It is not the case that thinking equates to Reason. It is so common for those who become Atheist to believe (yes believe) that their thoughts are now Reason that some write papers claiming Reason and others choose web appellations using variants of “Reason” in the pseudonym. This position is reinforced by the legions inhabiting the ranks of Atheism who follow the evangelical intellectualists, who in turn have learned a specialized niche and now consider that specialized niche to engender reason axiomatically. The actual process of reasoning is trivialized, as factoids are stacked in certain patterns and that stack of factoids itself is believed (yes believed) to be Reason. (Note 1)
But reason is not defined by facts; it is the other way around: factoids cannot exist unless reason is properly applied to their situation first. Reason comes first, not factoids. (Note 2) This apparently is not well understood amongst the Atheisti. One reason might be that Philosophical Materialism is commonly adopted shortly after the Great Rejection which defines Atheism, and the consequence of that is the belief (yes belief) that only objective empiricism can produce knowledge; hence the misapprehension that Reason is produced by thinking about stacks of inductive factoids which are arranged this way and that to produce congenial inductive results.
This consequence of Atheist-Materialism is a general Atheist population which quite ignorant of the actual axiomatic underpinnings of the cherished belief in empiricism; it is that ignorance which allows the worship of empiricism as the sole generator of knowledge. Rarely considered is the actual necessary process of justification of empiricism as a valid source at all: rather, Atheists wish to justify it using common sense: “it works!” they cry, even though they also claim that common sense is no basis for knowledge: common sense is not empirical science. It turns out that empiricism cannot justify itself, and that the belief (yes belief) in self-justification is internally contradictory and non-coherent.
Empiricism is justifiable as a limited subset of all knowledge generation. But the justification is not attributable to common sense. The justification derives from prior knowledge which is not empirical itself, but is meta-empirical, i.e. conceptual. An example of this is the concept of contradiction, which is not present in nature as a thing but which is actually conceived not to exist in nature.
Empiricism is justifiable only through its meta-empirical axioms, those beliefs (yes beliefs) which include the idea of universal consistency of behaviors across time and space; the actuality of cause and effect; the validity of Non-Contradiction; the belief in human rational capability; the binary property of existence/non-existence; and so on.
In addition to the meta-empirical axioms, it is necessary to deduce the necessary properties and procedures of empirical knowledge generation. Deduction as a procedure itself must be in place first. This appears not to be commonly understood, because even though Atheists do use the IF/THEN words, they appear unaware of the additional necessary conditions for the IF/THEN to produce valid deductive results.
One may declare that IF [it is Tuesday], THEN [purple does not exist] and to think that one has deduced. This is why the superficial appearance of process is no guarantee of validity of outcome. It is the reason that the actual study of the actual discipline of logic, its principles, its process, and its fallacies is necessary, and that they be applied with rigorous intellectual integrity which demands subordination to the logical results of a demonstrably valid, grounded intellectual process.
That is Reason. It is not just any thought in pursuit of justifying a conclusion. It is a disciplined, learned process. And that is what is necessary for a rational worldview.
Notes
1. This is especially common and egregious in the stepchild of biology, evolution, but also exists in the stepchild of astronomy, cosmology.
2. Nor does Atheism produce Reason, or Reason produce Atheism.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Critique of Henson's "Dossier of Reason": Deism Segment
Daniel Henson, ex-youth pastor, has a paper he calls "Dossier of Reason". In it he develops his personal case against Theism.
Let’s take up the ill-named ”Dossier of Reason” at Deism, part II, which he claims as an analysis of knowledge and belief.
In Deism, part I A, Henson claims that,
”Science therefore follows the evidence and attempts to disprove it’s [sic] own theories as a way of supporting them. So a scientific theory is not just a guess or belief, it is a testable model that best explains the nature of phenomenon [sic].”
This is simplistically correct, but incomplete. Scientific theory is also contingent and subject to falsification at any time. It never produces incorrigible truth. It addresses only material subjects. It does not address non-material subjects. Henson fails to acknowledge these limitations of science. These limitations are even more important than the fine qualities of science which Henson does mention.
