Atheism: an irrational philosophical system

Though I am loath to revive such a dysfunctional and intellectually bankrupt post (so why do it I ask myself) I thought I would inject soemthing that would be worthwhile reading. It is a short piece written by Ann Druyan, the wife of the late Carl Sagan whom I admired and still admire greatly. I hope it can be as inspirational to those who read it as it was for me. Science, Religion, Awe, Wonder...and Carl Sagan

In Message #1, Grace makes many unsupported claims regarding his views alleging atheism's inability to address social issues, and insinuates his intent to respond to those who would debate his views.In Message #33, after copious counterpoints from those who disagreed in great detail with Grace's viewpoint, Grace's sole reply is:"roboto85, Thanks for the positive comments... I'm glad that you understand my points and agree with them. Take care and God bless,
Richard M"I have not researched the Forum's policy on initiating a thread with a contentious message, promising to reply (as time permitted him) to those who would debate, and then sitting back like a wimpy voyuer until a surrogate synchophant did the dirty work, then surfacing only to pat the puppet on its back.But I do have a comment on the tactic: It's a bankrupt and corrupt form of debate.P.U. Grace2u[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-28-2004]

roboto85Okay so can you show me why we are here,where we are going or can you merely give us your opinion of what you believe is the answer?It is easy to claim that we understand why we are here but it has never been my observation that this is any thing more than wishful thinking in the face of our mortality.In this statement I fail to see where you can assume that you life is any more fulfilling or happy than anyone else's.In my understanding happiness or sadness is a direct relation to our expectations of the world and not the world itself which is neutral to our human needs and fears.And this sentence is true in so far as the limits of what sience can say about the world goes but those limits exclude questions about why things are the way they are.As near as science can tell the world does appear pointless which is not to be surprising. Since humans are the ones who demand there be a reason for everything it is difficult to restrain our very human need for an answer to the universe.
But the universe is not under obligation to humans to supply answers and the simplist explanation for this is that there are no answers to be found.
Yes it is difficult to face up to our mortality when we demand that we be important and we be the reason for existence but I personaly do not see it that way.It is my feeling that being alive only for a short time and uncertain of when that time is over makes me think that the purpose of life is what we forge into the world by our efforts.We are not important but the race of humans is if we wish to grow up to our responsibilties to those who will occupy the planet after our time here is gone.
Science only increases our wonder of things IMO and does not diminish it except in how we choose to apply our knowledge.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

