Dangerous Christian Talk (DCT)

I am in the midst of some reading for an introductory philosophy course I am doing at uni. The reading is taken from the book "Religion, Ethics and The Meaning of Life". The relevant sections looks at two christians view on DCT, Divine Command Theory.

The problem with DCT is that implies either that morality is arbitrary (evidence from psychology and neuroscience seem to suggest not) or that religion is morally redundant. There are two different responses, one by a Dr.Sharon Kaye, the other by a Dr.Harry Gensler. Both, as I far as I can tell have PhDs in philosophy, and there's evidence in a rather flimsy analogy by Kaye that she definitely does not have a PhD in Chemistry.

However, I am not here to discuss their arguments, faulty at times though they are. Both of these academics have a moment in their writing that reveals an inner disgust for atheists. Gensler directly says that atheists cannot be as moral as those who believe in god, Kaye talks of atheists as if they are some fringe group, and is rather condescending, and one of the "questions for further reading" is "In general terms how would you defend morality from an atheistic perspective?".

Let's start with the last thing. The question its self is not wholly unreasonable, but its phrasing and context given it some sinister implications. Firstly the use of the word "defend" raises all two of my eyebrows. This word not only implies that something is under attack, but it holds connotations of fighting and factionalizing. For book clearly aimed at Christians, the question, which is supposed to be reflective seems far too aggressive, and enforces a divide and an us versus them attitude.

Gensler actually says, and I quote "Believers can have a fuller and deeper morality [than atheists] - since they have all this plus the religious dimension." Christopher Hitchens often spoke of the claims of the religious to have access to information the irreligious don't, and that to gain this information you had to join the faith, or become a proper member (clergy, etc). Gensler is doing much of the same, More importantly his statement is dripping with arrogance and a sense of superiority. On issues of morality I ask to see some form of empirical evidence. Actions talk louder than words and if you claim to be morally superior, as indeed Gensler does, then I ask for the evidence, to prove at least somewhat that your claims are not just the echo of your smugness and self satisfaction.

Finally we have this by Kaye "My version of DCT not only makes it possible for atheists to be fully moral, it does so without making God morally redundant." Thank you Dr.Kaye for allowing me, a savage and barbaric atheist to be "fully" moral. Kaye's statement may have been made with the best of intentions, but for any freethinker it is utterly condescending. Once again, to paraphrase Hitchens, the idea that because atheists do not believe in god atheists are immoral is an monstrous accusation. It is true Kaye does  not say this, but her attitude seeps through that one line she wrote, she might as well think that for what its worth, and she treats atheists (in a general sweeping claim) as if they had the intellectual capacity of a horse.

The point is, DCT is a tool of foul logic that has hideous undertones.