The claim of “knowledge system” vs “belief system” is in the process of being corrupted here. It is necessary to “believe” that falsification will not occur, if a scientific theory is to be taken as incorrigible truth.
What Henson does here is to convolute the meaning of “knowledge” to correspond only to the output of science; this is false, as will be shown.
In Deism part I B, Henson goes awry almost immediately.
”Religion is a non-falsifiable theory that puts forth no useful predictions about how the nature of things should be if the theory is true, and so it cannot be tested or falsified. It is a belief system, not a knowledge system..
Both science and Theism arrive at their conclusion in the same manner: concept; deductive hypothesis, analysis, conclusion. Science uses physical analysis techniques which match physical objects and pursues understanding of the physical realm; Theism uses rational techniques which match rational objects and pursues understanding of the non-physical and pre-physical realms.
The question, “why”, is illegitimate according to Dawkins; the only legitimate questions are what and how. Who gave the Materialists the anti-rational authority and ability to declare the illegitimacy of questions? It is only the unfounded belief system of Scientism which allows such presumption of rational dictatorship. Such a dictatorship of the intellect is supremely anti-rational.
” Religions looks at areas where we do not have answers and believes things about those subjects. It does not know things, it believes thing[sic]. When science doesn’t know, religion believes. The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge.”
This assertion is based on a complete lack of understanding of rational processes, and is based on the belief system of Scientism and the belief system of Materialism, both of which have been demonstrated to be internally contradictory and non-coherent (despite their claims to be the sole source of knowledge, neither can demonstrate that it is the only source of knowledge, using its own evidentiary rules).
Again, empiricism and logic are both based on the same axioms and have the same rational force which those axioms provide. Rational analysis uses Reductio Ad Absurdum along with empirical observation in order to come to rational conclusions. These conclusions have as much force as knowledge as do empirical, scientific conclusions. In fact they have more consistency as conclusions because they are not subject to the Inductive Fallacy and contingency in the sense that scientific conclusions are. This actually means that scientific conclusions are more accurately called “contingent beliefs” than are the conclusions of rational analysis.
Henson’s Deism premise I A is fatally incomplete and his premise I B is completely false.
But this is Henson's conclusion:
"Religions looks [sic] at areas where we do not have answers and believes [sic] things about those subjects. It does not know things, it believes thing. When science doesn’t know, religion believes. The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge."
This completely false conclusion will be used to prop up the Scientistic, Materialistic propositions coming up. The delusion is actually that Scientism is a valid, coherent belief.
His next part is this:
” There is no compelling reason to believe in any god.”
Atheists use “compelling” as a weasel word; in fact you cannot “compel” a dogmatist with any amount of logic for your case, or demonstration of fallacy in their case. Dogmatists are just not compelled by such things as those which go against their worldview. So this statement has no actual meaning.
From here Henson takes the usual dodge to avoid the actual analysis of Atheism qua Atheism. He denies that Atheists have any burden to give reasons for rejecting any and all theories. It is enough that they just reject them without giving any reason, rational or otherwise for having done so. In fact his first point after denying any intellectual responsibility for himself is this:
”B. 1. There is no argument, evidence or experiment that can positively demonstrate the existence of a god, or positive evidence.”
This is asserted as a truth claim with no evidence presented to support it. It is sheer rejectionism. And his use of “positive” is dependent upon his belief in Scientism (yes, belief):
”Instead, all of the arguments for god are negative evidences, or gaps in scientific understanding where god might possibly exist despite not having any evidence or demonstration that he actually does.”
First off this is a statement of universal Truth, which he cannot possibly know.
Second, it is false: there is no reason whatsoever to believe in the faith of Scientism, and it is only under the presupposition of the faith of Scientism that the concept of “god of the gaps” has any meaning.
Third, evidence is constantly ignored or ridiculed rather than refuted: another reason that this assertion is false.
Fourth, where is the scientific data to back up this claim?
