Christians argue that the existence of a universal morality is evidence for the existence of God. In his book The God Delusion, the atheist Richard Dawkins mentions that morality comes through evolution and that a person can be moral without God - and there are many atheists who think the same thing.

But it's true?

Dawkins acknowledges that, on the surface, Darwinism seems inadequate to explain good and morality. After all, what is the survival value of these feelings? However, he tries to explain morality through his theory of the "selfish gene," stating that genes ensure their own survival through altruistic behavior - as helping the one who helps us or helping those with our own genetics (family, The same species, etc.). In addition, it says that as our morality is rooted in our "Darwinian past," then morality transcends cultural or religious boundaries. He cites studies that allegedly show that religious people do not differ from atheists in their morals. He concludes that God is not needed to be good - or bad. (This is all in his book, The God Delusion, pages 214-226 and in a radio interview.)

Given the godless presumptions of atheists, it makes sense that many of them echo Dawkins' ideas in attempting to ground morality in evolution. In fact, it is among the most common things found among today's atheists. However, this argument falls short by not explaining all that morality entails. Specific:

The argument does not explain where the moral obligation arises or why.

The argument confuses the relationship between a divine morality and religion.

The argument does not adequately explain why morality matters

Problem # 1: The gulf between what is and what should be.

The idea that morality evolved mentions whether actions promote or hinder the survival of genes. However, this is only a pragmatic criterion. Morality deals with the concepts of good and evil, not with the fact that they are useful or not. No one ever lives as if morality were merely based on their ability to survive - there are actions and behaviors that people consider genuinely good or genuinely bad.

The problem facing the atheist is, in the very words of Dawkins:

"In a universe of blind forces and genetic replications, there are people who will be hurt and others will have good fortune - without finding any reason behind it; There is no justice either. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect it to have if, in the end, there is no design, there is no purpose, there is no evil and there is no good; Nothing except a blind indifference and no mercy. Like the unhappy poet, A.E. Housman, puts it:

'Nature, without heart and without knowledge, will never know or care.'

DNA does not know or care. DNA is only. And we dance to his music. "

So how is it that the basis of morality is natural selection, if natural selection cares neither for goodness nor for suffering?

This is the moral dilemma of atheism: they can be intellectually honest and recognize that nature does not care about good and evil, but consistently abandon this position, stating that some things are good and some things are bad.

Morality needs a solid foundation.

Paul Copan argues that evolutionary naturalism can describe how people behave, but can not decide how people should behave. In order to be able to say that an action is good or bad, we need an objective and universal measure that transcends the individual and society.

In addition, it must be a personal Being. Moral standards deal with good and evil. Not only that, but they have to do with what should be done and what should not be done - as this involves a decision that requires personality and awareness.

A transcendent moral standard, and necessarily, needs to be based on a conscious, personal and transcendent reality. Christianity finds this in God - the only place where such a standard can be found.

If God does not exist, then it would be as Francis Schaeffer explains: Ethics would merely explain "what is" instead of "what should be". If this were the case, then there is no objective difference between goodness and cruelty, because, in addition to the absence of an objective standard, the same evolutionary process that brought us goodness was the one that brought cruelty. In this sense the terms "kind" and "cruel" would lose their meaning.

Atheists have a problem assuming from the outset that there is no transcendental Giver of Law: even if they believe in a good and a bad objective, they have no way of justifying it, as has been shown - unless they admit that there is a Lawgiver Objective

But then they would cease to be atheists.

Problem # 2: Confusing God and religion.

Atheists tend to argue that one can be good without God and / or religion (thinking that the terms "God" and "religion" are interchangeable) and concluding that God does not have to exist so that people can be moral. However, there is an important distinction between what is God and what is religion.

There is a study by two people named Hauser and Singer who concluded that there was no significant statistical difference between atheists and religious people when they make moral judgments. Interestingly, the study always mentions religion as a moralizing agent and, suddenly, deduces that God is not necessary to be moral.

