PZ posts “Why I Am An Atheist” papers

PZ Meyers will be posting a paper a day, selected from those who send in their reasons for being an Atheist. The first one is from Heather Dagleish, Scotland. Here I will go through her reasons and reasoning on why she is an Atheist.

1. ” – because of a simple love of the power of reasoning and rational thinking to bring real clarity, resolution and a grasp of the closest thing you really will get to get to real ‘truth’…”

Heather does not define “truth”, but it is clear reading further that she means no more than the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is that an assertion corresponds correctly with a physical “Fact”. We shall see how close Heather comes to physical facts, and thus whether Heather’s reasons are “true”.

2. ” I don’t believe in gods for much the same reason that I don’t believe in fairies, bogeymen, ghosts, lucky gems, leprechauns, Santa or the Easter Bunny. There isn’t a shred of convincing evidence for the existence of any of them,”

Not an auspicious start. This is the Fallacy of False Association. Convincing is a key word here. She didn’t deny evidence exists. At this point, she merely is unconvinced, it appears.

3. ” Indeed, the whole concept of ‘god’ or ‘gods’ is so ill-defined that asking me if I believe in ‘god’ is like asking me if I believe in floogamaloops. I don’t know what floogamaloops are, and neither do you.”

Irrelevant. Red Herring. Concocting a gibberish word has no bearing on the concept of a first cause or any other god concept for that matter. I have seen this argument several places lately. It’s not clear why Atheists think it is convincing.

4. ” There just isn’t a good reason for believing in any supernatural being, and plenty of good reasons for not believing. “

Merely denial of “convincing” evidence, redux. There is no evidentiary argument here, merely an out of hand denial. And the claim is universal, as if she has heard every conceivable argument that could possible exist. But she gives no examples or reasons for believing that this assertion is “true”, no evidence.

Theists agree that there are good reasons not to believe in a deity: freedom to define one’s own morals is high up there. Freedom from absolutes which hinder Atheist thinking is another.

5. ” Theists who are otherwise rational and who fail to grasp that conclusion are simply not being fully honest with themselves, and failing to challenge their ideas on the subject of gods with the same robustness as they would challenge other ideas. And I speak with experience, as someone who once was that theist.”

Hasty Generalization Fallacy: “(All) theists who….” Heather can't possibly be expert in all opinions. She is projecting the attitude that "If you don’t agree with my conclusions you are dishonest, because my conclusions are undeniable". This is a combination of arrogance and ignorance: unfamiliarity with all or possibly any reason for considering rational reasons for thinking otherwise, yet making declarations of "truth" concerning them. And again, without evidence.

Plus it violates the Atheists own creed: where is the evidence (physical of course) that this is “true”?

6. I don’t know what exactly gods would be like, and neither do you. Or rather, everybody has their own personal idea of what ‘god’ is – varying vastly from person to person, region to region and time to time. To some, god is simply energy, and you can find it in a lump of coal – which is at any rate an interesting insight into the power of wishful thinking, and the tragic lengths some people will go to to cling desperately and shamelessly to this strange ‘god’ notion.”

False concepts do not prove non-existence. God “notions” have no bearing on the actual existence of a non-physical being. Where is her EVIDENCE? Oops, sorry that I shouted that.

7. ” Do you believe immunoglobulin M exists? I do. And I can tell you what it is – and it will be roughly the same definition that any person who knows about the subject will give you. And I could hand you to someone more competent than myself who could give you the robust evidence for the existence of immunoglobulin M, and take you through graceful laboratory techniques that isolate the molecule and allow us to say things about its size, structure and function. The great thing about it actually existing, and having a testable definition, is that it will pass through the fire of reason, and you don’t have to take it on faith.

The idea that because substance X is analyzable materially, but a god is not, therefore no god exists – is a simple Category Error. One also cannot put logic or mathematics or the First Principles or meaning, etc. under a microscope for physical examination. This argument has no bearing on the possible existence of a non-physical entity. It doubles as a Red Herring. But let's take a further look:

If [substance X exists] therefore [no god];
Substance X exists;
Therefore, no god.

