SEE ALSO HOME PAGE AND CONTENTS

REVIEW - THE NEW ATHEISM AND THE EROSION OF FREEDOM by Robert A. Morley 1986 P & R Publishing. ISBN 0-87552-362-5. Reviewed by Arthur Chappell

I have a passionate interest in seeing what Christians have to say about Humanism. Morley's book is one of the gems of bad arguments against Humanism. It is written as a guide for Evangelical American Christians. The idea is that when they come upon a Christian who is raising doubts about religion, or Christian teachings, (an early sign of the kind of apostasy that might lead someone to reject faith for atheism altogether) the evangelical can trot out these arguments and use them to talk him or her out of it. Such arguments may also be used in attempts to convert atheists to Christianity too. I never felt inclined however in reading this to be converted to anything other than disgust, anger and occasional fits of laughter.

Robert Morley (no relation to the late great actor of the same name) begins as he means to go on by describing the kind of Humanists he has met. His Economics teacher was a Jew who survived the concentration camps during WW2, and who was a committed Marxist denouncing religion for its links to capitalism. His chemistry teacher was a hippie, often stoned on drugs whilst teaching, and telling the children, in relation to sexual practices "if it feels good do it." His Spanish teacher was a flagrant homosexual, and atheist, also of the if it feels good do it variety.

A pattern quickly emerges. Atheists & Humanists (the words are used interchangeably) are always immoral, amoral, unchristian people who advocate drugs, left wing politics, free-sex, hedonism and homosexuality.

That Humanists can be right wing politically, opposed to drug taking, strong in their belief in monogamy and quite moral and ethical in their life-choices, is something beyond Morley's ken. Humanists generally support gay rights, even when not personally gay, so it soon becomes apparent that Morley sees Humanism as responsible for all and everything and everybody he hates.

Morley goes on; "The only way Humanists can strike a blow against God is to deny his existence."

This suggests we believe God does exist, but choose to deny him any way; the slanderous sleight of hand here is to make Humanists sound like Satanists; but Humanists don’t deny God's existence. They recognise God's non-existence, and say so with sincerity. He also claims that Humanists 'force people to give up their religion' and cites as evidence the Stalinist forced closure of the Churches in Russia during his reign. No one forced me into Humanism; it was my own recognition of the failure of the various religions I had lived before reverting to the atheism of my youth. No one twisted my arm, no one even knew it was happening until I declared it so. As for Stalinism, it may have been atheistic, but it was not Humanistic. There are bad atheists, and good atheists, just as there are bad Christians (Hitler for one) and good Christians. Some of Morley's claims are totally insincere slanders against us. "Modern anti-theists proclaim their unbelief in God is part of a 'package deal' which includes totalitarian socialism as the ultimate goal." Utter lies to the last word. Socialism needn't be totalitarian, and Humanism needn't be socialistic, (though I am a socialist at heart) and no Humanist could or would be a totalitarian; it's a contrary doctrine to Humanism which ultimately favours democracy.

Morley raises one interesting question, albeit as an abusive challenge. "If the atheist doesn't believe in God, why does he spend so much time fighting God?"

The answer is that we are not fighting the non--existent at all, but the very real, existent institutions that do claim God exists and that they must educate and indoctrinate our children in accordance with commandments from that God. We respect the right to believe in God, but to base law and morality on a metaphysical conceit is extremely dangerous. Law, and morality and ethics belong squarely in the secular world. Morley argues that atheism, as a negation of God's existence is replacing something with a nothing and that we have no explanations of anything, but of course, we do. Science, cosmology, and evolution as promoted by Darwinism explains that which religion simply expects us to accept on its terms. The various theories we employ need development and refinement, but they are proving very workable models. Morality is based on human social interaction, and religion was merely an invention by which a ventriloquist dummy of a God (with us pulling the strings) could tell us what we wanted to tell each other; i.e.; be good, don't hurt each other, etc."

