More on The Atheist Ten Commandments

From the Washington Post:

“Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-First Century,” a new book by Lex Bayer and John Figdor.

Book Review by Kimberly Winston.

This time the full ten non-commandments are listed in the review, and presuming that they are accurate (it is WaPo after all) we can do the following analysis. Even though they are not advertised as moral commandments, they do presumptively form some sort of argument or framework for an Atheist moral theory. Or else why would they be a rewrite of the original Ten Commandments?


The Ten Non-Commandments:

I. The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief.

There is no reason to assume that "world" in this context refers merely to planet Earth. At a minimum it must refer to the universe, since there is much about the universe and its characteristics that influence some, but certainly not all, of our beliefs. The implication here is two-fold: first, that the term "world" represents all existence; and that the term "real" refers to physical, material. So the implication, not stated, yet blindingly obvious, is that the intent is to claim that "all existence is physical". That this is not stated full-out indicates intellectual treachery at play, and that caution is warranted.

This in no manner is anything other than an unsustainable assertion; it is an assertion being placed as a premise for further arguments.

This assertion ignores science: quantum mechanics to be precise. It further ignores the limits of science, specifically the inability of science to address issues it cannot test such as whether non-physical existence exists. One cannot successfully subject non-material entities to physical, material testing. So the first premise is anti-science and deceptive, plus its very intent is to lock in the unprovable premise of Philosophical Materialism, merely by virtue of an unprovable assertion about "the world".

It is without any empirical proof, it is unfalsifiable and non-empirical; the underlying prejudice of this assertion is false.

II. We can perceive the world only through our human senses.

Having already declared the "world" to be "real", and presuming that it is "real" because we sense that which is "real", yet our senses are finite and limited, then there possibly is "reality" which cannot be sensed. But that is not the meaning of the two things taken together as they are here. If our senses apprehend all of existence, and the "physical, material" is all that we apprehend, then physical, material existence is all of existence. This is the underlying message. But it is not the case that it can be proven, physically, that our senses apprehend "all of existence", even given our technical sense extensions.

This assertion, then, falsely extends the deception of “world” and “real” to “all that exists is that which we sense, period”; it is validation that the meaning of the term "world" is purely physical in this context. There is no philosophical or empirical reason to believe this to be true. It appears to be a purposeful deception designed to reach the objective of Atheism via Philosophical Materialism.

III. We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world.

And we - some of us - use them for much more than that. We use them for disciplined logic, and perception of valid and true arguments, discriminating against false, non-valid, ungrounded and untrue arguments, as we will do here in this analysis.

IV. [It is true that]: All truth is proportional to the evidence.

Truth is binary, not proportional; if a proposition is not completely and 100% true and valid, then it is false, period. If there is falseness in any part of an argument, then the argument is false. Arguing otherwise is anti-rational and violates the First Principle of Excluded Middle: either it completely true or it is false - it is not proportional to anything. This assertion is a purposeful, ideological redefinition which is anti-logic.

Second, this statement self-refutes because it is asserted without any evidence, physical or otherwise, that it is true. Again, it is a redefinition, a corrupted attempt at tautology, but one which fails its own criterion.

Further, without defining the term, evidence, it is being covertly presupposed here that “evidence” is purely physical in nature. This leads to the overt refutation of the above premises since there is no possible physical proof or evidence which demonstrates objectively (empirically) that there is no existence which is not physical. All of this is obscured in the language being used which is concealing the actual meanings being projected. The use of the term “world” is euphemistic for universal-existence in one case and physical-existence-only in another case. It is arguable whether the deception is purposeful, or is self-administered. But it is deception.

V. There is no God.

Immediately after claiming truth to be proportional to evidence, this assertion is made with precisely no evidence, certainly no empirical, physical evidence to support it. This amazing juxtapositioning of two contradictory assertions is a perfect demonstration of the lack of logical principles – no, the abject violation of basic logical principles – which are being asserted here.

To make certain that this is clear, let’s take the two propositions, side by side.

First: [It is true that]: truth is proportional to [physical] evidence.

Second: [It is true that]: “There is no God”. [Affirming evidence not required. Physical evidence of non-existence is itself non-existant, by definition]

.
So: if the first is “true”, then the second cannot be “true”. They are contradictory statements, i.e. non-coherent.

Contrarily, if one says,

First: [It is true that]: "There is no God." [Affirming evidence not required];

Second: [It is true that]: "Truth is proportional to [physical] evidence."

If the first is true then the second cannot be "true". They still are contradictory, non-coherent statements.

Here’s what is actually true: the First Principle of Non-Contradiction.

VI. We all strive to live a happy life. We pursue things that make us happy and avoid things that do not.

Anyone who is responsible knows that this is a misconstrual of actual life. Much of life involves doing things one would rather avoid but cannot due to responsibilities. This is maximally absurd, and further it has no bearing on anything prior to this assertion or after this assertion, so it has no value as a premise as well as being absurd. Finally, it is just the “Do as thou wilt” proclamation of Satanism.

VII. There is no universal moral truth. Our experiences and preferences shape our sense of how to behave.

Certainly Atheists want this to be true, because if there actually IS universal, objective moral truth then the whole point of being a hedonist Atheist is severely cramped.

But more to the point, it is absolutely the case that Atheists make up their own codes of behavior based solely on their own preferences. That has no conjunction with actual moral behavior. It is the behavior code of the common two year old child, yet to respond to discipline, much less develop self-disipline. That is self-centered, self-serving and selfishness which becomes the “moral code” of the individual Atheist.

And yet again, if [It is universally true that]: there is no universal moral truth, then IV above comes into play to contradict this assertion due to lack of affirming physical evidence. Non-coherence.

VIII. We act morally when the happiness of others makes us happy.

Here is the second AMAZING JUXTAPOSITION of contradictory assertions. The immediately preceding assertion declares: NO morality. This assertion declares: Morality IS THIS.

Logic is obviously the first victim in this set of unconnected and false assertions/premises/arguments.

IX. We benefit from living in, and supporting, an ethical society.

This is a failed observation due to prior assertions, since it contradicts VI and VII above: there is no universal ETHICAL truth. Atheists develop their own personal “preference” as how to behave, so ethics does not fit into the equation. Atheists benefit from behaving as their preferences dictate; i.e., whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it. That is the specific assertion of VII, above.

Now if the claim is that the Atheist benefits from living in a non-Atheist, ethical society, then this might make sense; but that is not the intent.

X. All our beliefs are subject to change in the face of new evidence, including these.

None of this is actually evidence based, so the undeniable fact that Atheists can (and do) change their “moral beliefs” on a moment’s notice is not caused by “new evidence”, it is caused by changes in preferences in any given situation. (See VII). This final assertion is completely unremarkable, considering that it is a restatement of previous claims, except with a meaningless reference to "evidence" thrown in for mere appearance.

The logic failures which pervade this ten point non-argument are blatantly egregious to the point of adolescent thought processes.

This is nothing more than a set of logically disconnected platitudes based on zero physical evidence and zero responsibility to anything other than self.