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

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?

The Atheist Argument Against God.

1. Here is the argument against god(s), placed into a legitimate syllogistic format:

P1: IF [ X is the case], THEN [There is/are no god(s)];

P2: IT IS TRUE THAT [ X is the case];

C: THEREFORE: [There is/are no god(s)].

As an Atheist, it is impossible not to accept this syllogism, because it is the Atheist position.

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.

A Syllogistic Argument Against Abortion

I have stolen this article in its entirety from the blog, Scientiam Dei:

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.

The Barna Study Again

The Barna study came up again (on Yahoo I think) so I took another look to refresh my memory. It is really quite interesting.

“In the study, the no-faith segment was defined as anyone who openly identified themselves as an atheist, an agnostic, or who specifically said they have "no faith." In total, this group represents a surprisingly small slice of the adult population, about one out of every 11 Americans (9%). However, in a nation of more than 220 million adults, that comprises roughly 20 million people.

Interestingly, only about five million adults unequivocally use the label "atheist" and, when asked to describe the nature of God, staunchly reject the existence of such a being. In other words, most of those who align with the no-faith viewpoint harbor doubts as to the existence or nature of a supreme deity but do not express outright rejection of God.”

Got that? 5,000,000 adults claim Atheism and “staunchly reject the existence of such a being [God].

I think that it is obvious that the “no god theories” version of Atheism is false. Empirically false.

“One of the outcomes of this profile - and one of the least favorable points of comparison for atheist and agnostic adults - is the paltry amount of money they donate to charitable causes. The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults..”

The idea that Atheists are the empathetic part of society is false.

“Many of the most ardent critics of Christianity claim that compassion and generosity do not hinge on faith; yet those who divorce themselves from spiritual commitment are significantly less likely to help others.”

Much of what Atheists claim about themselves is false. When data shows up, that’s what it shows.

It is already obvious that they are not logic and evidence based. Now it is shown that they really do reject God, and that they are not particularly empathetic, but are pikers.

Daniel Henson makes up a story

Henson has a paper which he calls Dossier of Reason. Is it? Let’s take a quick look.

Here is just part one, The Problem of Predisposition, which he seems to think drives all personal philosophies:

I. The theist defines a god. He defines his nature, his character, his actions and concerns.

This is abjectly ignorant of actual Theism. By making up a phony Theist, Henson has predicated his entire argument on a completely false premise. Actual Theism observes physical reality (empirically) and then deduces whether non-physical observable traits which exist could have physical, deterministic causes. If not, what sort of causes must they have, if they are not independent “causes without a cause” themselves. This is a legitimate thought process, and is entirely different from the Atheist thought process which eliminates a priori the ability of a non-physical process to have any other source than deterministic physical causes. This Atheist restriction is without any rational reason; it is dogma only.

Henson’s definition is a Straw Man. Atheists charge opponents with creating Straw Men in virtually every argument situation, and rarely if ever is their charge correct. Yet Atheists use Straw Men constantly in their own arguments, as is demonstrated here. It’s as if they fear that which they use the most, as robbers fearing being robbed because that is what they do and are familiar with.

Here the charge of Straw Man is legitimate. Henson has fantasized a target to attack in further arguments. Because he actually has fully defined his target, his argument might be valid regarding that target. The issue is whether that target represents actuality, and it quite obviously does not, except in Henson’s mind.

Because he conceptualizes Theists as fools, this entire work is seen to be an exercise in Atheist bigotry.

But for grins, let’s at least take a look at his second proposition.

II. The theist rejects thousands of other definitions of god without considering most of them.

False in the first place: Theists are aware that other gods are worshipped and that if they exist they are subsidiary to the creator of all of them, rendering them rationally trivial.

In the second place that is immaterial to any claims that a deity does not exist; it is merely the basis for a Tu Quoque Fallacy and nothing more.

This is interesting; a compendium of logic errors in a paper titled "Dossier of Reason". Let’s do the next one:

III. There are billions of people who reject the theist’s particular definition of god, who have as little regard for the theists (sic) definition of god as he does for their definition of god(s).

This is an appeal to popular opinion fallacy, which has no bearing on either facts or truth; it is used as prejudicial data, but it is not evidence for the lack of a non-physical agent.

IV The theist’s choices in defininig god are very likely determined by culture, accident of birth, and childhood indoctrination.

While this has some credibility in terms of demographics, it has no bearing on whether a non-physical agent actually exists; it is another set of prejudicial data which is without any truth value regarding the actual subject. And it includes the fallacy from number I, above, assuming that the deity is created by humans as the first premise in the argument (circular).

