These issues challenge the underpinnings of atheism, which for most Atheists includes materialism. For Atheism to be credible, rationally speaking, these issues and others like them must be answered in coherent terms. The problems that arise for material answers decorate the internal tension of materialism vs. rational logic, which is not material nor is it materially based.
Here they are.
1. Do humans have innate, inherent rights? If so what is the source of such rights? If not, then what natural law applies to prevent slavery, child prostitution, rape, cannibalism, etc? What natural law provides for the rights of man? The rights of woman? The rights of the child? The rights of free speech, assembly, to govern oneself? Or maybe there are no rights, materially speaking, under natural law?
2. The Universe has just two dualistic components: space-time; and mass-energy.
Space-time are the dualistic components of condition or state; they are non-material. These two components enable the existence of the other two, material components.
Mass-energy are the dualistic components of material existence.
Space is the enabling condition for mass; time is the enabling condition for energy. Space-time are the substrates or scaffolds for the existence of mass-energy. Mass and energy do not exist outside of space-time, but space-time can exist without mass-energy (although it would be empty and motionless).
The question arises: Why would one expect, empirically speaking, that both (a) the existence and (b) the enabling conditions for the existence would come into being at the same instant, via an event that is normally chaotic and destructive: a huge explosion? Explain why this is parsimonious.
3. Many Atheists claim that there is no such thing as the existence of good and evil, as moral entities.
(a) If so, how can religion be the source of all evil, if evil does not exist?
(b) If not, then what is the source, objectively and universally speaking, of good and evil?
4. Being the products of evolution - a blind action of natural selection exercised on both existing genomes and mutations - there is no reason to believe in complexity, because what we observe is the appearance of complexity, not actual complexity. Further, there is no reason to believe that there exists any separation of mind from the neurons that fire in the brain. Since the mind is a development of evolution which is necessary and sufficient for occupying our environmental niche and our successful procreation, plus it is neither complex nor detached from the neural substrate, it follows that the material mind would always function in a predetermined, necessary and sufficient manner to successfully procreate within our niche.
Since the behavior of the material mind is predetermined by its wiring, there is no reason to believe that free-will exists; the pre-wired activity of the material mind is not free, it is imprisoned in its molecular structure which has previously been evolutionarily determined.
If we do not have free will, then what is the value of any statement by any human? If we do have free will, then what is its source, materially speaking, and with hard empirical, material, evidence provided to support such a claim, of course. If there is no hard empirical, material, evidence regarding free will or its source, then why should we believe in any conjectural response that is provided? And if the belief in the conjectural response is provisional, based on the probability of future scientific discovery, then what is the exact probability and where are the calculations and the underlying assumptions? If there are no calculations, then why should we believe the premise that assumes it is probable? In other words, what material evidence shows that a material mind produces freely willed thought and action? Or material evidence that there is no freely willed thought or action?
Conclusion
In order to claim internal coherence for the concept of atheism, these questions must result in answers that are also internally coherent, and that do not violate the materialistic nature of atheism. That means that there can be no logical self-referencing contradictions, or paradoxes.
Each of the questions above contains, either directly or indirectly, the following logical issues:
(a) Evidence for every proposition must be demanded (Bertrand Russell)
(b) Evidence is not available for any of the above questions to assist in deciding its truth value.
(c) Evidence is not available for atheism itself, to assist in deciding its truth value.
(d) It is common for atheists to deny that their ethical values are relative; the first question deals with this conundrum. In fact, many atheists believe that there are no inherent human rights, especially in light of natural law.
(e) Contrary to much atheist thought, the “first cause” of the universe produced an effect - Big Bang Theory - that was instantaneously complex; it is not rationally possible to deny it without denying current science. The second question deals with this issue.
(f) Good and evil is a conundrum for atheism, which leads to the unpleasant choice that atheists must face, in question three. Either it exists as a universal moral law, or no-one is ever evil, no matter what. But under evolutionary constraints there can be no universal moral law, only human constructs of convenience. This means that no act is evil. No person is evil. No social construct is evil. No military action is evil. And no religion is evil.