Fifth, this is the assertion of the belief in Scientism which was promised to follow the failed “knowledge theory” above. He asserts that non-scientific propositions are god-did-it, or “god of the gaps” failures. This is a basic premise of the belief in Scientism, which claims that science will ultimately answer every and all questions, leaving none for non-physical questioning. The belief in Scientism is based on the lack of understanding of the limitations which inhere in the material investigations available to science, and on the Philosophical Materialist premise that nothing exists which is not material, a premise which has no proof or support under its own belief system: and it is a belief system, not a scientific system. The fact that Henson is invoking a belief system here invalidates his entire dependency upon science as the sole source of knowledge. It is a demonstration of the internal non-coherence of his beliefs.
This means that no logical argument will even be considered except under Scientistic belief.
This entire section, therefore, is a rational, logical failure.
His final statement here is this:
” As our understanding of the universe increases, the gaps in which god can exist become smaller. God was born out of ignorance of the natural world, and the more we understand the natural world and just how natural it really is, the less room there is for god to fill those gaps in knowledge.”
He has embedded his conclusion in his premises, a conclusion which is totally without scientific proof, which he demands as the sole source of knowledge: he does not know that god was born out of ignorance of the natural world; he has no evidence of that: none. He has embedded a prejudice into the premises.
The second presumption is that a creating deity must fit into the creation: blatant Philosophical Materialist failure. There is no reason that a creator of anything must fit into the gaps in his creation. This is primary logic and Henson fails it completely.
Total failure.
The next premise Henson claims is even more outrageous:
”C. 1. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.”
Here Henson completely abandons science altogether and goes completely off the reservation. No scientist would claim that absence of evidence for Dark Matter, or the Higgs Boson, or a unifying theory of existence is evidence confirming its non-existence. The entire basis for science is to develop evidence where none exists! To prejudice a conclusion in advance like Henson tries to do here is completely outside science and even under his own Scientistic belief system rules this cannot be accepted. It is another internal contradiction and non-coherence.
Even his example is well outside of logic: An invisible dragon breathing heatless fire. The original premise is that the dragon had no discernible characteristics; how then is it to leave evidence?
Here is his argument c:
”c. The thing being proven to not exist, is the type of thing that if it existed evidence would show.”
Repeat: The original premise is that the dragon had no discernible characteristics; how then is it to leave evidence? Non-coherent.
Then finally,
” If the definition of god in question involves a god that actively interacts with the physical universe, absence of evidence would be evidence that this type of god does not exist.”
Henson is invited to debunk the claims regarding the miracle at Lourdes. There is no “absence of evidence”; there is an absence of investigation and an absence of intellectual rigor in making claims for Atheism.
Blatant failure.
When false premises stack up and multiply, the arguments become massively irrational. That has happened here.
Henson’s final entry in this section is even more slipshod:
” b. Even though I cannot “Know” there is no god with absolute certainty, I can say that I know god does not exist in the same way that I can say that I know Santa Clause [sic] does not exist or that I know the earth revolves around the sun.”
Santa Claus is an obvious adult fabrication for children: no science involved there. Planetary orbits are indeed scientific knowledge of material objects. Neither of these is even closely analogous to the deductive case for a non-physical creating agent. The argument is completely beside the point, trivial and without force in refutation.
The remainder of the Deism argument is an amazing twist: after having dedicated the first part of the Deism article to claiming Scientism as the only source of knowledge, Henson attacks the apologetic arguments, not with science, but with attempts at non-scientific argumentation - which he has denied as having any knowledge-value(!) So no matter what he says in denial of the apologetics, it is in violation of his own principles and is therefore non-coherent and unacceptable as having any value in his own argument.
Failure. Utter failure.
The basis for all arguments seen so far includes (a) the belief system: Philosophical Materialism; (b) the belief system: Scientism; (c) false theories of knowledge; and (d) unsupported universal Truth statements which are prejudicial only and without logical or empirical force.
Making a lengthy, multi-premise logic argument requires that each and every assertion be demonstrably and incontrovertibly the case, logically sound, and axiomatically grounded. A single failure invalidates the entire chain. But in rationalized argumentation, it can be shown that most if not all of the premises fail, because they are induced falsely to support a presupposed conclusion, not deduced rigorously to reveal that which “is the case”. That is what has been done here: rationalization.