V. The Outsider Test.

This is a bogus assumption which assumes that there are no logical arguments to be made, and proceeds to attack arguments which are neither necessary nor sufficient, nor even useful for the actual subject at hand. All logical arguments are ignored as if they do not exist. This is prejudicial to the maximum, and has no value in determining the credibility of actual Theist arguments.

That’s it for part one. I see no need to continue, since every argument is false or prejudicial and non-essential. In terms of philosophy and logic, this paper is a non-starter.

RB Debunks Me: I Am A Straw Man It Seems...

Reason Being addresses the multitude of fallacies he finds in my post. Let's start with morality:

”He fails to address the main argument. This is telling because the statement by Pribble is not the main point of his post, but rather is one of the central debates between theists and atheists. Theists posit that without god there can be no morality.”

And this was addressed at length, but I will do it yet again since RB skips the argument and goes to the conclusion which he dismisses:

” Stan writes, “In the end, Pribble is completely unable to come up with the correct answer: Distrusting Atheists is a natural and logical consequence of the choice Atheists have made.” Stan, if you are going to make such a bold statement, you need to provide some proof for why that is the “correct answer”. I think (and please correct me if I am wrong Stan) that he would argue that is what he does in the rest of his post. I believe that it fails to do so—see Cephus’ post above for more on that.”

Really? That’s all you have? You “believe that it fails”? No pointers to errors, no discussion, just “you believe”? And then a pointer to cephus which actually points to the argument on this blog with no mention of cephus.

That is weak tea.

The next actual point which he makes is this:

” Stan, the former 40 year atheist then writes, “Atheism is dangerous. It claims logic and evidence for itself, but it cannot prove its own position with either logic or evidence”. Where to begin…Even if Stan is correct, which he is not, his statement would not make atheism dangerous.”

And that thought stops right there. Atheism is dangerous because it operates outside of logical processes and it is open to any belief no matter how irrational. The moral void adds considerably to the danger element. Atheism removes any stable foundation from supporting the worldview which Atheists build for themselves. Atheists seem to think that this is a plus, giving them the freedom to think up their own morality and their own version of reality. And it does give that freedom, which is entirely different from the subjection to principles, which are never absolute in their minds. And it erodes any dedication they might have had to disciplined logical principles. Atheism is dangerous because it excuses the Atheist from known, disciplined logical processes.

” Second, Atheism claims one thing and one thing only: a lack of belief in deities. It does NOT claim logic and evidence and for anything.”

Both of those sentences are false. First, Atheism is the rejection of theories of deity. Denying that is now a popular pastime amongst the internet Atheisti, and they are oblivious to how dishonest that makes them appear. The Reductio Ad Absurdum contrary is that Atheists do, in fact, reject deity theories. What is more reasonable to believe, that the Atheist does not reject deity theories, or that the Atheist does reject deity theories? While Atheists might have convinced themselves of the former, the latter is self-evidently the case. This is a demonstration of the inherent danger of the voids of Atheism: believing their own fabrications.

Here’s a test. As an Atheist, do you accept theist theories? It’s that simple. No, you reject them.

Second, Atheists who are dominant in the Atheist culture do, loudly, claim logic and evidence for their position. This is a new trend in Atheist denialism, claiming that Atheism is not actually claiming logic or evidence for itself. Talk with Dawkins about that.

” It does NOT claim logic and evidence and for anything. Not all atheists are logical and not all atheists are interested in proving their beliefs. The same can be said for theists. To make a blanket statement of this nature is silly and is another straw man argument.”

I submit that this is a distinction without a difference, a nit picked bald. The fact is that those who write about Atheism, those who do think about it, have always until now claimed logic and evidence as the key to the choice of Atheism as the rational choice. Now they deny it, apparently implying that Atheism is no longer the rational choice. If Atheism is not logic and evidence based, then what is it based on? Pure rebellionism? Ignorance of Theist arguments? Just don’t care?

If Atheism has no cause, and it is a void, then why is it so passionately defended?

” Third, if Stan means that logic and evidence cannot definitively prove that deities do not exist he would be correct”

Thank you.

”His implying that atheists do not recognize that is another second straw man argument.”

Absolutely false to the point that I must call Bullshit yet again. Atheists constantly and in this very series of conversations demand that Theists produce “objective” evidence, because Atheists are evidence-based. And that is specifically called “logical”, despite the Scientism and Category Errors which are pointed out, and pointedly ignored.

” I have met very few atheists who are “true atheists”—i.e. say they can prove deities do not exist. Most atheists are agnostic in some sense. This is common knowledge among atheists—see the Dawkins scale.”