But [no god] is not a subset of [substance X]. The argument is based on a flawed premise. The existence of [substance X] has no bearing on [god vs. no god]. There is no set, [Substance X] which either includes or precludes [god vs. no god].

Also, the non-existence of [substance X] does not ensure that there would then exist [god], or even guarantee that conditions now exist which would allow a god to possibly exist.

Possibly Heather didn't intend it to be a logical argument, but more of an analogy. But the analogy also fails for the same reason: the existence of a physical substance has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a non-physical entity. What it seems to demonstrate is Heather's comfort zone, which accepts the physical but not the non-physical. It's a good thing she is not a mathematician.

8. ” Of course it also helps that IgM is a mere molecule that lacks the capacity to be a passive-aggressive bastard that wants to hide its existence from you, reveal itself occasionally through arbitrary phenomena such as weeping statues and faces in toast, and otherwise must insist on being taken purely on faith – which are common themes on the subject of gods – but let’s not complicate things further.”

The Ad Hominem demonstrates anger at something she claims does not exist – an irrational response. The rest is the continuation of the Category Error / Red Herring. But the “purely on faith” charge continues to be pressed against the opposition while totally ignored in her own mind-spawn.

9. ” And that’s why I’m an atheist. My own atheism is a simple consequence of my reasoning – just one result of my mind thinking rationally – one result of many opinions I’ve landed on through reason.”

When one worships reason, one should try to understand that reason can be erroneous as well as valid. Heather shows no indication of that; rather she seems to be captured by the simplest of erroneous web-borne Atheo-excuses, and is calling those errors: reason. There is one thing that Atheo-Materialists never consider examining with their self-designated powers of Skepticism, and that is the output of their own minds. There are standards for use in calibrating such things; Atheists tend to deny all absolutes, though, and are satisfied in the perception of their intellectual superiority, thereby not needing any rational calibration.

10. ” literally anyone who doesn’t believe in gods gets to legitimately call themselves an atheist – no matter how bizarre or outlandish their beliefs and worldviews may be outside of that particular aspect of their thinking. So atheism isn’t important or particularly worthy or noble to me just in and of itself – the process that gave rise to it in my case is. I am an atheist because I am a rationalist – an honest and thorough rationalist – and my rationalism is much, much more important to me than my atheism could ever hope to be.”

Heather is engaged here in self-worship: she is "honest and thorough"; her mind is the most important thing, and she is convinced that what her mind produces is correct. She betrays no need to check her mind’s output against any standards, nor does she even refer to or acknowledge any standards or possibility of incorrect logic. She gives no evidence for concluding that her mind output is infallible. And here she extends her worship to some methodology:

11. My atheism is but a small bud sprouting from the scientific thinking that lets me appreciate the real world, the real universe, as it actually is, in every other aspect of my life. Atheism should be one of those things you arrive at in any honest quest for truth – but it’s not an ends in itself. And science, reason, rational thinking and sceptical enquiry are the best tools devised for uncovering reality.”

These methods uncover the totality of all of "reality" in Heather’s world, a physical world in which she is correct, even without evidence. This is Philosophical Materialism and Scientism.

12. ”There are of course “other ways of knowing” – it’s just they’re complete bollocks. Beyond laughable in the shadow of empirical science. ‘Intuition’, ‘gut feeling’ and ‘just knowing’ are alternative ways of knowing things, in much the same way that having sex standing up is an alternative form of contraception. Find me a person who could uncover the structure of the atom, of light, of the complexity of life through “other ways of knowing”. It’s exasperating, ridiculous and sad that adult humans can even utter those kinds of opinions with a straight face.”