Accepting an argument purely because it reaches your desired conclusions is irrational. Yet for Atheists, Critical Thought is for the other guy, not for application to friendly, compatible arguments, it appears. To have accepted this argument without critically analyzing it is anti-rational; worse would be to read it and accept it as truth.
Addendum: link added 5.31.12
Let’s take up the ill-named ”Dossier of Reason” at Deism, part II, which he claims as an analysis of knowledge and belief.
In Deism, part I A, Henson claims that,
”Science therefore follows the evidence and attempts to disprove it’s [sic] own theories as a way of supporting them. So a scientific theory is not just a guess or belief, it is a testable model that best explains the nature of phenomenon [sic].”
This is simplistically correct, but incomplete. Scientific theory is also contingent and subject to falsification at any time. It never produces incorrigible truth. It addresses only material subjects. It does not address non-material subjects. Henson fails to acknowledge these limitations of science. These limitations are even more important than the fine qualities of science which Henson does mention.
The claim of “knowledge system” vs “belief system” is in the process of being corrupted here. It is necessary to “believe” that falsification will not occur, if a scientific theory is to be taken as incorrigible truth.
What Henson does here is to convolute the meaning of “knowledge” to correspond only to the output of science; this is false, as will be shown.
In Deism part I B, Henson goes awry almost immediately.
”Religion is a non-falsifiable theory that puts forth no useful predictions about how the nature of things should be if the theory is true, and so it cannot be tested or falsified. It is a belief system, not a knowledge system..
Both science and Theism arrive at their conclusion in the same manner: concept; deductive hypothesis, analysis, conclusion. Science uses physical analysis techniques which match physical objects and pursues understanding of the physical realm; Theism uses rational techniques which match rational objects and pursues understanding of the non-physical and pre-physical realms.
The question, “why”, is illegitimate according to Dawkins; the only legitimate questions are what and how. Who gave the Materialists the anti-rational authority and ability to declare the illegitimacy of questions? It is only the unfounded belief system of Scientism which allows such presumption of rational dictatorship. Such a dictatorship of the intellect is supremely anti-rational.
” Religions looks at areas where we do not have answers and believes things about those subjects. It does not know things, it believes thing[sic]. When science doesn’t know, religion believes. The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge.”
This assertion is based on a complete lack of understanding of rational processes, and is based on the belief system of Scientism and the belief system of Materialism, both of which have been demonstrated to be internally contradictory and non-coherent (despite their claims to be the sole source of knowledge, neither can demonstrate that it is the only source of knowledge, using its own evidentiary rules).
Again, empiricism and logic are both based on the same axioms and have the same rational force which those axioms provide. Rational analysis uses Reductio Ad Absurdum along with empirical observation in order to come to rational conclusions. These conclusions have as much force as knowledge as do empirical, scientific conclusions. In fact they have more consistency as conclusions because they are not subject to the Inductive Fallacy and contingency in the sense that scientific conclusions are. This actually means that scientific conclusions are more accurately called “contingent beliefs” than are the conclusions of rational analysis.
Henson’s Deism premise I A is fatally incomplete and his premise I B is completely false.
But this is Henson's conclusion:
"Religions looks [sic] at areas where we do not have answers and believes [sic] things about those subjects. It does not know things, it believes thing. When science doesn’t know, religion believes. The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge."
This completely false conclusion will be used to prop up the Scientistic, Materialistic propositions coming up. The delusion is actually that Scientism is a valid, coherent belief.
His next part is this:
” There is no compelling reason to believe in any god.”
Atheists use “compelling” as a weasel word; in fact you cannot “compel” a dogmatist with any amount of logic for your case, or demonstration of fallacy in their case. Dogmatists are just not compelled by such things as those which go against their worldview. So this statement has no actual meaning.
From here Henson takes the usual dodge to avoid the actual analysis of Atheism qua Atheism. He denies that Atheists have any burden to give reasons for rejecting any and all theories. It is enough that they just reject them without giving any reason, rational or otherwise for having done so. In fact his first point after denying any intellectual responsibility for himself is this:
”B. 1. There is no argument, evidence or experiment that can positively demonstrate the existence of a god, or positive evidence.”
