." The original text appears in italics, and my commentary appears in non-italic text.
I can't disagree here. Those Crusades were pretty bad, as is the terrorism of Islamic extremists (and all other extremists).
I also agree here. Atrocities based on secular/atheistic ideologies have been committed (though I strongly disagree with the claim that Auschwitz was committed by atheists; the fascist Nazis, though perhaps not as much as their Spanish and Italian counterparts, were Christians, if bad ones).
For all the problems associated with belief in God, the death of God leads to far more of them.
So, while it is not possible to prove (or disprove) God's existence, what is provable is what happens when people stop believing in God.
1. Without God there is no good and evil; there are only subjective opinions that we then label "good" and "evil." This does not mean that an atheist cannot be a good person. Nor does it mean that all those who believe in God are good; there are good atheists and there are bad believers in God. It simply means that unless there is a moral authority that transcends humans from which emanates an objective right and wrong, "right" and "wrong" no more objectively exist than do "beautiful" and "ugly."
True, God represents a clearer picture of what is right and what is wrong. But people's interpretations of God's will have certainly led to "subjective opinions" on who deserves to die, ranging from the "sinner" to the "infidel."
2. Without God, there is no objective meaning to life. We are all merely random creations of natural selection whose existence has no more intrinsic purpose or meaning than that of a pebble equally randomly produced.
If Dennis Prager had bothered to study the eminent ethologist and atheist Richard Dawkins (with whom I disagree on almost every one of his assessments of the worth and purpose of man) and his The Selfish Gene, he would know that a human being has more of an intrinsic purpose or meaning than a pebble, even for secular biologists. A human exists, for example, as a machine to act out (with some cultural exceptions) what his genes dictate to him to ensure fitness; a pebble has no DNA and, as a result, is formed randomly through natural processes. I disagree with this view and the view Dawkins espouses in the text, but Prager should note that atheists often do find an "objective meaning to life" (though all life is basically equal in "worth" from the genetic point of view).
3. Life is ultimately a tragic fare if there is no God. We live, we suffer, we die -- some horrifically, many prematurely -- and there is only oblivion afterward.
'Tis grim, indeed. I like Judaism's answer more than simply rotting in the ground without any direction... At any rate, I fail to see how this statement shows an inherent problem with atheism, or to phrase that a little bit differently, I fail to see how an "atheist" would convince himself to believe in God because he wants to go somewhere pleasant when he dies. It would be logical for somebody to want to go somewhere happy; yet, what somebody believes in, I'd like to think, is based on something more than a matter of choice and convenience. It's convenient to believe in a religion's concept of the afterlife, but I don't think that's usually why believers believe.
4. Human beings need instruction manuals. This is as true for acting morally and wisely as it is for properly flying an airplane. One's heart is often no better a guide to what is right and wrong than it is to the right and wrong way to fly an airplane. The post-religious secular world claims to need no manual; the heart and reason are sufficient guides to leading a good life and to making a good world.
Yes, it is easy to see how a world without organized religion can be based on feelings and emotions rather than a given set of immutable values. Nonetheless, we cannot overlook that many "instruction manuals" have existed in the secular world to try to establish what is a good life and what is a good world; Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" comes to mind.
5. If there is no God, the kindest and most innocent victims of torture and murder have no better a fate after death than do the most cruel torturers and mass murderers. Only if there is a good God do Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler have different fates.
I agree. That's why many secularists also believe in social justice, bringing criminals like Hitler to justice while their still alive. Still, I agree with Prager's concern.
6. With the death of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many Westerners believe in little. That is why secular Western Europe has been unwilling and therefore unable to confront evil, whether it was Communism during the Cold War or Islamic totalitarians in its midst today.
Was Western Europe ever based on Judeo-Christian values? If so, when did Judeo-Christians die for them? And if they believe in little, why did many European nations establish successful government-run health care programs? Clearly, they believe in something. Humanism is often that something, but there can be other ideologies that lead to important and necessary innovations that benefit society as a whole. Evils are the result of secular societies, but so are institutions that serve the common good, like private charities (for those of you who don't agree with socialized medicine).
7. Without God, people in the West often become less, not more, rational. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed in the utterly irrational doctrine of Marxism. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed that men's and women's natures are basically the same, that perceived differences between the sexes are all socially induced. Religious people in Judeo-Christian countries largely confine their irrational beliefs to religious beliefs (theology), while the secular, without religion to enable the non-rational to express itself, end up applying their irrational beliefs to society, where such irrationalities do immense harm.
I can't accurately refute or defend this claim because I simply don't understand the foundation of this argument, but I'll try to come up with a response. People who call themselves Christians, including the priests involved in molestation scandals and the KKK who used to lynch blacks and burn crosses, lehavdil, have applied plenty of irrational beliefs to societal circumstances. I think this is a really hasty generalization, and even Orthodox Jews would admit that somebody can act morally without being religious.