As has been explained, objective morality requires a transcendent foundation in God. This is true regardless of the religious beliefs - or absence of them - specific to any individual and regardless of the different cultural standards. Within Christianity (which appears to be the belief that receives the most attacks), God created mankind and has revealed Himself, not only through His Word and the incarnation of Jesus, but through nature (Romans 1: 20) and through the moral conscience of mankind (Romans 2: 13-16).

If God exists and has given a moral conscience to the human being, then people will be aware of His moral law, despite their cultural differences or religious standards. Human morality has a divine foundation, not only for Christians, but for all humanity - including atheists. Paul Copan writes that atheists can discern an objective difference between good and evil without reference to special revelation (such as Scripture), but lack an appropriate metaphysical context to make such a distinction. This context is given in the biblical statement that God exists and created the human being in His image.

In short, it is true that one can be aware of morality without the need for religion, but not without God.

Therefore, it is possible to make an objective distinction of good and evil because God exists.

Problem # 3: Why be good?

If atheism is true, what inhibits a person from doing evil?

Atheists who are intellectually honest already admit that evolution does not produce virtues like generosity or universal love. However, Dawkins argues that we have evolved to such a point that we can "rebel against our DNA and teach such virtues" (from The Selfish Gene). Interestingly, no one has been able to say why we should rebel and go beyond our evolutionary tendencies.

If DNA does not care about suffering, why can not we be cruel if it benefits the individual or society? The story presents numerous examples of cruelty and oppression by people who saw personal or social benefits in their actions (such as Hitler's "Last Solution"). Alister McGrath notes that "one of the greatest ironies of the twentieth century is that many of the acts of homicide, intolerance and repression that were carried out were committed by people who thought religion to be homicidal, intolerant and repressive - seeking to remove it from The face of the Earth as a humanitarian act. "

It could be argued, I presume, that human beings have evolved morally from Hitler's time, but what is the standard that would be used to judge between moral systems? C.S. Lewis explains:

 "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you're actually measuring both by a standard - saying there's one set that's closer to that standard than the other. But the standard used to measure two things has to be something different from the things it measures. They are both comparing, no doubt, to a Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a Real 'Correct', regardless of what people think, and that some ideas are closer to that Real than others. "(Mere Christianity, p. 25)

The atheist has not been able to provide a clear standard. Like Dawkins, many support utilitarian ethics, through which one must seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but they do not explain how to judge between what consequences are good and what are not. C.S. Lewis argues that moral standards exist beyond human convention: "It begins to appear that we will have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; In this particular case, there is something greater and beyond the everyday facts of human behavior, but it is definitely real - a real law, which none did, but which presses us to act correctly. "

For atheists, morality is a byproduct of evolution, and this means that they are mere conventions. There is nothing genuinely good or bad.

An action is pragmatic or non-pragmatic, preferable or not preferable - but, pragmatic or desirable for whom? Who decides? If we are all accidents of evolution, there is nothing wrong with a stronger and more skillful "accident" oppressing a weaker and less able "accident". So natural selection works. The person who helps save the lives of others while he has the opportunity to save himself is simply an idiot.

As Dawkins rightly said: "there is no evil, there is no good; Nothing except a blind and unmerciful indifference. "Surely atheists are withdrawing from these ideas when they go to the funeral home of a loved one who was murdered. Undoubtedly, they identify as "tragedy" and are not indifferent before things like the Twin Towers event or the bombing of the Boston Marathon in April 2013.

As Aquino wrote almost 800 years ago:

"We can not have something better without knowing what is best. We can not distinguish between a greater or a lesser good without having a definite good over which they can be measured. "

The Reality of Morality

Each person is aware that there is a genuine difference between good and evil. An ethics grounded in nature would leave us with an arbitrary morality. On the other hand, theism begins with courage, so crossing the gulf between what "is" and what "should be" is not a problem.

God did not declare an arbitrary standard of good or evil - nor did He discover it. The standard He has revealed is an expression of His holy and just nature. Greg Bahnsen says:

"As Christians, we have an absolute, holy and unchanging God who has revealed to us an absolute, holy and unchanging law to provide an absolute, holy and unchangeable foundation for our ethical perspective and our moral conduct." (From the book: "Pushing the Antithesis ")

The atheist does not have this absolute, unchanging and unshakable basis for morality. Gary Habermas says:

"One may have a personal dislike for eating eggplant, but such an act is far from immoral. In the same way, what we commonly see as evil in the world - when we assume the atheistic moral ethics - is nothing more than a strong personal dislike and is no longer an objective problem for the theist.