This is asserted as a truth claim with no evidence presented to support it. It is sheer rejectionism. And his use of “positive” is dependent upon his belief in Scientism (yes, belief):
”Instead, all of the arguments for god are negative evidences, or gaps in scientific understanding where god might possibly exist despite not having any evidence or demonstration that he actually does.”
First off this is a statement of universal Truth, which he cannot possibly know.
Second, it is false: there is no reason whatsoever to believe in the faith of Scientism, and it is only under the presupposition of the faith of Scientism that the concept of “god of the gaps” has any meaning.
Third, evidence is constantly ignored or ridiculed rather than refuted: another reason that this assertion is false.
Fourth, where is the scientific data to back up this claim?
Fifth, this is the assertion of the belief in Scientism which was promised to follow the failed “knowledge theory” above. He asserts that non-scientific propositions are god-did-it, or “god of the gaps” failures. This is a basic premise of the belief in Scientism, which claims that science will ultimately answer every and all questions, leaving none for non-physical questioning. The belief in Scientism is based on the lack of understanding of the limitations which inhere in the material investigations available to science, and on the Philosophical Materialist premise that nothing exists which is not material, a premise which has no proof or support under its own belief system: and it is a belief system, not a scientific system. The fact that Henson is invoking a belief system here invalidates his entire dependency upon science as the sole source of knowledge. It is a demonstration of the internal non-coherence of his beliefs.
This means that no logical argument will even be considered except under Scientistic belief.
This entire section, therefore, is a rational, logical failure.
His final statement here is this:
” As our understanding of the universe increases, the gaps in which god can exist become smaller. God was born out of ignorance of the natural world, and the more we understand the natural world and just how natural it really is, the less room there is for god to fill those gaps in knowledge.”
He has embedded his conclusion in his premises, a conclusion which is totally without scientific proof, which he demands as the sole source of knowledge: he does not know that god was born out of ignorance of the natural world; he has no evidence of that: none. He has embedded a prejudice into the premises.
The second presumption is that a creating deity must fit into the creation: blatant Philosophical Materialist failure. There is no reason that a creator of anything must fit into the gaps in his creation. This is primary logic and Henson fails it completely.
Total failure.
The next premise Henson claims is even more outrageous:
”C. 1. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.”
Here Henson completely abandons science altogether and goes completely off the reservation. No scientist would claim that absence of evidence for Dark Matter, or the Higgs Boson, or a unifying theory of existence is evidence confirming its non-existence. The entire basis for science is to develop evidence where none exists! To prejudice a conclusion in advance like Henson tries to do here is completely outside science and even under his own Scientistic belief system rules this cannot be accepted. It is another internal contradiction and non-coherence.
Even his example is well outside of logic: An invisible dragon breathing heatless fire. The original premise is that the dragon had no discernible characteristics; how then is it to leave evidence?
Here is his argument c:
”c. The thing being proven to not exist, is the type of thing that if it existed evidence would show.”
Repeat: The original premise is that the dragon had no discernible characteristics; how then is it to leave evidence? Non-coherent.
Then finally,
” If the definition of god in question involves a god that actively interacts with the physical universe, absence of evidence would be evidence that this type of god does not exist.”
Henson is invited to debunk the claims regarding the miracle at Lourdes. There is no “absence of evidence”; there is an absence of investigation and an absence of intellectual rigor in making claims for Atheism.
Blatant failure.
When false premises stack up and multiply, the arguments become massively irrational. That has happened here.
Henson’s final entry in this section is even more slipshod:
” b. Even though I cannot “Know” there is no god with absolute certainty, I can say that I know god does not exist in the same way that I can say that I know Santa Clause [sic] does not exist or that I know the earth revolves around the sun.”
Santa Claus is an obvious adult fabrication for children: no science involved there. Planetary orbits are indeed scientific knowledge of material objects. Neither of these is even closely analogous to the deductive case for a non-physical creating agent. The argument is completely beside the point, trivial and without force in refutation.
