Atheism
Analysis, Part I
If the First Principles of truth and existence are violated, one would expect to see paradoxes and conundrums arise. A paradox is a violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction. I call the violation of the other two First Principles a conundrum.
First we need to determine which principles or laws or rules of Atheism we need to test. Actually there is only one stated Law of Atheism: “There is no deity”. So we’ll have to start with the bases for that claim, Empiricism and Materialism. Then we will examine other Atheist claims and finish by examining the above law itself.
By the statement, “There is no deity,” the Atheist means he cannot detect an intelligent cause for the existence of the universe. Generally Atheists express complete faith in the empirical process, and would use empiricism for detecting a deity. There would not be confidence in other, non-empirical evidence. So here is the first premise to be tested for logical validity:
Premise: “All truth can be revealed by empiricism.”
Expansion I: “Empiricism says that ‘All truth can be revealed by empiricism’”.
Expansion II: “Empiricism says that ‘There is nothing that is not testable empirically’”.
Expansion III: “Empiricism, which requires material existences, says there is nothing that is not material, therefore ‘All truth can be revealed by empiricism’”.
Is this premise provable using empiricism? Clearly not. So it contains a Type 1 self-contradiction. And a higher level of authority is denied, so we also have a self-contradiction of Type 2 (a), and these are the first paradoxes of Atheism. If the Atheist believes the premise to be true, he is believing a fallacy. If he believes that it might become true at some later time, he is expressing a deep, unfounded faith that it will turn from false to true. Either way, it is both a Type 1 and a Type 2 (a) violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction: a paradox, and therefore false.
By expressing complete faith in the empirical process, the Atheist confidently excludes everything that is not observable to himself, is not testable, is not repeatable, is not tangible, and so forth. This faith is “Scientific Materialism”, and is the next premise to be tested for logical validity:
Premise: “Materialism is the only source of all truth.”
Is this premise material itself? No. Is this premise provable either empirically, forensically, or materialistically? No. In fact, it is a concept, both intangible and unprovable. If only materialism is true, then both this concept and reason itself are impossible, because neither are material. And it denies a higher source for validation. To claim that this premise is true creates both a Type 1 and a Type 2 (a) violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction, a paradox. It is therefore false.
Another consequence of the Materialism premise is that if only Material objects exist, then the mind does not exist, being non-material. So the Atheist has to reject the existence of his own mind if he holds to this premise, another paradox, Type 2 (b).
Most (if not all) atheists will claim not to be amoral,
much less immoral. How does that work?
Let’s test the premises. They
cascade from Premise (a) to Premise (d), as follows:
Premise (a): Atheists
believe “there is no supreme being, beyond observable nature. There is no
extra-natural, transcendent, necessary cause or necessary being.”
Premise (b): So “there is no absolute truth outside or beyond the determinations of the mind of man” (Secular Humanism, Paul Kurtz).
Premise (c): Thus “there is no absolute moral or ethical code” (the Dahmer Principle).
Premise (d): However, the Atheist also claims to be moral and ethical.
Fortunately, there are the First Principles and the principles of logic that can be claimed for benchmarks of intellectual honesty.
Let’s apply these principles to the premises above.
Premise (a): There is empirical and forensic silence on the subject of a deity, so declaring the absolute absence of a deity is a leap of faith. Expressing faith based on “no evidence” is a rejection of logical, rational processes. In fact it’s full name is “Fallacy: Ad Ignorantium”.
Premise (b): Since the Atheist has already accepted materialism, and thereby accepted as true the paradox of rejecting his own mind, the determinations of the mind are of no consequence, since they do not exist. So Premise (b) has no meaning, and is trivial.
Premise (c): For the materialist / Atheist, moral codes are determined by himself, so the possibility of an absolute code of any type is nullified by the triviality of Premise (b). So for the Atheist, there is no detectable, measurable, empirical external or absolute moral code. Premise (c) is true for the Atheist.
Premise (d): This is the one that we are really after. Can an Atheist logically claim to be moral and ethical ? There are some logical disparities, which I call Catch #1, #2, #3 and #4.