Atheists have lost their favorite argument against theism. "To conclude, you can not have both: either we accept absolute morality and we face the strong possibility of a universe with God or we deny absolute morality and recognize that we can not use the Argument of "if God exists, why do bad things happen?" - because if God does not exist there is no such thing as something that can be recognized as objectively evil. However, it is a devastating blow to atheism. While it is true that there are people who have committed (and commit - and will commit) atrocities in the name of Christ, it is also true that they acted against the teachings of Christ. This serves only to illustrate the depravity inherent in each person's hearts and the need for Christians to serve God more faithfully. Atheism can not account for the fallen nature of man and does not provide an adequate basis for morality or the concepts of good and evil. As mentioned by Joel McDurmon: "The atheist has no Golden Rule because he has no one to give it." When morality is divorced from its foundation in God, man is left without a stable foundation on which to judge good and wrong.

References:

• The Morality of Atheism Essay, https://www.cram.com
• Essay about Morality for an Atheist, https://grademiners.co/
• Ethics Without Gods, https://www.atheists.org

A Beginner's Guide to Using Reddit. By eliminating junk food from your diet and replacing it with fresh fruit, vegetables and quality meat you'll start to feel a lot better and your levels of inflammation will decrease. Martin Luther King, Jr. When you join StumbleUpon, make no mistake, you're joining a community.

Fast forward to today and dopamine is still craved, it is hard-wired into our brains. They want to learn about the treatment that will be given to them by the doctor so that they are able to commit themselves to full agreement. By reducing inflammation in joints, astaxanthin helps eliminate and prevent joint pain.

Perhaps one of the nicest aspects of living in a 55 plus community is found in the fact that you will be surrounded by neighbors at similar points in their own lives as you are at this time. This is useful for any medical emergency. Proper nutrition and exercise will always produce the best results but if you're looking to take it one step further, these three natural supplements may be a great way to help. This release can be set off by picking fruit, smelling food or even just seeing it. Many of you may not have had this type of mentorship, so let me give you my perspective on volunteering.

By 2004, it is estimated that over 20 million people have played Dungeons and. The already existing choice of libraries and development tools saves developers from having to hunt for appropriate IDEs, and documentation specific for smartphones. The already existing choice of libraries and development tools saves developers from having to hunt for appropriate IDEs, and documentation specific for smartphones. No doubt, Magento is sought-after for both startups and large enterprises, but proficiency in handling or implementing its functions should be there. Colourful parade, dance, and music are held in East Sussex on this day.

Feeling Reddit ready? Head on over to the site and get involved with the global discussion. The beginning of the semester when you are making friends, and getting used to a new schedule, make sure you keep your studies in mind while mingling with friends. This conversion technology is in no doubt a one-stop solution to get appealing E-commerce websites.

Abstract

The paper discusses broadly two main questions:What is liquidity? and what steps can the Controller take to improve her/his company's liquidity? The analysis of these questions are taken into consideration along with the observation of the factors, which can help the controller to increase liquidity in order to meet the problems and crisis situation with in the organization. The paper also presents conclusions based on all the details and facts regarding liquidity and the measures, which can be adopted to increase the liquidity with in the organization.

From the Paper:

"The comfortability and easiness through which a company's asset can be converted into cash as and when wanted is known as liquidity. There are many advantages of liquidity and hence, the organizations and companies should make use of the tools, strategies and methodologies which can be adopted to increase the liquidity with in the organization. The degree of easiness and certainty of value with which the security can be converted into cash is known as liquidity. It is the ability of the company to meet with its current and short-term financial obligations as and when they occur. It has been noted that a company should increase its liquidity because those companies, which have increased their liquidity, are more successful in dealing with the businesses, while on the other hand those companies who have not yet adopted measures to increase liquidity are lacking behind."