The remainder of the Deism argument is an amazing twist: after having dedicated the first part of the Deism article to claiming Scientism as the only source of knowledge, Henson attacks the apologetic arguments, not with science, but with attempts at non-scientific argumentation - which he has denied as having any knowledge-value(!) So no matter what he says in denial of the apologetics, it is in violation of his own principles and is therefore non-coherent and unacceptable as having any value in his own argument.
Failure. Utter failure.
The basis for all arguments seen so far includes (a) the belief system: Philosophical Materialism; (b) the belief system: Scientism; (c) false theories of knowledge; and (d) unsupported universal Truth statements which are prejudicial only and without logical or empirical force.
Making a lengthy, multi-premise logic argument requires that each and every assertion be demonstrably and incontrovertibly the case, logically sound, and axiomatically grounded. A single failure invalidates the entire chain. But in rationalized argumentation, it can be shown that most if not all of the premises fail, because they are induced falsely to support a presupposed conclusion, not deduced rigorously to reveal that which “is the case”. That is what has been done here: rationalization.
Accepting an argument purely because it reaches your desired conclusions is irrational. Yet for Atheists, Critical Thought is for the other guy, not for application to friendly, compatible arguments, it appears. To have accepted this argument without critically analyzing it is anti-rational; worse would be to read it and accept it as truth.
Addendum: link added 5.31.12
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Sam Harris: Over His Head
Sam Harris:
”Choice, reasoning, discipline, etc., play important roles in our lives despite the fact that they are determined by prior causes…”
Does no Atheist see the internal contradiction within this single position statement?
”Choice, reasoning, discipline, etc., play important roles in our lives despite the fact that they are determined by prior causes…”
Does no Atheist see the internal contradiction within this single position statement?
The Atheist Argument Against God.
1. Here is the argument against god(s), placed into a legitimate syllogistic format:
But unless X is fully explained and supported as a rational, coherent, and irrefutable claim, then there is no reason to accept Atheism as a rational position.
So it is up to the Atheist to provide the details of X, and to show that X is irrefutable logically, therefore it is indisputable under disciplined logical analysis that there can not exist any god(s).
Or contrarily, provide empirical, material evidence (data) that shows conclusively that there is no God.
2. Atheists seem to want to quibble over what "god" entails; that is an illegitimate argument because Atheists have already rejected their concept of "god", and are obligated to show the details of what it is that they have rejected, as well as obligated to show their exact reasons for rejecting it.
3. If there is no incontrovertable logical explanation/argument in support of the Atheist Argument shown above, then there is no reason to accept Atheism as a rational position, and it becomes reasonable to accept that Atheism must have non-rational reasons for its existence.
4. Atheists are expected to use known disciplined logical processes for supporting their Atheist Argument, and to own up to any fallacies, grounding errors, non-coherence and other axiomatic failures which are found in their arguments. If necessary this section might be more fully elaborated in the future.
Atheists are invited to make their case using this syllogism.
P1: IF [ X is the case], THEN [There is/are no god(s)];As an Atheist, it is impossible not to accept this syllogism, because it is the Atheist position.
P2: IT IS TRUE THAT [ X is the case];
C: THEREFORE: [There is/are no god(s)].
But unless X is fully explained and supported as a rational, coherent, and irrefutable claim, then there is no reason to accept Atheism as a rational position.
So it is up to the Atheist to provide the details of X, and to show that X is irrefutable logically, therefore it is indisputable under disciplined logical analysis that there can not exist any god(s).
Or contrarily, provide empirical, material evidence (data) that shows conclusively that there is no God.
2. Atheists seem to want to quibble over what "god" entails; that is an illegitimate argument because Atheists have already rejected their concept of "god", and are obligated to show the details of what it is that they have rejected, as well as obligated to show their exact reasons for rejecting it.
3. If there is no incontrovertable logical explanation/argument in support of the Atheist Argument shown above, then there is no reason to accept Atheism as a rational position, and it becomes reasonable to accept that Atheism must have non-rational reasons for its existence.
4. Atheists are expected to use known disciplined logical processes for supporting their Atheist Argument, and to own up to any fallacies, grounding errors, non-coherence and other axiomatic failures which are found in their arguments. If necessary this section might be more fully elaborated in the future.
