You're nearly onto something there!

What Wilson fails to recognize is that many atheists do derive their disapproval and abhorrence of events like Virginia Tech as a logical conclusion of their atheism. And this is where our disapproval comes from; an unmitigated necessity to determine moral and ethical views based on the use of reason and logic. Those are the tools, the very best tools, we have to work with. We have neither religious fiction nor god-given dogma to provide those answers. We cannot disregard the tools of logic or the facts of reality because, well, we have no faith. If we did, we would have nothing at all.

This necessary approach is also what describes a tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech in even more abhorrent terms for the atheist, than for a theist such as Wilson. How so? For precisely the reason he cites in his article; Cho Seung-Hui and many of his victims are dead. We can never rectify nor bring about justice to resolve that permanent condition.

I can and do accept that, and I acknowledge that no one can change or lend justice to that fact. Dawkins and Harris do as well. We are doubly offended, saddened, and troubled because we recognize the permanence of the horror unleashed. Wilson simply can't understand how we manage. We must have a dark secret.

Wilson also can't seem to understand how we atheists don't merely fall into utter apathy about horrible tragedies, or why we don't listlessly shuffle away, left with the unsatisfactory consolation that the universe is simply cruel and uncaring to the plight of humanity. He feels compelled to suspect that we atheists secretly harbor attention with his deity to try and answer away a reality that, to him, rational atheism simply must be incapable of dealing with.

Meanwhile, Wilson and other theists openly grasp at a fictional form of justice that remains wholly unproven and is, in all probability, no more than mere fantasy and wish fulfillment on their part. Still, this hollow form of justice permits them to view tragedy in a notably different tone, no matter if it is true or not. For Wilson, Cho is already facing an eternity of hellfire and torment and as far as he is concerned, justice is being served even as I write this.

Wilson completely ignores the fact that atheists are not apathetic or uncaring, even if the universe itself is. That we atheists, unlike the universe, have a vested interest in the lives of ourselves and our fellow man. A moral, ethical, justice driven interest, even. What an incredible thought! Wilson thinks it an illusion.

Curiously, all these things that we can claim, as rational human beings and as rational atheists, is a position that Wilson cannot demonstrate as a native part of his own theology. This is due to his theology's insistence on faith, rather than reason, as the measure of confidence that indicates whether the theology is valid at all. The result is that, if the theist feels as the atheist does, that sense must come from something other than theology.

And indeed it does. Christians quite frequently use the faculty of reason to derive moral codes and positions that are not provided, or frequently run counter, to those expressed in the book they claim as their moral anchor--the bible.

For example, I don't know of any Christian who thinks that we should stone to death unruly and disrespectful children, even though the bible expresses just such a penalty. Nor do most of the Christians I know believe that we should take a homosexual out and stone them to death, yet another "moral code" and penalty clearly outlined, even familiar to many Christians. This, a blatant admission, indirect as it may be, that the bible is not in fact as rational as they can be. The primary difference is that atheists rely on this tool, on rationality, full-time and by way of necessity, continuing to do so even when religious insensibility overtakes our theistic neighbors.

This explanation is likely not enough for Wilson, however. He has already provided his own, backwards and as erroneous as it may be, professing:

"But even the new atheists cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this. This is because they are created in the image of God, and they know better."

You just keep telling yourself that, Wilson, and maybe you can convince yourself it is true.