I got it in the mail a couple weeks ago and, on my trip to DC last weekend, had a chance to go through all the articles. My overall impression is quite positive, especially the articles that have more abstract, pure-philosophy content, one of which I’ll comment on briefly.

Glancing at the abstract, as you can guess, I was immediately attracted to “The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists” by Alan Germani, a moral dissection of prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and others that, within the last few years, have helped push atheism into the pseudo-intellectual mainstream.

Now, call me reactionary but I’ve always been less than impressed with this bunch. That’s not to dismiss their intellectual contributions – they’ve launched a movement, and, in doing so, have gotten people to question their beliefs and adopt mindsets more receptive to critical thinking. All very good stuff. But, come on, it’s not like they’re real, heavy hitting philosophers. They – at least in the genre in question – tackle the easy questions: faith, religion, the supernatural, evidence, science, etc. It’s like being in Philo 101.

So what about morality and the human condition? As Germani reveals, their skepticism is limited to naturalistic empiricism. But, in the rare instance that they go beyond the causal explanation of our the moral impulse, moving past the anthropological is for the philosophical ought - New Atheists hardly do… – the answer almost inevitably turns out to have as much rational footing as they dogma they so vehemently contest. Morality guided by an “innate conscience”, “intuition”, and a “moral Zeitgeist”? These are the foundations for moral behavior within the New Atheist paradigm?

Behind the obfuscating titles that pass for moral compasses these days, however, is mere subjectivism, a wish-washy, arbitrary, non-objective consensus (that – not to get into it – ends up pushing altruism and self-sacrifice when all is said and done).

Focusing on the last compass mentioned but applicable to all, Germani gives the following thoughts, which for me get to the heart of the matter: 

But Dawkins’s theory of the “moral Zeitgeist” clearly does not solve the problem of how to validate moral ideas by reference to reality; it just treats collective opinion as though it were objective fact. That a changing moral consensus exists and that most people unthinkingly absorb their moral views through social osmosis does not mean that the consensus is correct or that people should acquire their moral views this way. Although Dawkins acknowledges that we can and must judge the contents of the Bible by reference to an independent moral standard, he fails to recognize that we can and must judge the social consensus by reference to the same.

Any attempt to ground morality in social consensus—whether of Dennett’s “we democratically agree on it” variety or of Dawkins’s “mysteriously shifting” variety—is hopelessly non-objective. Either the consensus is always right, or it can be wrong. If it is always right, then morality is subjective and simple: Morality equals popular opinion, whatever that happens to be at the time. If this is the case, there are no objective moral principles; there are only ever-changing social policies. If this is the case, the New Atheists have no grounds on which to condemn the inhuman religiosity of the Middle Ages, for its crimes were moral by the standards of the then-contemporary “Zeitgeist.”

For an objective moral code, one should take a look at… Yeah, you know where I’m going with this, so I’ll spare you. But, really, get your copy of the journal today. It’s free.

The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition. It is the injustice of thanking an alleged God for the productive accomplishments of actual men.

Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?

Is freedom a gift from God? It is not. Freedom, the absence of physical coercion, is a political condition resulting from the rational, principled thought and action of men—men such as Aristotle, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, Frederick Douglass, and American soldiers.

Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medicine that keeps your child alive, or the plush recliner in which you relax, or the big-screen TV on which you watch your favorite show? Did God create the jetliners that bring friends and family from afar, or the stealth bombers that keep the barbarians at bay, or the music that warms your heart and fuels your soul?

Since God is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?

Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally—according to what they say, do, and produce—and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves. If someone spends the day preparing a wonderful meal, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for doing so. If someone provides his family with a warm, safe, comfortable home, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for providing it. If a policeman or fireman or doctor saves someone’s life, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked. If a loving spouse or child or parent or friend provides you with great joy, justice demands that he, not God, be acknowledged accordingly. If a philosopher discovers the principles on which freedom depends—and if others put those principles into practice—justice demands that they, not God, be given credit.

To say grace is to give credit where none is due—and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.

Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season—and from now on—don’t say grace; say justice. Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they’re through. It’s the right thing to do.