Atheists are invited to make their case using this syllogism.
Monday, May 28, 2012
A Syllogistic Argument Against Abortion
I have stolen this article in its entirety from the blog, Scientiam Dei:
To deny that every human - every human - went through the prenatal stages of human life including the division of cells and all embryo stages can be seen as nothing short of dishonest. To claim the moral authority to determine which stage of human life they think is acceptable to kill is an onerous claim. The idea that Atheism is more empathetic is absurd, unless the value of human life is discounted in advance, and the Atheist is elevated beyond his actual position as just another human, not a moral judge or determinor of life and death for other innocent humans.
No excuse can defeat the fact that human life always starts with cell division and that killing those cells kills a human life at that particular stage. This is not defeated by any appeal to the condition of the mother, the ability of the embryo to feel pain, or any other rationalized permission to kill the human at that stage, and only in a triage situation can such decisions be made which would kill the embryo or mother with moral impunity.
The much vaunted Atheist "empathy" has not been extended to the more than 50,000,000 humans killed by abortion in the United States.
Here is Francis J. Beckwith's pro-life syllogism:
The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community*.
It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.
Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.¹
*Support for Premise 1.
¹ Found in: Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009) p. 29. Originally from: Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
To deny that every human - every human - went through the prenatal stages of human life including the division of cells and all embryo stages can be seen as nothing short of dishonest. To claim the moral authority to determine which stage of human life they think is acceptable to kill is an onerous claim. The idea that Atheism is more empathetic is absurd, unless the value of human life is discounted in advance, and the Atheist is elevated beyond his actual position as just another human, not a moral judge or determinor of life and death for other innocent humans.
No excuse can defeat the fact that human life always starts with cell division and that killing those cells kills a human life at that particular stage. This is not defeated by any appeal to the condition of the mother, the ability of the embryo to feel pain, or any other rationalized permission to kill the human at that stage, and only in a triage situation can such decisions be made which would kill the embryo or mother with moral impunity.
The much vaunted Atheist "empathy" has not been extended to the more than 50,000,000 humans killed by abortion in the United States.
Points Requiring Emphasis, First Addendum
Here are some points that might be getting lost in the shimmering heat of Atheist wit and riposte:
1. This blog is about Atheism, and whether it is a rational position and can be defended using disciplined logical processes and/or empirical experimental data. This blog is not about Theism, although Atheist concepts of basic Theist positions must be corrected from time to time. So this blog is focused and asymmetrical.
2. Atheism has consequences. For example, Atheists cannot generate trust based on the Atheist Moral Code which doesn’t exist. If one knows only that a person is an Atheist, a lack of trust in that person is a rational position to take, even for other Atheists.
Atheists recoil in horror at this consequence, and declare it to be hate speech; but they present no contrary position which they can defend.
There are other consequences such as the common denial of absolutes, which eliminates any truth value for Atheist positions. This includes the elimination, a la Nietzsche, of good and evil, except as redefined by the individual Atheist. In general, evil is thought not to actually exist, except by the Theist God, which the Atheists presume the personal moral authority to judge.
Also eliminated along with absolutes is the submission to disciplined, logical deductive rules for argumentation. Submission to anything other than self becomes anathema, unless one could get arrested for it, and in that case Atheists see themselves as "good". Refusal to submit to overarching rules of logic results in (again Nietzschean) anti-rationalism. So rationalization becomes dominant, along with personal attacks and ridicule.
3. Because Atheism is only about rejection and rejectionism, it presents no positive characteristics in and of itself. (Total freedom from absolutes is not a positive characteristic). In fact, the commonly held list of beneficial character traits is frequently held as religious bias, and also too hard for some people and therefore discriminatory.
4. A rejection of a proposition requires a reason for rejecting that proposition; if there is no reason given, or if giving a reason is refused, then that rejection is seen as capricious opinion without a rational basis, and therefore is dogmatic faith based only on ornery rejectionism and nothing more.