Overall, I find your post to be quite interesting in that it is really the first one to come close to dealing with the true nature of the problem I have presented. Even still, you are presenting an extremely oversimplified approach to an incredibly complex existential claim.In fact, your post still falls a little short in understanding the more complex point that is being made-or perhaps you have simply opted to keep your comments short. First off I should clarify that many of my comments are quotes taken from various theistic and atheistic philosophers. These include Butler,Bahnsen, Piper , Hume, Russel and the list goes on. The comments I make are my own but they are ultimately derived largely from the classical presuppositionalist position as well as from arguments from transcendental necessity. My views reflect a Christian worldview and as such there is little new or original information I am espousing. Its all pretty much regurgitated information as most everyone’s opinions are.Now that my disclaimer is out of the way, it should be noted that most (if not all) contemporary philosophers acknowledge that we all have governing worldviews or philosophical systems that guide our thoughts. Drawn out in their simplest forms they are either theistic(Christian,Islamic,etc) or atheistic(secular humanistic,etc). While one may not claim a membership to any particular worldview, we all have one-like it or not. This worldview is what we use to determine the validity of existential claims like the one we are discussing now. Let me be clear, my worldview is Christian theistic, my argument is against those who have an atheistic worldview (be it humanistic,agnostic or whatever, it is ultimately against a non-theistic position). My claim (and that of most who ascribe to reformed theology) is that any atheistic worldview is irrational or that atheism is an irrational philosophical system (system of thought), since it can not provide a consistent account for the necessary preconditions of human experience —morality,human dignity,logic,reason,and mathematics. When I make this claim, I am not meaning to insult the intelligence of atheists or agnostics. In fact quite the contrary, many are smart and well thought out individuals who think they are honestly searching for truth. The claim that it is irrational merely is meant to suggest that their worldview can not give a rational philosophical account for things such as logic, reason, moraliry and human dignity. To demonstrate this I provide a couple of simple examples. These examples demonstrate, in quite simplistic terms I would grant, that atheism has drastic problems contained within it. By your comments, you seem to be suggesting that atheism is only a belief or non-belief in God and that nothing is implied by this. Surely you will concede that you are in error in this. The epistemological implications of atheism are quite large -to deny this is to make a laughable claim and to say that Hume and probably even Russel were grossly confused, as were all influential philosophers to lay pen to paper.Your method of attacking my argument is quite bad and misinformed. You make claims suggesting my irrationality yet your own comments are littered with sophomoric claims. By your own definition, I should discount all that you have said since its genesis hinges on an unproven subjective proposition. Please explain what you think my point of view is. This is where your lack of understanding becomes exceedingly apparent. The implications of atheism are vast.
Surely you would grant that existential claims are not to be answered in the extremely oversimplified method that you appear to be suggesting here. I have mentioned two worldviews here. Atheism and theism. For the sake of the discussion, atheism can be weak or strong it doesn’t matter to me either way. In both situations, the worldview is lacking and fails to deal with the world in which we live, the experiences we have in a rational and consistent manner. I am asking you to prove me wrong, and all I am seeing is subjective quibbling. I find the sophomoric comment to be quite lacking in any helpful information. Of course atheism proper deals with the belief in God, however within atheism there lives an entire philosophical worldview or system of thought that is implied.Since this basic concept is self-evident and any contemporary philosopher will acknowledge this I will not labor the point to much. This is extremely basic and your attempt to nitpick here is absolutely irrelevant to the problem I have presented. Comments such as these merely reinforce my beliefs that many people do not understand the nature of transcendental arguments yet they try to rebut themAllow me to state one more time, I am arguing that atheism is an irrational system of thought. That atheism or the atheistic worldview can not give a rational account for the necessary conditions of human experience(bahnsen,barker,Van til). For the sake of time, I will have to ignore any further play on semantics. This again demonstrates your lack of understanding concerning basic philosophical concepts such as governing worldviews and methods of dealing with existential claims. The vast majority of modern day philosophers understand that general claims of the existence or non-existance are not closed box questions as you seem to imply. There is evidence for and against both positions(of Gods existence that is), but all evidence is interpreted within the context of a particular worldview. This would suggest that no evidence would ever by sufficient for you to change your opinion. I could talk all day about how the creation testifies to the wonder and glory of God. An atheistic worldview would interpret this same evidence as the end result of natural processes occurring over some time. It is because of this, that I am maintaining that from an internal examination of atheism, it fails to remain coherent. Please explain your concept of morality that is consistent with your particular worldview and does not rely upon some type of question begging. Furthermore, it would be helpful if this view did not contradict the observed truths of reality. Do you agree that secular humanism is an atheistic philosophical system? I can’t believe you would suggest that the problem of evil is still a problem for Christian Theology-when virtually no modern day atheistic philosopher would do this. Is that your position? If so, please explain to me what you think is the most convincing argument from evil. And please, no question begging, you can not assume a secular humanistic ethic in your construct. Finaly, since it is an internal criticism, you must provide an argument that takes into account the entire context of revealed theology, not just a select few points that are convenient. Anything less would be laughable.Overall, your post is quite refreshing. Of all the replies I have read thus far, your seems to at least begin to understand the point that is being made. Instead of providing a rational explanation for the epistemological implications of atheism, you seem to simply deny that atheism is a worldview. Unfortunately, I don’t think any atheistic philosopher would agree with you. If you can think of one, please let me know who they are.Take care and regards,
Christe eleison
Grace2u[This message has been edited by grace2u, 01-28-2004]

Thank you for the laugh this morning, grace. I love irony, and these two statements of yours are delicious. The only implication of the statement "I don't believe a god or gods to exist" is that I don't believe a god or gods to exist. I might still believe truth to be absolute and objective, along with morality, etc... these beliefs do not require a belief in a god or gods, and neither does a lack of belief in a god or gods imply a lack of belief in any of those. I repeat: Atheism and theism are not worldviews in themselves. They are aspects of many unique worldviews. That is, unless you are suggesting that you, a Hindu, and a Zoroastrian all share the same worldview since you are all theists. You keep asserting this, but you're always real short on substantive support for the assertion. Care to make an actual argument? Supporting evidence, maybe? The more I see you insist this without sufficient support, the more convinced I become that all your bluff and bluster is one big argument from incredulity. Wrong. Buddhists are not Secular Humanists -- they have very different "philosophical worldviews" -- yet both are atheistic.As you yourself said: "This is where your lack of understanding becomes exceedingly apparent." Its completely relevant because it shows how your entire argument is attacking a strawman. And you've been shown wrong repeatedly. You mean you will continue to ignore the reality of the situation in preference of attacking a position that is a figment of your imagination. 1.) Suppose an omni-max God exists, the Christian God (omnipotent, omniscent, omnibenevolent, etc...)2.) The exsitence of a god that always desires the best possible universe (omnibenevolent) and is capable of obtaining that state of affairs (omnipotent, omniscient) implies that, should such a being exist, nothing can exist that it does not desire to exist.3.) Things exist in this world which are contrary to the desires of the Christian God (murder, blasphemy).4.) Therefore the Christian God as defined in (1) does not exist. BZZT! Logical fallacy: argument from authority. It doesn't matter what prominent atheistic philosophers think. What matters is that many mutually exclusive worlviews are atheistic, and for that reason atheism alone cannot itself be a unique worldview. Me, Crashfrog, and PaulK, to name a few.[This message has been edited by ::, 01-28-2004]