8. If there is no God, the human being has no free will. He is a robot, whose every action is dictated by genes and environment. Only if one posits human creation by a Creator that transcends genes and environment who implanted the ability to transcend genes and environment can humans have free will.
Oh, here is the "selfish gene" theory that Prager neglected in his earlier discussion. I guess he picks out the parts of Dawkins' book that he feels are relevant while ignoring others that disagree with his assertions (just like when Judeo-Christian values seem to ignore plenty of verses from the Bible).
9. If there is no God, humans and "other" animals are of equal value. Only if one posits that humans, not animals, are created in the image of God do humans have any greater intrinsic sanctity than baboons. This explains the movement among the secularized elite to equate humans and animals.
True, life can have no "sanctity" unless you believe in "sanctity," which is a religious principle. As a result, many non-religious people equate humans and other animals in worth, but even more do not (for instance, those few secular people who eat beef or pork but not family members...).
10. Without God, there is little to inspire people to create inspiring art. That is why contemporary art galleries and museums are filled with "art" that celebrates the scatological, the ugly and the shocking. Compare this art to Michelangelo's art in the Sistine chapel. The latter elevates the viewer -- because Michelangelo believed in something higher than himself and higher than all men.
This is an interesting assumption that I largely agree with, but I also acknowledge that people can be inspired by plenty of other things: hate (Hitler's inspiration for Mein Kampf), family (Americans' inspiration to save money for their children), ambition (athletes' quest for gold medals), and the constant need to be right (Dennis Prager's columns), among many others. Many great works of literature, music, and architecture have been inspired by things other than faith in God, and I think it's unfair and irresponsibly misleading for Prager to point out unconventional paintings rather than beautiful modern symphonies to construct his argument that age and religion define quality.
11. Without God nothing is holy. This is definitional. Holiness emanates from a belief in the holy. This explains, for example, the far more widespread acceptance of public cursing in secular society than in religious society. To the religious, there is holy speech and profane speech. In much of secular society the very notion of profane speech is mocked.
This is in keeping with my commentary earlier on number 9. I also admit that religious people often see an intrinsic holiness in language (especially us Jews, who believe that one's name and one's essence are basically the same thing, as demonstrated by our reverence for God's name and the power it represents). Nevertheless, sensibilities change over time. Religious Jews felt that Yiddish, mame-loshn, should be the national language of Israel based on an understanding of the intrinsic sanctity of Hebrew, loshn koydesh; that doesn't stop today's religious Jews from using modern Hebrew in day-to-day dialogue about non-holy matters. Can this be viewed as an example of when "the very notion of profane speech is mocked"? I'm not entirely sure myself.
12. Without God, humanist hubris is almost inevitable. If there is nothing higher than man, no Supreme Being, man becomes the supreme being.
Didn't he just say that secularists believe that humans are equal to animals? See Prager's number 9.
13. Without God, there are no inalienable human rights. Evolution confers no rights. Molecules confer no rights. Energy has no moral concerns. That is why America's Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed "by our Creator" with certain inalienable rights. Rights depend upon a moral source, a rights giver.
I agree.
14. "Without God," Dostoevsky famously wrote, "all is permitted." There has been plenty of evil committed by believers in God, but the widespread cruelties and the sheer number of innocents murdered by secular regimes -- specifically Nazi, Fascist and Communist regimes -- dwarfs the evil done in the name of religion.
Again, trying to rewrite history by saying that the fascists were secularists. No they weren't; totalitarianism is not to be equated with a belief in man's ability to triumph over God. Mussolini instituted many reforms that were in keeping with Catholic doctrine, including laws against public swearing and rulings that closed down bars. Religion was taught in public schools, and the Catholic Church was allowed to control all marriages in Italy. Many if not most Nazis were also Christians.
As noted at the beginning, none of this proves, or even necessarily argues for, God's existence. It makes the case for the necessity, not the existence, of God. "Which God?" the secularist will ask. The God of Israel, the God of America's founders, "the Holy God who is made holy by justice" (Isaiah), the God of the Ten Commandments, the God who demands love of neighbor, the God who endows all human beings with certain inalienable rights, the God who is cited on the Liberty Bell because he is the author of liberty. That is the God being referred to here, without whom we will be vanquished by those who believe in less noble gods, both secular and divine.
I would capitalize "He" and "Whom," and I would set "god" in lowercase in the question, "Which god?"... but I won't criticize Prager here with such relatively trivial matters. I agree that his column argues for God, and obviously, it argues for what he perceives to be the true God. Nonetheless, I think this conclusion (the way he phrases it) isolates some of our closest allies, like peaceful Hindus and Buddhists, while bringing in those Prager disagrees with the most: radical Islamic extremists, who also believe in many attributes of God that Prager just lists.