Catch #1: Moral Honesty Benchmark:
An Atheist who claims to be morally
honest is making that claim in a personal environment where there are no
absolute morals (premise (c)), and thus no reliable benchmark. So without a moral benchmark to measure honesty,
he is not honest in his claim to be so.
Such a benchmark would have to be determined at higher Godel level to be
valid; a higher level would be outside the environment of the Atheist’s supreme
mind, and thus not recognized by the Atheist.
However if he admits dishonesty, he is still without a benchmark to
measure it, and the admission of dishonesty is dishonest. So he is caught in a paradox of perpetual
dishonesty, Type 2 (b).
Catch #2: Intellectual Honesty:
If an atheist is to claim intellectual honesty, then he must admit that he cannot be morally honest in the absence of a benchmark for measuring moral honesty. But he cannot, without being caught in the previous paradox, producing another paradox of Type 1.
Catch #3: Co-opting Benchmarks:
If, on the other hand, the atheist claims moral honesty based on cultural (external, non-Atheist) standards for honesty, then he has to admit that he is co-opting benchmarks that are outside his beliefs, such as Judeo-Christian ethics. This is, of course, dishonest. (Especially when taking some ethical precepts, while rejecting others in order to favor certain predilections such as homosexuality, sexual paganism and abortion, etc). He is co-opting another Godel level, which he has already rejected. This contradiction produces a paradox of Type 1, and Type 2 (b).
Catch #4: Creating Benchmarks:
When making up benchmarks, or claiming that they evolved, the Atheist is confirming that there are no absolute benchmarks. Again claiming any kind of honesty without a firm benchmark is dishonest.
Thus, no matter which way it is turned, the sphere of atheism reflects an image of dishonesty, either intellectual, moral or both.
Therefore, a claim of honesty, either
moral or intellectual, by an Atheist is a logical paradox, type 1 and
type 2(b).
“When one gives up the Christian
faith, one pulls the right to Christian Morality our from under one’s
feet. This morality is by no means
self-evident….Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought
out together. By breaking one concept
out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in
one’s hands.”
Frederiche Nietzsche (Emph original); from McGrath, “The Twilight
of Atheism” 1st Ed, 2006.
The Humble Atheist Test
A virtuous person would tend to display the characteristic of humility, which requires, among other things, submission to higher authority.
The atheist has placed his own mind at the pinnacle of the source of truth.
Thus the atheist cannot submit to anything except his own mind, and thus cannot even approach humility. (In fact, submission to self would be narcissism, the opposite of humility).
So, the “humble Atheist” is a
violation of logic: a paradox type 1 and 2(b).
“Really I am not much impressed
with the people who say: ‘Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there
must have been design in the universe.’ I am not very much impressed by the
splendor of those people.”
Bertrand Russell, “Why I Am Not
A Christian”
Statement: “Religions are full of judgmental people”.
Expanded Statement: “(Judgmentalism is bad;) religions are full of judgmental people, (who are judging me….in MY JUDGMENT).”
(portions in parens are implied, not stated).
This is a logical pretzel, in that the accusation applies to the accuser, and possibly does not really apply to the accused, which are accused globally. The Atheist contradictorily engages in a practice he condemns, and he condemns in general, not specific terms: true hypocrisy, as Russell’s statement shows. Moreover, it is a statement of ethos, Which has no basis in either empiricism or forensic science, and is not material or physical.
It’s a logical paradox of Type 2 (b).
The embedded moral statement does not follow from Atheism, which allows only natural selection the distinction of “moral”. So the Atheist’s implied judgment, “Judgmentalism is bad“ is contradictory to Atheism, a Type 1 paradox.
By definition, a non-contingent effect causes itself. These effects are not observed either empirically or forensically, but if such a phenomenon did exist, how would it self-limit? It could not. So it would be popping itself into existence everywhere, all the time.
Yet Atheism holds that the Big Bang is a non-contingent effect, which had no cause other than itself. (The issue of “multiverses” is addressed elsewhere) .
But the Big Bang occurred only once, not everywhere, all the time.
The premise is, “(Non-Contingent Effects could not self limit, but) the Big Bang (which occurred just once) is a Non-contingent Effect.” (portions in parens are implied, not stated).