Yes indeed: the shadow of empirical science. At the top Heather claims to be a scientist. If that is so, she certainly is unaware of the necessary foundation of empirical science upon axioms which exist outside and beyond science, and which science has no capacity to ever prove, yet which science necessarily accepts as valid in its everyday functions. The ignorance of scientists concerning their own field of empiricism is “exasperating, ridiculous and sad that adult humans can even utter those kinds of opinions with a straight face,” to cop a phrase.

13. “I don’t know whether to laugh or cry – and I don’t care if they’re offended by that. They should be. They don’t deserve to be cushioned from having their beliefs poked and prodded – and frankly, they really don’t know what they’re missing by not learning to love sceptical interrogation, the thrill of the culmination of arriving at a real, intellectually satisfying conclusion, instead of evading awkward questions, putting their fingers in their ears and playing the faith card to shield their cherished beliefs.”

The arrogance of ignorance comes out full force here. “Skeptical interrogation” is merely nay-saying without any intellectual input to contribute to the conversation. Skepticism merely says “you can’t prove that”, and by prove, the Skeptic means physical proof. There is no other contribution made by Skeptics or Skepticism. As for intellectually satisfying conclusions, we have seen what sort of conclusions satisfy Heather. By attacking unarmed believers with aggressive fallacies, Heather feels that her victories demonstrate her superiority. Rather it appears to be pseudo-intellectual bullying.

14. ” Faith is by definition belief without evidence – it’s pulling things out of your ass; it’s clinging to things that you might well know are faintly ridiculous; it’s putting up barriers to honest enquiry; it can be used as an impediment to curiosity and intellect, and it is simply the most ridiculous method of discovering or knowing anything about reality. It’s not a virtue – and it shouldn’t be a virtue in wider society any more than it would be in a court of law.”

Heather’s worship of physical reality is based on the belief – without evidence – that there is no reality which is not mass/energy, space/time. Even real science acknowledges that only a tiny part of the existing universe is detectable using physical techniques; the rest is dark to physics: dark energy; dark matter. And never mind that physical investigations are doomed to never produce a non-physical “truth” due to its category limitations to physical objects, nor any detection of what exists outside the universe itself. "If science can't detect it, it doesn't exist", is the thought process. Yet we know that there are non-physical truths which have no existence in terms of mass/energy and space/time.

To cling to the idea that no non-physical existence exists, and to do that clinging without evidence, is “putting up barriers to honest enquiry”, to say the least. And what is less a virtue than declaring oneself intellectually honest, while violating all sorts of intellectual restraints?

Plus, who is Heather to declare that there is no non-material existence? What is her authority for this statement, unless she produces evidence? Where is her evidence? We demand evidence… material evidence for her beliefs! She cannot be allowed to believe something without evidence under her own conditions of rationality. Yet she does have beliefs without evidence, contradicting her own standard of intellectual hygiene. This is blatant Non-Coherence: Violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction. A rational error.

And again the arrogance, while pulling things out of her own, umm, ass. It is dishonest to do the exact things which you are accusing others of doing.

15. ”Some atheists of course ‘respect’ such nonsense – but that is just yet another reason why atheism is not an ends in itself to me. It’s all about the process of rationality, reasoning and sceptical curiosity that if pursued boldly should necessarily give rise to atheism, and have much, much broader and deeper ramifications than just mere atheism alone.”

The ramifications of believing one’s own rational Fallacies and logic errors, believing within non-coherent constraints, believing that the products of the mind are tautologically true, correct and therefore somehow sacred, will lead to the ideas of personal superiority and intellectual supremacy with which Heather is infected. One might wonder what sort of ethical conclusions Heather’s reasoning has brought her to. She doesn’t mention that, but her dishonesty intellectually does make one wonder about her ethical declarations.

Heather had ample opportunity to provide evidence for her beliefs. But she didn’t attempt to do so. She made claims for rational thinking and proceeded to perform some of the most basic Fallacies and errors of logic.

PZ’s quest for Reasons To Be An Atheist is not off to a well grounded start.