A few days ago one of my atheist trolls

wrote in response to my point that Materialist Moralists can’t derive “ought” from their materialist universe of “is”.

True, atheists can’t explain everything. What’s interesting to me is that the Christian explanation (God did it) doesn’t explain anything either.

What causes lightning? God did it. What causes thunder? God did it. Why does the chimpanzee genome and human genome look so similar? God did it. Why did the Lions lose? God did it.

How do we derive our ought statements? God did it. What about logic? God did it. Numbers? God did it.

When an atheist decides that he’s not going to settle for that, but is going to attempt a naturalistic explanation, he’s ridiculed. Until he shows the truth of his claim scientifically (Darwin, Ben Franklin, whatever). The Christian then shuts up and moves to the next unexplained concept where he still feels he can insert God.

I don’t agree with subjectivist morality, but it’s less worthy of ridicule than the Godidit explanation, which is no explanation at all.

This fluid regurgitation of a fideist obscurantism comes to mind as I read this fine review of what sounds like a very interesting (albeit expensive) book.

It turns out that my atheist’s contempt for Christianity may be serving him rather ill in terms of helping him get past the cartoonish notion that the theist approach to understanding Nature consists of yammering “God did it.” As it happens this is almost total crap history. But many an atheist is a deep believer in myth.