Letters: Atheists always miss the point about morality

Moral behaviour is about the individual’s response to the general human awareness of what we should do regardless of whether such action is in our own or even someone else’s interests. Atheists always seem to miss the critical point that their picture of a meaningless universe undermines all the high-minded tosh they invariably come out with in support of some approved pattern of moral behaviour. If we have just our threescore and ten, why on earth would we feel obliged to consider any action other than what serves our own interests or whim?

The Apostle Paul put it with refreshing clarity: “If Christ is not risen, let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die”. In the atheist world-view, all self-sacrifice is pointless and those we thought of as heroic were in fact deluded fools. The reality of course is that the desperate desire to get rid of any supernatural origin for our sense of moral responsibility leads inevitably to an entirely irrational position where “ought” is simply plucked from the air and presented as somehow self-evident. Sadly, it seems increasing numbers see through this shallow reasoning and solemnly adopt “me first” as their guiding principle.

The great scholar C S Lewis examined the moral codes of a wide range of civilisations and his conclusions appear in his short book The Abolition of Man, where an appendix lists examples of the remarkable similarity of their teachings. Which is not to say of course that any such codes were without defect, nor of course that humans were consistent in applying them! But it does hit on the head any notion of morality having “evolved”.

Alan Oliver
Falkirk

I WAS brought up in the Catholic faith, went to church confessional as a child and made up stuff to please the adult hiding in the wee box because I couldn’t remember doing anything bad that week.

I had my doubts at a very early age.

During a “Religious Knowledge” class led by a music teacher, we were told that “if God had intended man to fly, he’d have given us wings”. I asked, genuinely puzzled: “Why then did God give us the intelligence to build aeroplanes?” I was labelled a “troublemaker”.

It seems that anyone who speaks out against religious dogma is a troublemaker, but the problem is that there are not enough of us.

I’m writing this because I’ve just read yet another example of fear and hate vocalised by a “Father” in the Catholic Church condemning ordinary people for their sexual orientation, and then I had to confront and then comfort the mother of an LGBT child because she was worried that Pride Scotland weren’t doing enough to distance themselves from paedophilia!

Being Scottish I’m also sick to death of these hate marches in the name of historic religious grievances that we have to put up with each and every summer, and the hate chanting that goes hand in glove with certain football teams. Actually, thinking about it that’s probably why I hate football.

So many bad things around our planet are being done in the name of religion; innocents are killed daily in “God’s name”.

Every day of my life is affected by some opinion that is based on misplaced “faith”.

I ask you, who is the truly moral person? The one who behaves in a decent compassionate manner because it’s just the right way to be, or the one who does it for fear of eternal damnation but keeps a get-out-of-jail-free card in the form of the confessional?

Mark Harper
Dysart

IT would seem it is not a joke that Glasgow Caledonian University chaplain, Father Mark Morris of Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic Church, has held a service involving a “rosary of reparation for the gross offence to God which is Pride Glasgow”.

Distasteful private religious views are one thing, but it is quite another for this individual to continue to be chaplain at a Scottish university.

Neil Barber
Edinburgh Secular Society

THE article about Clause 322.5 (Right to NHS access for migrants reaches court, July 17) illustrates exactly thoughts I have now had for a long time. Why on earth are those applying for asylum or appealing a refusal of permission to stay not allowed to work and earn their own keep? Is it the desire deliberately to make them seem likely to be a burden to the state if asylum is granted?

These poor souls are left dependent on handouts or even just charity, with no means to better their situation and no funds to promote their case adequately, and this applies to many who are skilled and qualified in areas where we are desperately short of workers. If they were allowed, encouraged and even helped to find paid employment, of any sort, while awaiting a decision, it would preserve their dignity, save the state money, fill gaps in our workforce and illustrate how they could be of benefit to our society if allowed to stay.

The advantages of allowing them to work are so numerous that it would seem to me impossible to argue against it. There seems to be some hidden agenda in the current process – or is it just numbers, blinkers and pig-headedness? Clause 322.5 must be abolished – NOW!

P Davidson
Falkirk