(g) The materialist requirement that the mind and the neural platform that forms the brain are one and the same leads to the “free will paradox”, where the existence of the pre-wired brain-mind contradicts the freedom of willful thought. This in turn means that mental activity is restricted to predetermined actions, or more realistically: reactions, to sensory input. Therefore, ideas in general don’t exist, including the idea of “non-free will”. This logical incoherence defeats the premise.
A combination of these issues, filtered through atheism, might look like this:
1. There are no inherent human rights.
2. There is no complexity or purpose to life.
3. There are no moral imperatives such as good and evil.
4. There is nothing special about man or his mind/brain.
Many atheists espouse these things openly, while others beat about the bush, denying them on the one hand but endorsing them on the other. What is clear is that it is up to the individual atheist to decide what to do with this worldview. It is an unconstrained, amoral, deprecating worldview. It is dangerous as has been shown by the dictators of the 20th century that held this worldview.
Not all atheists hold this view? Then how do they answer the questions above without descending into incoherence and irrelevance?
10 comments:
"It is an unconstrained, amoral, deprecating worldview."
Correction. Atheism is NOT a worldview. It's a lack of belief in the supernatural. I repeat: Atheism is NOT a worldview.
I'm a Secular Humanist. And in my humble opinion a Secular Humanist's tenets far outshine the worldview espoused in stories written by Bronze Age men wandering around some desert.
Greater good can be done for humanity by putting the lies of our past behind us.
I appreciate your comments. But...
Oops, denial of the obvious. One of the first components of a world view is the issue of where we came from and where we are going. Atheism insists on material origins, material destinations, and material interstitial existance.
I think it might be time for me to re-post the issues of atheist denial vs. the realities of logical origins.
Of course the deprecation of "bronze age men" is totally non-relative, because the Greek philosophers...still in print...pre-date the age to which you refer. And the technology of the pharaohs, Greeks and Romans is still resspected. So your ad Hominem is not taken as a fact but as a jab of sarcasm in lieu of fact.
Now, as for Secular Humanism, it has been declared a religion in U.S. Federal Courts, several times. But regardless, it changes its tenets at will, depending upon political correctness, so it is a relative position. One must specify which manifesto one is working under, number 1, 2, or 3. Maybe there is a fourth modification by now?
At any rate, the only valid one is the First manifesto, which did declare that it is a religion, and also declare its intent to control all the institutions of the world in order to forcibly make them over into their own image. For them the "good of humanity" to which you refer, is determined by them, not by individual persons, who are expected to perform for that "good of humanity" rather than the good of the self. All in all, very totalitarian. And the reason that the tenets were fogged over in the subsequent two manifestos.
Is that the Secular Humanism to which you refer? Or do you have your own personal brand? I'd be very willing to discuss your impressions with you.
I should have mentioned that atheism is also a religion according to U.S.Federal Courts - references upon request. As I have shown elsewhere, atheism shows all the overt characteristics expected to be seen in any religion. Again, references upon request.
So then, what "should we believe" and why?
Gene Ray - Time Cube
C. David Parsons - Quest for Right
Destiny Lab - UFO's are demons
Stan - atheism-analyzed
Welcome to loon-ville Stan. Welcome indeed. You're in very good company.
Because of the inverted logic that Atheists are subject to, and the rationalizing they use in lieu of rationality, they do not connnnect with classical logic. Rather than adjust to a system containing first principles -which are absolutes, and therefore anathema to the relativism of the Atheist - the average Atheist goes immediately to Ad Hominem to try to demonstrate their own elitism, and to depreciate through ridicule rather than the logic they cannot access.
There is no need to engage such lowlife activity.
I'm not an atheist, but you are a loon.
I'm a AStanist! That is I don't believe in the junk Stan writes.
You can make up any four issues that an Atheist must face but that doesn't mean I have to agree. I don't give a rats ass about dualistic components or belief in complexity, etc.
The only thing an Atheist needs to "believe" is that there is no God.
That doesn't stop Atheist from being allowed to think that all life on earth had a intelligent designer for example. Might be them little green men don't know know.
And maybe they put special code in our gene to give us a sense of right or wrong, so that would give you a way past some of your "issues" with out belief in a God.
Roger thanks for stopping by to contribute your own arguments from absurdity.
I assume by that that you concede the issue.
Post a Comment