5. Atheists who wish to defend their rejection of the Theist proposition are invited to make their case by engaging in the logic of their reasons for rejecting the proposition, and/or presenting the empirical data which they use to make their rejection decisive.
6. Attacking the writers who comment and post here is not an argument; it is a childish, petulant, logical fallacy.
7. Ridicule is not an argument.
8. I frequently view Nietzsche as perhaps the only honest Atheist. He declared his rejections and then he acknowledged the consequences of those rejections. Modern Atheists wish to avoid even claiming their rejectionism, much less admitting that there are any consequences. Compared to Neitzsche, that denial is intellectual cowardice and is totally trivial.
9. Atheist arguments which are based on their assessment of the morality of any proposition, person or deity is to be immediately rejected. This is based on the obvious lack of a moral position which inheres in Atheism as a basis for making moral judgments. Further, Atheists have no moral authority to make moral decisions for any human other than for themselves. And most absurdly, to make moral declarations on an existing deity is the highest possible folly; to make moral declarations on a non-existent, fictional deity is merely literary criticism done without literary knowledge and on a faux moral basis.
These are some of the main points, and there are probably more. I should update this, adding as time progresses. I’ll try to remember to do that.
Addendum:
Added point 9.
1. This blog is about Atheism, and whether it is a rational position and can be defended using disciplined logical processes and/or empirical experimental data. This blog is not about Theism, although Atheist concepts of basic Theist positions must be corrected from time to time. So this blog is focused and asymmetrical.
2. Atheism has consequences. For example, Atheists cannot generate trust based on the Atheist Moral Code which doesn’t exist. If one knows only that a person is an Atheist, a lack of trust in that person is a rational position to take, even for other Atheists.
Atheists recoil in horror at this consequence, and declare it to be hate speech; but they present no contrary position which they can defend.
There are other consequences such as the common denial of absolutes, which eliminates any truth value for Atheist positions. This includes the elimination, a la Nietzsche, of good and evil, except as redefined by the individual Atheist. In general, evil is thought not to actually exist, except by the Theist God, which the Atheists presume the personal moral authority to judge.
Also eliminated along with absolutes is the submission to disciplined, logical deductive rules for argumentation. Submission to anything other than self becomes anathema, unless one could get arrested for it, and in that case Atheists see themselves as "good". Refusal to submit to overarching rules of logic results in (again Nietzschean) anti-rationalism. So rationalization becomes dominant, along with personal attacks and ridicule.
3. Because Atheism is only about rejection and rejectionism, it presents no positive characteristics in and of itself. (Total freedom from absolutes is not a positive characteristic). In fact, the commonly held list of beneficial character traits is frequently held as religious bias, and also too hard for some people and therefore discriminatory.
4. A rejection of a proposition requires a reason for rejecting that proposition; if there is no reason given, or if giving a reason is refused, then that rejection is seen as capricious opinion without a rational basis, and therefore is dogmatic faith based only on ornery rejectionism and nothing more.
5. Atheists who wish to defend their rejection of the Theist proposition are invited to make their case by engaging in the logic of their reasons for rejecting the proposition, and/or presenting the empirical data which they use to make their rejection decisive.
6. Attacking the writers who comment and post here is not an argument; it is a childish, petulant, logical fallacy.
7. Ridicule is not an argument.
8. I frequently view Nietzsche as perhaps the only honest Atheist. He declared his rejections and then he acknowledged the consequences of those rejections. Modern Atheists wish to avoid even claiming their rejectionism, much less admitting that there are any consequences. Compared to Neitzsche, that denial is intellectual cowardice and is totally trivial.
9. Atheist arguments which are based on their assessment of the morality of any proposition, person or deity is to be immediately rejected. This is based on the obvious lack of a moral position which inheres in Atheism as a basis for making moral judgments. Further, Atheists have no moral authority to make moral decisions for any human other than for themselves. And most absurdly, to make moral declarations on an existing deity is the highest possible folly; to make moral declarations on a non-existent, fictional deity is merely literary criticism done without literary knowledge and on a faux moral basis.
These are some of the main points, and there are probably more. I should update this, adding as time progresses. I’ll try to remember to do that.
Addendum:
Added point 9.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)