eventually devolves into a lack of moral agency. An obvious example is the teaching of the so-called New Atheists.
Major figures of New Atheism include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett, collectively referred to as the “four horsemen” of the movement…
But here’s the issue: If all is merely materialistically necessary, then so is my opposition. And so is New Atheism. There IS no Truth Value to either side. In other words, Dawkins and Hitchens (Hitchens died in 2011) admittedly have no truth/meaning argument at all against theism!
No matter what “team” you are on then, it is merely necessary. You are merely a product of your upbringing, education, and cognitive abilities. You no more choose your position than a nail chooses to go into a board after being struck by a hammer!
BUT, on the other hand, if there IS moral agency, the “team” I choose to be on is a reflection of my own morality, of right and wrong, good and bad.
So, it boils down to this: If all is mere reflex, any view I have is by definition truth-deficient and therefore has no meaning at all. And if there IS real moral agency, then there is fundamental meaning to my behavior–there IS “right” and “wrong.”
Atheists need to be a little consistent: If there is no moral agency, then we are just complex hammers, and there is no right or wrong–there is only metaphysical necessity. If I oppose them, that is no more morally meaningful or significant than their pronouncements! It’s ALL just sound and fury, meaning nothing.
Me? I think there is indeed moral agency. And thus there is moral meaning to our thoughts and behaviors.