The Logic of "The Atheist"

Poking around the claims that Atheists are more intelligent than believers, I came across this gem. The Author of The Atheist makes the specific claim that he is rational and logical while non-Atheists are not. Looking at his first claim however leaves one pretty cool on his claim to logic.

First he cites a magazine article which states,

”No one in their right mind would claim that 10,000 hundred story buildings built themselves from randomness, even over time. Yet those who doubt the existence of a Creator believe that an entire universe, containing all of the billions of elements necessary for life to form, may have come about without a builder. As such, they give credence to billions of times more coincidences to having come about.”

Says The Atheist,

”Now clearly, I am an Atheist. And I know many other Atheists. Yet I’ve never heard any of them claim that buildings can build themselves. Likewise, we don’t claim that humans have built themselves. The above quote really belies the author’s complete lack of understanding of evolution. It would appear that the author’s intention is to argue that the sheer complexity of the universe means that it cannot have happened randomly. Something must have sparked this surge of life. And that something must be “The Creator”. What isn’t clear is how a being so complex that they can create a universe of this complexity was created themselves. And how the being that created that being was created? if you assume that anything of any complexity must have been created, there really is no beginning. It’s one of the most flawed, illogical, self-defeating arguments I’ve ever had the misfortune of stumbling across (thank you Richard Dawkins!).”

My word. The logical answer to the proposition of complexity is, in his estimation, the “Who Created God?” dodge? My, my, my.

Let’s examine his initial burst, that no one claims that humans build themselves. How, exactly, under the claims of evolution, did humans come about? No one built them, right? No, they developed long term, from original life (which under Philosophical Materialism necessarily self-assembled), with each generation assembling itself based on instructions that came about accidentally but were selected for. In fact, humans do assemble themselves, deriving the building blocks from their host (mother), and the instructions from their parental units. The Atheist is out to lunch on this point. But that actually is not even the claim being made by the article.

The article’s actual claim is for first life, which necessarily self-assembled, there being no room in Atheist-land for an assembler. Not only was the scaffold for life self-assembled, but it brought itself into a new state of existence: living. This is complexity, creating itself.

The Atheist’s response? Who Made God? This faulty argument does not even come close to addressing the issue of complexity. The deviation from the subject at hand is breathtakingly amateurish for a self-annointed logician. In fact only the rawest recruit would make such a leap for a Red Herring. And this is followed immediately by an Ad Hominem attack on Anthony Flew, out of right field, with no apparent reason for it. Even though it doesn't relate to the issue of self-assembled complexity, the "Who Made God" argument is discussed at the end of this post.

Nonetheless, we move on to the revelation that evolution is real because certain bacteria re-evolved an ability that was lost, the ability to:

”… metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.”

The inability to metabolized citrates is used to differentiate E. Coli from other bacteria which can and do metabolize citrates. Given that, it seems logical to assume that very likely E. Coli once had the ability just like the other bacteria, but lost it due to some genetic modification event in its past. And from that likelihood it is easily projected that the genetic modification was reversed in a mutation in this particular population. So a previously existing trait is restored. This is not evidence of new features being devloped by mutation/selection. But here is the text which accompanies the report:

”Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

The illogic here is stunning. But it demonstrates what happens when an event occurs that superficially supports the Atheo/Evolutionist paradigm: it is seized upon uncritically... let’s repeat that with embellishment: It is seized upon with no trace of logical analysis much less common sense critique. And then it is paraded as logical, even scientific evidence, despite holes in it large enough to fly Australia through.

But more to the point, how does "evolution is True" relate to the issue of complexity jumping to life? A bacteria which re-finds its lost capabilities does not relate in any discernable fashion. The disconnect is obvious, but nevertheless it is presented as evidence for the origin of complexity.

Here is the final cap which The Atheist puts on his post:

”Both pieces of news came across my inbox the same day, and really serve as a microcosm of the two sides of the argument. On the one side we have the religious, regurgitating the same old flawed, defeated, arguments in new and badly written diatribes. On the other side we have science. Tests, experiements, results and reproducable scenarios. The absurdity of the fact that such a so-called argument even exists is clearly evident.”

There is absurdity indeed evident in this article. Reguritating old flawed and defeated arguments? Yes, that is in the article. Diatribes? yep that is there. Empirical results? Yep, for entirely unrelated subjects. Logic? nope. But let's put together the syllogisms which the article lacks:

P1 First life is complex.
P2 Who Made God?
Therefore, there is no God.

and

P1 First Life is complex.
P2 Bacteria find lost capability.
Therefore, there is no God.

Are these acceptable conclusions for a logician?

As a bonus here, we will discuss the issue of “Who Made God”, even though it is entirely unrelated to any of the subject matter above.

The “Who Made God” argument has been called the definitive argument in the lives of some of the most famous of the philosophers. The argument says that if God made the universe, well then, who made God? (take that Theists!).

P1 the universe has a first cause.
P2 Who made God?
Therefore, there is no God.

There are two problems with this argument.

First, the argument does not address the issue of a first cause for the universe; in fact, it concedes that by extension. The extension is that, given that there is a God, He must have been created, and his creator must have been created, ad infinitum. This is an obvious infinite regress, and is not allowed.

Not allowed? That is a condition which is placed without any certain knowledge of its truth value. Its truth value is assumed and cannot be proven with any certainty, certainly not by empirical means and also not by logical means. Here's why. Logically we can understand that there are an infinite number of possible numbers, although we can not understand what that limitless capability looks like, in human terms. In fact, there could be an infinite number of number systems, such as odds / evens or primes, etc., and no one can prove otherwise, certainly not empirically.

Thus, there is no infinite regress constraint to be placed against the first cause proposition, short of just not liking it. So, the infinite regress being unallowable is neither a rational argument, nor is it an empirical demonstration.

Second, the entire concept of regression - being a time constrained concept – is not applicable in extraordinary dimensions that do not have time involved. Without time, which is posited to have been created at the Big Bang and not existing prior to that, there is no possibility of infinite chains of time constrained events.

Given that, then, there is no need to posit an infinite chain of creators. So the “Who Made God” argument fails, and easily so.

Conclusion:
Logic is a discipline, one with defined procedures and which depends upon first principles for its validation. Logic is not a series of incompatible arguments thrown together with no analysis of their coherence. The claim to logic is commonly empty; logical arguments are either made or not made, regardless of claiming logic. Logic is not acquired automatically due to the subscription to worldview which claims logic. Logic is acquired through study of its characteristics and processes, and it is applied with due diligence and integrity of thought and process. My hope is that readers here will acquire the knowledge base and habits of logic, independent of ideology, especially independent of ideology that claims automatic logic by virtue of membership.