While the morality of non-theistic movements is admirable in significant respects, the logic of atheistic philosophers is occasionally, and in my opinion notably, poor. Below I’ve presented a quotation taken from a commentary on song expressing anti-fundamentalist (in the religious sense) sentiments.
“Obviously, intelligence allows an individual to doubt dogmas presented as facts, as well as unfounded assumptions, as it is well-known that assumptions and faith are among the main postulates of so-called “intellectual” religious beliefs (“The blind leading the blind“). However, it must be stressed that emotional belief is quite different, as intelligent people can also be religious due to social or emotional factors. An intelligent person can have beliefs in a god, but still remain critical and open-minded when it comes to institutionalised religion – his or her own, as well as that of others. But let’s face it: God does NOT exist and it would be time for Mankind to grow out of those ancient creeds and use reason instead of superstition.” (taken from <http://www.ironmaidencommentary.com/?url=album14_amolad/commentary14_amolad&lang=eng&link=albums#top>, a commentary on an Iron Maiden song, ‘For the Greater Good of God.’)
According to the author of the commentary, “…it is well-known that assumptions and faith are among the main postulates of so-called “intellectual” religious beliefs (“The blind leading the blind“).” Interestingly enough, it is not really possible to found a philosophical system on postulates that are not primarily assumption–even faith–based. The author will go on to contrast intellectual belief with emotional belief. The distinction is at best unclear, if you asked me.
But the lowest blow of the article comes later. “But let’s face it: God does NOT exist and it would be time for Mankind to grow out of those ancient creeds and use reason instead of superstition.” So asserts the commentator; however, he appears to me to have asserted in a manner that at least closely resembles assumption. At the end of the day, if we were looking for a philosophy that is not based in arbitrary postulates, I would contend that atheism ought not to be the origin or the destination.
I see where this author is coming from, and in many respects, I suppose that he is right to feel as he does. The moral framework of many atheists movement is actually, in my opinion, quite admirable. Atheists perceive that which many in the religious camp are unwilling to recognize: that almost every single practice of religion tends to turn into appeasing the god(s). (I would argue that this includes most kinds of Christianity, but that is a point for another day.)
I believe that an utterly good mind is behind the existence of the universe. I have chosen to opt for a problem of evil instead of a problem of good.