This is the first paradox, and is of Type 1.
The Atheist holds both to empiricism, and to the Non-Contingent Effect theory. But only Contingent Effects are seen to occur empirically. Non-Contingent Effects have never, ever been observed to occur.
The premise is , “Empiricism (which never observes Non-Contingent effects), declares that the Big Bang is Non-contingent”. (portions in parens are implied, not stated).
So the belief is contradictory, and a
second paradox, of Type 1.
In order for a non-contingent effect to occur (i.e. cause
itself from nothing), the effect must pre-exist itself, in order to cause
itself. This is the third
paradox, Type 1. (Thos. Aquinas).
If the Big Bang is a contingent effect, then the necessary cause exists outside, beyond, and is bigger and more complex than the contingent effect (First Principle: Cause and Effect; Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy). The Non-Contingency of the Big Bang is falsified by the previous three paradoxes.
Yet the Atheist denies the existence of the necessary cause, in the face of the obvious contingent effect.
Premise (a): “There is no necessary
cause (despite the existence of a contingent effect).” Fallacy: denial of valid
evidence; also Type 2 (b) paradox.
Premise (b): “It is not necessary to discuss the necessary cause of the universe.” (Darwin’s Dodge, redux). Type 1 paradox: denial of self-inconsistency.
So here we have a Type 1 and Type 2 (b) paradox, with an accompanying hoax.
Premise: “There is no evidence of intent in the universe”
Without gravity, the initiation of the Big Bang might have produced only strings, shot off into emptiness with no slowing, no clumping, no accumulation of masses.
But if gravity existed at t=0 of the Big Bang, then the force would have been infinite (inverse square law, d=0, so g=infinite). So nothing could have happened.
So either gravity or mass/energy (or both) was created after the Big Bang expansion started.
If the forces were created after the expansion started, it indicates that the order in the universe was manipulated, and thus is very likely intentional, a purposeful sequencing.
Oops, a denial of evidence,
resulting in a conundrum for the
atheist.
Atheist claim: “Religion is mystical because it cannot be falsified.”
Fact 1: Darwinism has been falsified, and is still kept as unquestionable dogma.
Fact 2: Christianity could be falsified if evidence against it were actually found but it has not been, despite considerable archaeological attention. There is no falsification of Christianity. In fact considerable archaeological data has been warehoused in support of Christianity.
Fact 3: The “falsification-of-deity” document by Anthony Flew has been falsified, by Anthony Flew himself. There is no falsification of deity.
The Conundrum: So to the atheist, falsification as a valid required benchmark is only valid relative to the subject (everything but Darwinism), not to whether any truth actually exists. This violates both the first and third of the First Principles, thus it is a Conundrum. Not to mention blatantly dishonest, both ethically and intellectually.
Premise: “My mind is supreme”
(also, “My mind is the top of the intelligence chain in the universe”)
(also, “My mind is able to determine the existence of a deity, the motives of a deity, and the morality that a deity should follow.)
These statements are self-reference assertions that cannot be proven at this Godel level, and further, deny implicitly the possibility of any higher level. So they assert a truth that can never be validated. Are they true? Or are they false? No one can ever be sure. Thus these are all Type 2 (a) Paradoxes, not to mention that they are assertions without any evidential support, a contradiction of rationalist principles.
A party that doesn’t recognize the possibility of “falseness” of a proposition cannot make a declaration of true/false.
Atheists claim that truth comes only from the supremacy of the intellect and they deny that Darwinism can possibly be false (See the limits of science; also Evolution is Fact, Stephen J. Gould).
So the supreme Atheist intellect doesn’t (cannot) recognize the possibility of “falseness” of the propositions of Darwinism.
Therefore, Atheists cannot claim to make an objective claim of true/false regarding Evolution, without violating the Principle of Non-Contradiction, creating a paradox... type 1.
Premise (a): Evolutionists claim that all life comes from other life, so that humans must have come from other previous forms of life, parallel with other great apes. Humans did not spontaneously erupt from nowhere. Spontaneous eruption of life-forms is considered non-scientific, and religious in nature.
Premise (b): Evolutionists starting with Darwin claim no responsibility for “First Life” , but suspect that it spontaneously erupted. Totally rejected is the concept that it came “from other life”, the basis for the premise (a).