No, I am not oversimplifying. I am however explaining the basic problems in your original post. And no, I don't see how there is any complex point being made. And I certainly wouldn't class Bahnson with Hume or Russell.Essentially what you are rpesenting is Bahnson's so-called "Transcendantal Argument" which is not an argument at all. I have discussed it a number of times and it always turns out that there are very real problems with the worldview of my opponent and not with mine.I certainly will not concede that ahteism is any more than a belief that there is no God - indeed under some definitions it is less than that. For me to say otherwise would be a lie on a par with saying that black was white. Nor will I concede that atheism creates any special epistemological problems, since it does not.I will ignore your attacks on my supposed ignorance but I advise you not to make them again, since you obviously know less than IFor instance, while the logical version of the Argument from Evil is considered to be weak (but is still used by some) the Evidential version is considered to be significantly stronger and is still in use today - see Nontheism Atheism Evil » Internet Infidels Now I notice that you don't actually offer any argument against it other than the false assertion that it has been abandoned.That is particularly revealing when you demand that my post - which was written to point out fatal errors in your post - should also give a full account of epistemology. Why ? That it should not say something it was not intended ot say does not make it any less true.I also note that you contradict yourself on the issue of whether atheism is a worldview. While demanding that it is you also implicitly admit that there can be different worldviews held by atheists for instance by admitting that secular humanism is *an* atheist philosphical system. Does a Hinyana Buddhist who happens to be an atheist have a worldview closer to a Mahayana Buddhist or to an Objectivist ? On what basis would you answer ? Please don't demand that I agree to statements that even you cannot consistently maintain.I suggest that you pick out one area of discussion whether it be morality, epistemology or - if you really want to lose badly - logic and we can discuss the advantages - or lack of advantages - of atheism or theism.

Sorry for the late reply, I’ve been quite busy. I would love to answer your question, however it is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion and to the points that I have originally brought up. Furthermore, any comment I would make concerning a Christian Theocracy would be entirely speculative on my part since any notion of a Christian theocratic state is not mentioned in scripture. I am not dodging the question here, merely pointing out that any concept of a Christian Theocratic state, is not biblical. In fact, Christs actions implied something quite contrary to a theocratic kingdom, there was no intention for him to rule or for the church to rule upon His departure. His intention was not to provide a set of rules for some state or government authority to obey and follow, rather to demonstrate the more drastic problem of mankind being in a rebellious position before God. Christ always got to the real point of various problems, He didn’t quibble over man made concepts rather He spoke with authority and brought forth new revelations of God for all of humanity. Christianity does not teach what you seem to imply it might. I agree with you that any theocratic kingdom is going to have problems with situational ethics.You see, my argument is NOT that a theocratic kingdom is what Christianity provides, nor is it that even one would be a good thing(some Christians might disagree but I think most would concur). My argument is an internal criticism of any atheistic worldview or atheism in general. My claim is that atheism can not give an account for the things it must if it is to be considered rational.The observation has been made that many atheists in general have not thoroughly reasoned through their belief system. In many times, they are self contradictory and based on entirely subjective opinions. They appear to ignore the problems that theists present, instead ridiculing the theistic worldview. When asked to provide evidence or rational arguments that don’t beg questions concerning things such as morality logic and human dignity, they simply can not avoid borrowing from concepts within Christianity. This argument is not my own, it has been discussed throughout the history of philosophy in numerous debates and does present atheism with an extremely serious problem.This paints a picture to a theist like myself, of a group of people who are simply rebelling against God. Atheists borrow from theism when its convenient but then deny the very maker and genesis of that which they are borrowing (reason and human dignity). In doing this, they are professing to be wise but in reality being quite foolish. This is not name calling, rather it is saying that the reason behind an atheist being an atheist is based on oversimplified thinking.Now, if you are an atheist, is it wrong to own a pack mule?
Is it wrong for a human to own another human?Is it wrong for a dog to fight another dog?
Is it wrong for a human to kill another human in a fight?What is your justification behind relying upon deductive and inductive logic to provide answers you can trust, therby making science and even this debate possible?Is there such a thing as an absolute truth?In other words, explain to me how an atheistic worldview can give an account for the self evident truths that surround us.Take care and regards,

