By Shane Kastler
Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson got some bad press again this week. Apparently at a prayer breakfast in Florida he laid out a scenario whereby an atheist might be forced to see the logical inconsistency of his position; from a philosophical standpoint at least. Robertson might not describe it in those words, but then again he might. He might look rugged; but don't mistake that for stupid. He's proven himself pretty sharp at times. And I think he did again.
Robertson described a hypothetical scenario in which an atheist man has his wife and two daughters held hostage before his eyes. His daughters are raped and his wife is decapitated. To any rational man this would be a clear case of heinous evil. Phil Robertson thinks such acts would be heinous evil, even against an atheist. But could the atheist describe it as heinous evil? Not according to his worldview.
One of the fatal flaws of atheism is that it cannot sustain moral absolutes of any kind. If you have no God to determine right from wrong; then every man does what is right in his own eyes. And who's to tell him otherwise? Atheism often tries to claim a moral standard based upon convention and the idea of whatever does the most good for the most people is “morally good.” Of course, what if you have differing ideas of “good.” Or what if the majority of the people in any hypothetical place believe that rape is a good thing? Does it then become good? Moral standards are philosophically impossible apart from a Christian worldview. If you do not have a righteous God declaring what is right and wrong, then sinful men will decide for themselves; and often they will be wrong. Atheists cannot account for right and wrong; but if they had to face a tragic personal situation like the one Robertson described they might change their tune. At the very least they would be confronted with the irrationality of their position. This was the point Robertson was making. And the idiots in the press went nuts.
I saw numerous headlines saying “Robertson Wishes Rape Upon Atheists” and “Robertson Offers Demented Fantasy About Murdering Atheists” and “Robertson Unleashes Tirade Against Atheists” --- Either the writers of such articles have no clue about philosophical argumentation. Or they just assume they won't hear it from a bearded, Southern man, wearing camo. Or, the writers themselves are so atheistic that they've jettisoned the ability to think along rational lines themselves. To me it simply sounded like a gaggle of uppity, citified reporters operating as a journalistic lynch mob. Phil Robertson said nothing against atheists, except that their worldview didn't account for moral absolutes. He's exactly right. Maybe he didn't express it the way you or I would. But his point was obvious. And valid.
The rabble rousing press needs to get a clue. Their constant over reactions to all things “Phil Robertson” have grown tiresome. They might deem him an unsophisticated neanderthal; but he clearly understands how to contrast the Christian and Atheistic worldviews better than they do. He made a good point. Crude perhaps, but a good point nonetheless. But it went completely over the heads of the robotic idiots in the media. Thinking baffles them because they don't know how to think for themselves. They are group-think, politically correct clones; programmed to attack people who look and sound like Robertson.
I say kudos to Phil for making a valid point that exposes a logical flaw in atheism. The ivy league press corps may not comprehend his argument; but this fellow bearded, Louisiana preacher knew exactly what he was talking about. He described a basic plank in the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God that states the impossibility of atheism to provide any moral absolutes because of it's rejection of the Christian God and his righteous standard as presented in the Bible. Piece of cake. Now someone explain it to the press.