A more efficient approach

As I was reading Daniel Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”, which is really quite good thus far, it struck me that Christians and other theists such as myself are taking a less effective route to crippling atheist arguments than we might.

Instead of trying to logically demonstrate to them that they have no claim on morality and that this would have a negative effect on human society, we really should take their arguments against God and ask them to make a scientific case for the very existence of morality. Not the “atheist morality” about which I have written, but rather the basic concept itself.

Where is the proof of “good”? Where is the scientific evidence that defines the distinction between “good” and “bad”? And if there is no scientific evidence for such a distinction, then don’t we have the same obligation to teach children the nonexistence of a moral imperative that we do of God?

This won’t stop the “I feel it” idiocy on the part of either atheists or theists, but it should shut the intelligent ones down. Then we can return to the inevitable utilitarian conclusion and end up agreeing that Israel must be driven into the sea, fat people must be converted into gasoline and women must be forcibly bred to the most fit.

The good of the greater number demands it!