It seems to me, from having witnessed you proffer this assertion repeatedly, that what you believe to be "self-evident" is in reality something the existence of which you cannot actually demonstrate and must therefore postulate without any substantive support. Things that are "self-evident" to you, are not so evident to myself nor many of the other atheists on this forum -- quite falsifying your claim that they are self-evident. Your only recourse is to either accompany your assertion with an appropriate demonstration, or insist that we're all simply bind to the truth. In a situation where person A claims to observe something that person B does not, there are two possible explanaions:1.) Person B is blind to the truth
2.) Person A is confused, hallucinating, imagining the thing, etc...Neither option should be discarded a priori, so in order to settle it we must propose objectively testible hypotheses that would differentiate them. Since it is your claim that these "self-evident" things exists, what objective tests could we conduct that would unambiguously confirm position (1) from above?Short of an answer to this problem, all of your assertions are unfounded and baseless. I insist that before you continue to post them, you support them with actual evdidence lest you be found in violation of the forum's rules.

quote:

---

4. Bare assertions on controversial points should be avoided by providing supporting evidence or argument. Once challenged, support for any assertion should be provided.

---

quote:

---

The observation has been made that many atheists in general have not thoroughly reasoned through their belief system. In many times, they are self contradictory and based on entirely subjective opinions. They
appear to ignore the problems that theists present, instead ridiculing the theistic worldview. When asked to provide evidence or rational arguments that don’t beg questions concerning things such as morality logic and human dignity, they simply can not avoid borrowing from concepts within Christianity.

---

There are a lot of problems with this. In general I would say that atheists are no worse than any ther group in ternms of examinng their own worldview. In fact I would say that they are better than Presuppositionalists who seem to have no coherent view at all.Now the fact that atheists disagree with you about their beleifs probably has more to do with the fact that atheists know what they beleive and you don't.As for "borrowing from Christianity" this almost always refers to concepts which Christianity has no special claim on at all. In the case of logic - which is commonly used in this argument - it would make more sense to say that it was borrowed from pagan Greece. In short every time I have seen this claim it has turned out to be a falsehood.If you want to make a decent argument then you can't do so by puttign inconsistencies into the mouths of atheists nor by trying to "steal" concepts in the name of Christianity.

quote:

---

This argument is not my own, it has been discussed throughout the history of philosophy in numerous debates and does presentatheism with an extremely serious problem.

---

Now this isn't true at all.

quote:

---

This paints a picture to a theist like myself, of a group of people who are simply rebelling against God.

---

And it is this sort of attitude that gives the impression that Presuppositionalists set themselves up as Gods. So long as you take the view that rejecting your authority to dictate the "truth" is "rebelling against God" then you won't have an argument and the only irrationality that you are demonstrating is your own.

quote:

---

Atheists borrow from theism when its convenient but then deny the very maker and genesis of that which they are borrowing (reason and human dignity). In doing this, they are professing to be wise but in reality being quite foolish. This is not name calling, rather it is saying that the reason behind an atheist being an atheist is based on oversimplified thinking.

---

But you have not examined atheist thinking at all. You have just attempted to dictate that certain concepts are "owned" by theism and that it is wrong for atheists to refuse to accept your decree. It *is* name calling - and worse.As I said I am ready and willing to take you on on any one of these issues. Your choice. Because I have seen enough of Bahnsen's sophistry to be very confident that I can rip it apart with little effort.And before you go on about how great Bahnsen is just remember that he tried to argue that there were no atheists because his interpretation of the Bible said otherwise.

Rule 4 really kills Presuppositonalist arguments, doesn't it!

I can summarize the entire presuppositionalist argument in one sentence:If X, then X.[sarcasm = "on"]Well no kidding, genius. How about giving me reason to suppose X first?[/sarcasm] Yeah, pretty much! I'm becoming convinced that certain theists are prone to advancing presuppositional apologetics for the simple reason that "presuppositionalism" is such a really long word. Unfortunately all it basically stands for "We will being by assuming that I'm right..."