The contradiction between premises (a) and (b) is so glaring that evolutionists claim that First Life is not their concern, and ban it from being discussed.
The contradiction is the DARWIN’S DODGE Paradox, and, along with many other falsifications, is sure death to the theory of evolution. See the Chapter 4 for a discussion of the logical validity of evolution and Darwinism.
Every living organism contains genetic information that governs its life stage, from infancy to geriatrics to death. Death cannot be avoided, because it is programmed into every living creature. If the original creature was randomly assembled, would death have been programmed into it? If not, then genetic death is a mutation defect, one which does not enhance but reduces the ability to compete, violating evolutionary theory. But it also means there would be species of creatures that are billions of years old, still viable and presumably still reproducing…still the fittest. Where are they, and why have they not covered the entire planet with progeny? All current creatures die at the end of their life span. Why did death due to life span limitation come to exist? Did it evolve?
Premise: “If Darwinian success is measured by the number of progeny spawned by a single entity, then longer and longer spans of procreativity would be expected, and/or genetic death would not have evolved.”
It’s a Type 2 (a) paradox,
not verifiable at this level.
This fallacy concerns the creation of fantasy theories (a.k.a. “Just-So Stories”) to cover up an issue where data is lacking. For example, “Gremlins must exist, how else can we explain these equipment failures?”
These glaring errors are made by some of the best in their fields. Here are two.
1. Stephen Hawking presented a mathematical proof that the universe could be self-contained, wrapping around on itself thereby not actually expanding. The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid the consequences of a universe that has a beginning, as shown by the expansion demonstrated by Hubble’s red shift. This fallacy, a “just so story”, has absolutely no related evidence to support it. It reflects a worldview, not science.
2. Stephen J Gould created the “Punctuated Equilibrium” theory to account for the lack of evidence of gradual, single step mutation. His theory was thought to be true because it required no evidence, which matched well with the total lack of evidence available. “It accounts for the evidence, which is: no evidence whatsoever.”
Virtually all Atheists demand evidence. Bertrand Russell said:
“As far as I can see, the view to which we are committed, one which I have stated on a former occasion, is that we ought not to believe, and we ought not to try to cause others to believe, any proposition for which there is no evidence whatever.”
Russell was referring to the existence of a deity. However, such a sentiment must be held for the Atheist position also:
Premise: “There is no deity”.
Now, one might expect Russell and the Atheists to produce evidence in support of this premise; but they do not, because they cannot. There is no direct evidence, empirical or otherwise that no deity exists.
In fact, the logical fallacy involved is that in order to prove the statement that “there exists (No X)”, data must be provided that includes all instances where (X) could exist, but was definitively determined NOT to exist. The data must include, therefore, all places and times where a deity might have existed, but was absolutely proven not to exist. This is clearly impossible.
So it is shown that the premise, “There is no deity”, produces a direct contradiction of the Atheist requirement for “evidence or proof is denied”. The premise, then produces a paradox, in the following form:
Premise expansion: “As rationalists, we maintain that evidence is absolutely required for proof of a statement; yet we maintain categorically that there exists no deity despite total lack of solid, irrefutable evidence in support of that statement, and the impossibility of ever obtaining such evidence.”
The premise is seen to be a
self-contradictory, Type 1 Paradox.
The premise that “there exists no deity” cannot be proven, is not empirically or forensically supportable and cannot be shown to be true. By virtue of the paradox in the Atheist statement, perhaps Atheists are not so categorical as the expansion would indicate, and are then, Agnostics instead.
The term “rationalist” (requires evidence) is paradoxical when combined with “Atheist” (no evidence is possible):
Premise:
“The Atheist is a Rationalist.”
Premise Expansion:
The “A” ( for which no supporting evidence is possible ) is an “R” (requires evidence).
Atheism is by nature self –contradictory…a Paradox.
As can be seen, virtually any premise used to support Atheism can be shown to fail the logical tests provided by the First Principles. There are a number of additional paradoxes included in the Appendix.
But wait! There’s more. The next section discusses Atheism from many more angles, so don’t quit now.