Morley says the denial of God's existence is circular reasoning. He says; "Since God does not exist, therefore all that exists is matter. Since all that exists is matter, therefore God does not exist. "

This is not circular reasoning; it is simply repeating the same argument in different words. Humanists do believe in the material verifiable empirical world presented to us by our perceptional senses. We then say that there is no evidence in that world that needs to be explained by bringing in ideas about God; the world can be explained by other means. God is simply unnecessary to the world view of science-based Humanism. Stating the argument the other way round is senseless. God doesn't exist does not automatically beget a matter only world. The world is there, we are a part of it; and we can see no evidence for a God to exist in relation to it.

"No one is born an atheist. One must choose to become one." This merits status as daft argument of the century. We only believe in a God because we are raised to believe in him. Many generations of prehistoric humanity probably passed before the idea of supernatural beings governing our affairs was first suggested by some imaginative tribal philosopher. There are tribes in the world today that stick to purely practical, pragmatic food, shelter, and clothing pursuits and scorn all manner of belief related teachings; and of course, many non-Christian Jews, Muslims, etc, believe in very different gods than the one Morley claims we were born believing in. We were born neither as believers or as atheists; our views were shaped by what we were told and taught by our parents and peers.

Morley argues that atheism and the sudden declaration of theists that they have rejected religion, is usually a symptom of some other grudge by those individuals. Marx, he claims, was raised by Jewish parents who converted to Christianity, so that he was ostracised by the Jews for being Christian, and sneered at by new Christian neighbours for being Jewish. His bitterness to religion is therefore seen as merely the psychological damage of living in this dilemma. Charles Bradlaugh, Morley claims, took to atheism after being kicked out of the home of his pious Christian parents, just because he knew that his promotion of unbelief "would cause them much pain and grief." Morley tries to make atheists sound like basket-cases, filled with grudges and resentments, and atheism as a psychosomatic disorder. Maybe he's right, but the same argument can be argued for any convert to Christianity. Did Jesus accept Martyrdom on the cross from delusions of fame and grandeur? St. Paul, (Saul before conversion) was sent to destroy Christianity; was his conversion a psychological realisation that he would fail, and a cowardly decision to change allegiances and side with the enemy? Are modern born again Christians just neurotic sensation seekers? I doubt if any of these reasons for conversion run true in isolation. Morley is merely casting stones and name calling, and trying to sound reasonable in the process.

Humanists, to Morley are therefore Stalinist Nazis, neurotic paranoid hedonists, who won't play ball with God, etc, and some are gay, communists, etc. The evidence asserts otherwise.

Morley ends with a string of pat answers to standard atheistic arguments. He starts by noting that most Humanists will not deny Jesus even existed, but say that he was probably a good religious teacher, just not God incarnate, or in any way divine. Morley says if Jesus was a good man, and sincere about himself, then he had to actually be God; otherwise he was either 2a liar, a lunatic, or not a good man at all."

I have several answers here; 1/. We don't know what Jesus said or did, but what the Bible records with a limited and finite degree of accuracy. 2/. The accounts are second hand. We don't know what Jesus said with any evidence at all. 3/. It's conceivable he didn't exist, or that he is a composite character based on several stories and legends of the day. 4/. Though essentially a well intentioned man, Jesus may well have been ruthless and cunning enough to allow certain false claims about himself to serve his ends; he may even have been bad, mad, evil or a loony. I think some of what he did may have made it into the Bible, along with what some people wanted him to have said and done; and that the truth about his nature is virtually unknowable beyond faith and speculative imagings. Humanists say man is Good, but the Bible, Morley claims, says we are evil, and sinners. "No one need teach a child to lie, cheat, steal, etc" he claims. True, but no one teaches them to be kind gentle with cats and puppies either; and we can teach kids how to not steal. They usually grasp quickly why something is not theirs to own or play with once taught. On evolution, Morley is simply a literal creationist. Many questions and challenges by Humanists are simply answered with a Biblical quotation, as though that endeth the lesson. It does. Morley isn't worth reading for Humanists, or he wouldn't be if so many impressionable, but doubting Christians were not likely to find his book presented to them as a way of changing their minds about us. It's vital therefore for Humanists to know these rag-bag accusations and recognize the best ways to refute them with sensible, rational answers.