One thing that never ceases to amaze me is when some individuals defend atheism in order to preserve freedom.  The argument they present usually goes something like this...

"Christianity and all other religions are moral codes of behavior for those not strong enough to make their own choices.  Some people need to have a God tell them what to do and not to do but I believe in freedom.  This country is based on freedom and I don't need anyone or any God telling me what to do."

Thus they conclude that freedom is the ultimate good and since religion or theism seems to impede upon this freedom then religion must be bad.  While such an argument may seem to make sense on the surface, upon closer examination it reveals itself to be a very weak and superficial argument. 

            The first problem with this argument is that it defines freedom as being able to do whatever is pleasing at a given moment.  This definition completely separates actions that are done in "freedom" from any responsibility.  The Christian moral ethic condemns actions such as murder and rape, but if we accept the freedom argument as it is presented, then we must conclude that in the name of "freedom" every individual must be free to choose weather murder and rape are good choices for them.  While I have never met the atheist who would agree with the preceding statement, the conclusion does follow from holding personal freedom to be the ultimate value in society.  In order for human society to function there must be consequences to actions that are deemed unjust or criminal.  Murderers and rapists are captured and imprisoned for their criminal actions and rightly so.  Are we to conclude that such consequences are an infringement upon the freedom of these criminals?  No, because the criminals were free to make these choices and choose to commit crimes and now are justly punished.  No actions in life are without consequences of some form and it is a terrible misunderstanding of human freedom to think that freedom means the ability to act without consequence.   

            The second problem with the freedom argument for atheism is that atheism itself renders human freedom an impossibility.  If there were no God and all existence was composed of matter and energy, then humans would be merely material beings with some notion of self-awareness.  Freedom is the ability to choose one option over another based upon what is judged to be best.  In order for this freedom to be real, a person must be able to control his own body or nature.  This control is only possible if the human person has an element that transcends the material body i.e. a soul.  Without a spiritual component that is able to operate above the physical body, the human person would have all his actions determined by the laws of physical attraction.  A person would not choose to eat ice cream over carrots by choice; he would be driven to eat ice cream because the physical substance of ice cream is more agreeable to physical body than the carrots.  In this world view freedom is impossible because every human action is merely a reaction to a physical stimulation of the senses and the natural appetites of our biology.  Humans would not be able to choose anything but rather they operate by instinct with only an illusion of freedom.  Each of us would effectively be a mule whose actions are all determined by the carrot that is hung before us. 

            Of course any person that has made a decision that is not in accord with the appetites of the body, e.g. a person who has quit smoking, has already demonstrate that a person is capable of making choices on a level above the physical attractions of our nature.  Yet the hardened materialist has quite a difficult time explaining how.  This should be kept in mind next time we hear a claim that God must be sacrifice on the altar of freedom.