Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Atheism, Antirationalism, Elitist Totalitarianism, and the Actual Pillars of Atheism

Atheism rests on three philosophical struts: the premises of 1) Scientism; 2) Philosophical Materialism; 3) Evolution. There are other Atheist positions. But they are too weak to hold up the Atheist conclusion, even in concert with each other. These three form the philosophical support for Atheism.

The denial that a deity might exist is actually not a pillar in the sense of being a necessary premise: it is the conclusion. The three pillars above are thought by Atheists to be sufficient support. As can be seen by their names, they are in need of specific definition in order to determine their logical values.

There are other Atheist complaints that hardly rise to the level of arguments: Evil exists; God is Evil; Religion is Evil; Christians are Evil. These are all immediately falsified by both Evolution and Philosophical Materialism, within which there is no possibility that objective evil even exists. So when an Atheist claims “evil”, he is merely voicing an opinion, one which his own philosophies falsify right up front.

Another Atheist argument is the pitiful claim of the “lack of evidence” for any deity. That is both false, and even if it were the case, it is a logical failure of Category Error (demanding physical evidence for a non-physical entity).

Since all other arguments are easily falsified, Atheism depends upon the truth value of the three philosophical struts.

These struts are necessary for the Atheist. However, it is easy to demonstrate that they are not sufficient, by analyzing the logic which is employed in each case. If the struts cannot support the conclusion, then the conclusion cannot be the correct solution.

Regarding science, Julian asks the pertinent question:
”What scientific theories state that there is no God?”
The Laplacian statement regarding deity in which he replied to Napoleon’s query regarding deity, “I had no need of that hypothesis” is without any force in the determination of the existence of a deity. Here’s why. Science is descriptive. Science merely describes existing material cause and effect phenomena. Science does not even pretend to address the source of the phenomena, such as the underlying cause of each of the four forces, or the cause for the existence of anything rather than the null hypothesis: nothing exists. So when Laplace

Science merely describes the forces and their material causal properties on related material effects. Science has no capability beyond material determinations and cannot answer “why”: why there is a universe; why gravity exists; why there are physical rules which govern material things in themselves; why there are four forces (and why not seven or forty two); why agency can exist contra the physical rules which are universal for raw material existence.

Scientific description of material existence has no bearing on the source of material existence, nor on the moment-to-moment sustaining and time-transfer of existence (which enables both motion and entropy). For example, the underlying cause for a mass to go from spatial position S1 to position S2 from time tn to time tn+1 cannot be measured, because the measurement device (and the scientist) also undergo that time transfer, and the reference (tn) is lost.

The misuse of science today is rampant, and especially the attempt to use science for metaphysical and non-falsifiable subjects. Scientific description of non-material existence has no meaning, because there is nothing material to measure. So any demand for such a measurement or data is the logic failure of Category Error.

Scientific description of material existence is specifically and necessarily limited to physical, mass/energy existence. Empirical science is specifically and necessarily defined as voluntarily materialist, and specifically NOT philosophically materialist. Those who are expressing philosophically materialist concepts, as many scientists are, are expressing a non-scientific argument and conclusion. In other words, they are expressing a meta-physical truth statement regarding matters which are outside of the domain of science, and which are metaphysics. Metaphysics can be addressed, not by empirical, material science, but by disciplined logical analysis. That rarely, if ever, happens in Scientistic positions.

The failure of Scientism is supported by the fact that science is neither necessary nor sufficient for proof of meta-physical issues. Real science, i.e., science which generates objective knowledge, requires the testing of hypotheses for the indication that the proposed material cause for the observed material effect is actually contingently produced by the experiment, and thus the hypothesis is not falsified. In fact, to be objective knowledge there must be at least the possibility of falsification which could be found in material testing. Each Atheist prop is falsifiable by logic, which trumps Scientism.


If there is no proposed material cause for an observed material effect, then empirical science is not involved because no test is possible, and thus empirical science cannot provide any insight – much less a position which is a Truth Statement.