Fair enough.. I will attempt to place my energy towards responding to yours and ae’s counter claims.The argument I am presenting you with is an argument from transcendental necessity. There are many different worldviews and my problem is with any atheistic one. I think I’ve covered this quite enough. As I’m sure you know, worldviews can be examined via internal or external methods. The problem with external methods is that they ultimately beg the question. You could criticize the moral character of other Christians or of acts allowed by God in the bible but in doing so, you are presupposing a humanistic worldview (in most cases). This is not helpful because it is faulty reasoning. Because God doesn’t measure up to some standard taught by your worldview, doesn’t mean that this God doesn’t exist. You see, He could still exist and you just have the wrong worldview. The same can be said of a Christian using a purely external criticism of atheism.This is why I use an internal criticism. In doing this, one can examine the claims of this system of thought(or the implications of it) in context with the system of thought itself and see if there are any contradictions or inconsistencies. When ae presents the problem of evil this is basically what he is doing. In order to do this, one can not presuppose his worldview, he must analyze the worldview being criticized apart from his own-else he is engaging in faulty reasoning.In doing this, one can come close to an unbiased assessment of the particular worldview in question. When I say atheism can not give a rational account for morality, human dignity, reason and logic, I simply mean that it can not explain these concepts in a rational consistent manner. In order to demonstrate the inconsistencies I present a couple of questions, which no one has really answered yet.Philosophy's most important task is to render the human experience in intelligible and analyzable terms.
Even Descartes believed that we exist and that there are such things as a human experience. This can be simplified to the terms reason, morality, and human dignity among other things. There are numerous experiences that are encountered by all humans. Love, hate, evil, good, altruism, thoughts, true and false are all examples of how these experiences are described and made manifest in our lives. I’m sure you would grant that we all have a type of human experience. I’m sure of this because even Descartes realized this and he doubted everything. He still reached a conclusion though that he existed essentially because he had human experiences. This should be a given .Now, I think where you disagree is in what this implies or does not imply about the world in which we live (correct me if I’m wrong). Allow me to start at the top with human dignity since it is brought up less often than some of the other conditions of human experience.From an ethics magazine:
Recognition of intrinsic human dignity extends, beyond religious traditions. Cumulative human experience having found dignity to be a valid moral principle, it is also a hallmark of civilization. Article 1 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Likewise, the principle of individual autonomy preeminent in much bioethical discourse is grounded in the respect for persons that flows out of a robust appreciation of human dignity. Although an explicit definition of human dignity is seldom offered, its significance is assumed in the practical outworkings spelled out in the language of human rights and autonomy.Ethics and medicine defines human dignity as:
The exalted moral status which every being of human origin uniquely possesses. Human dignity is a given reality, intrinsic to the human substance, and not contingent upon any functional capacities which vary in degree. Evidence of this status may be found in such faculties as abstract reasoning, language, conscience, and free will, which human beings have the capacity to develop and exercise unless limited by disease, coercion, or the will. The possession of human dignity carries certain immutable moral obligations.Both secular and non-secular institutions acknowledge human dignity. I know of no valid philosophical system that denies human dignity yet concedes we do in fact exist. I would say that in a superficial way, humanists believe in it even more than theists.1) Do you agree that human dignity exists in our world?2) In your worldview, is it ok for me to own a slave?3) In your worldview is it ok for me to own a donkey or a pack mule?You know where I am going with this. So respond to the inconsistency in most atheists reasoning concerning this. I am presenting you with an internal criticism within the context of atheism and I simply want an explanation as to why it is ok to own a pack mule but not ok to own another human as a slave. If we have evolved from naturalistic processes (apart from an intelligent creator existing and creating us in His image) why should it matter if we own slaves? We can own other animals correct? It’s not a species dependent thing either, if you claim this then what is your justification for this reasoning? Please explain this to me without begging the question.I have taken ONE example of the many that could be created.I am alledging that an atheistic worldview can not deal with this in a consistent manner, and therefore is irrational, show me where I am wrong....Thanks for the interest and repliesChriste eleison

Would you want to be owned as a slave?Why is it that you never explain why the Golden Rule is insufficient moral justification? We've invoked it several times to no response.It's pretty simple reasoning. No matter how much I might want to rape or kill someone, I don't want those things to happen to me. And the only way that I'm going to get society to prevent those things from happening to me is to propose rules/systems that will prevent tose things from happening to everybody. Hence, laws and police.As yet you have not rebutted this reasoning. Is there any reason to pay attention to you, then?

Because I value humans differently than pack mules. Because I don't want to own a slave. You're trying to evaluate subjective criteria in objective terms -- that is where lies the inconsistency, and the inconsistency is yours. I don't need any more justification for my belief with regard to the immorality of slavery than I need to justify my belief that sushi is delicious or that blue is pretty. Why would you expect me to justify an aesthetic belief in objective terms? Your allegation is wrong and I've shown so.

grace2u What the bloody blue blazes is "trancendental neccesity" ?

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)