Further, any proposition or hypothesis which cannot be tested is NOT empirical science, and cannot generate objective knowledge. This is specifically the case for both evolution hypotheses, and Global Warming (or whatever the name is changed to) hypotheses. Claims of “truth” for these and other hypotheses like them is a metaphysical claim, and belief in their “truth” is religious in nature.

These claims, then, are not science. At best, they are empty faith in non-science. That is called “Scientism”, and it is demonstrably a false faith. That faith is antirational.

Because Evolution is historical AND is statistically irrational, it cannot be tested empirically. Belief in Evolution is based on inference, and that only. There is no possible actual truth value to the Atheist propositions of Evolution.

Philosophical Materialism:
The central proposition of Philosophical Materialism, “nothing exists which is not mass/energy”, cannot be proved using that premise. So Philosophical Materialism is logically non-coherent, being self-referencing and internally contradictory.

Further Observations:
These false faiths are rampant amongst Atheists, and are politically useful as the weapons of elitism. As Dawkins says, the disbelief in Evolution devolves to “evil”; i.e., it is evil not to believe in Evolution. This from the man who “could not say that Hitler was evil”. But without evil in the natural universe, the charge of “evil” is merely opinion of a self-anointed elitist who pretends to have moral authority to declare what is acceptable thinking vs. thinking that is evil.

Since Empirical Science cannot address either Evolution or Philosophical Materialism, then those two struts are metaphysical principles, not capable of being objective “fact”. Since Empirical Science cannot address the source of the universe, nor the source of the sustaining of the universe or the time transfer of material entities from tn to tn+1, then the denial of agency as part of that source has no force, and is without a logical base: pure empty denialism. No evidence or logic is available to the Atheist for making such claims.

So without the three struts of Scientism, philosophical materialism, and Evolution, as well as without any force to the “evil” arguments, and the immediate failure of the “evidence” argument, then Atheism has no rational grounding whatsoever.

Because Atheism generates passion in its adherents yet is without rational grounding, Atheism is clearly seen to be anti-rational, anti-logical, anti-empirical, and religiously held without either evidence or logic in its support.

When anti-rationality rules, as it did with Friedrich Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Anti-Rationalism, and his denial of good and evil, there is no possible logic which applies to any argument being made. So arguing from logic or evidence is futile, because force (Will To Power) takes primacy in the anti-rational universe. This first comes as denialism, then morphs to ridicule (as Dawkins recommended at the last “Reason” convention); then the denial of human value of dissenters rises to the fore (the current proposal of criminal prosecution for dissenters); and then the always popular eugenic solution for ridding the world of badthink and useless eaters.

Atheist anti-rationality is a conveyor belt to elitism and totalitarianism. Some are just getting on the belt and deny that the belt even exists. But seen from the rationalist perspective, Atheists are virtually all on that belt, be it one end or the other, or travelling down the middle. The belt goes just one direction, away from all rational conclusions, toward the Will To Power.

Actual Pillars of Atheism:
This leaves us with the real, actual functional pillars of Atheism: 1) self-anointed elitism and moral authority; 2) anti-rationalism; 3) hatred of religion - except lionization of Islam; 4) self-actualization of personal authority in the sense of rejection of higher authority of all types - except for Atheist totalitarians which pre-exist (Marxism; Che idolization; Maoism; Leninism; Sanger; other “Progressives”); 5) The personal freedom from all outside morality, all outside logical processes, and all outside authority - from moral to civil to intellectual.

Using the knowledge of these real, actual pillars of Atheism aids greatly in understanding Atheists, their positions, actions and responses.


Xellos said...

"I have no need of that hypothesis"

I wonder if he changed his mind on 5.3.1827.

William said...

You're right, Stan.

Atheism, in the end, leads to nihilism or scientism.

In addition, atheists have a mental, cognitive and epistemological confusion, which leads them to a mental and psychological labyrinth, from which they can not get out.
When they ask for evidence and at the same time speak of rationality, they are totally incongruous. To combine or mix empiricism and rationalism in a same postulate or a same proposition or argument is a contradiction, since empiricism and rationalism are opposed.