And I submit that Dawkins et al are dishonest in this regard. Dawkins, especially, shows that he is not the least bit in doubt or agnostic in his vitriolic attacks. This is yet another escape hatch which Atheists think lets them off the hook for their Atheist system of voids. Dawkins, last I heard, claimed a 6 out of 7 probability of no God. That’s roughly a 14.4% probability of God? Then he absolutely berates anyone who is not Atheist, wishing to eradicate them from society. No. Dawkins is not the least agnostic; his behavior belies his words.

The new definition of True Atheist" is a Red Herring, because it is intended to derail any idea that there is an Atheist belief bewteen this definition and agnosticism, which is false. Atheists (not agnostics) believe without proof that there is no deity. So this entire statement is predicted on this Red Herring.

” However, to most theists, and I assume most of Stan’s readers this is a knockout blow. In reality it is the same old tired argument that shows little thought and a profound lack of knowledge on atheism. If it is nothing more than a semantic argument that he is after, this conversation is a waste of all of our time.”

This is a cursory dismissal based on the illicit redefining of Atheism to protect it from its obvious obligation: to provide logic and evidence in support of the denial of Theist arguments. Either give us a demonstration of your logic and evidence for your case, or yes, you are wasting our time.

I will repeat this:

Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.

All Atheist attention these days is focused on denying that obligation, by denying that they have rejected any Atheist theories. That is intellectual dishonesty, and it is an admission that they have no defense for their own theory.

” Stan then writes, “Materialism which is demonstrably false, being unable to prove its own tenets under its own evidentiary theory, rendering it non-coherent and irrational.” He offers nothing to back up this claim. Cephus does a great job debunking this, as does Victor Stenger in his latest book.”

This is so simple that it’s difficult to believe that I have to spell it out:

Philosophical Materialism claims that there is no existence which is not material and therefore that all knowledge derives from material investigation.

Philosophical Materialism cannot demonstrate the truth of that claim using material investigation.

The concept of Philosophical Materialism cannot be accepted as knowledge under the claims of Philosophical Materialism.

Therefore, Philosophical Materialism is internally non-coherent: false.

Next,

” Stan closes this paragraph writing, “Atheist reasoning is post hoc rationalization, and never syllogistic deduction: so it is demonstrably irrational.” This is another incorrect statement. First off, syllogistic deduction is not the only form of a valid argument, but rather one of many. To imply that is a prerequisite for rationality is incorrect.”

If an argument of any type fails when placed into a syllogistic format, it fails logic. Thus, if rationality entails valid logic, then the argument which fails logic also fails to be rational.

” Second, the idea that atheists employ post hoc rationalization is another straw man argument in semantics. By definition, one could argue that all knowledge can be seen as post hoc unless we are predicting the future. It is important to point out that much of modern physics and cosmology can do just that—without the need for a deity in the equation. In that sense not all atheist reasoning can be considered post hoc. I do not think that is what Stan means, but semantics are important in this argument.”

Of course that’s not what Stan means. Stan means the entire phrase which he used: post hoc rationalization, which refers to selecting the conclusion first, then trying to find premises to poke into the argument for support of the conclusion after the fact. Semantics do seem to be a problem for this Atheist, I can see why he objects.

” Perhaps what he means is that atheists look at the data after the fact and conclude that deities do not exist, further that this post hoc rationalization is irrational. That is another false statement. I am not a scientist. I have not done anything in a lab since high school (20 years ago). My knowledge of science can be said to be entirely post hoc. I have looked at the data and drawn conclusions that a deity most likely does not exist. This is not irrational.”

It most certainly is a Category Error to look at any data produced by science and draw conclusions about non-material existence. If logic errors don’t lead to irrationality, then the Atheist void system is working.

” The scientists who conducted these experiments and studies all had hypotheses. Some were proven, some were not. Those that were proven were not done so post hoc (unless Stan defines the term as used in my previous example). Those experiments are quite valid. To look at the data and the conclusions from those experiments and conclude that it is highly unlikely that a deity exists is not irrational at all.”

Show us an experiment that hypothesizes that God does not exist, and then deduces an experiment to generate data that shows that to be the case. You cannot do that, but let’s say that you did do that: scientific data is always contingent and never absolute. So in terms of a philosophically valid conclusion, you can’t get one from Science (that’s an aspect of Scientism).

But in reality, there is no chance that material data tells us anything other than information about the specific material subject being tested. Inference beyond that is extrapolation which must be justified some other way, such as with incorrigible logic. You, however, merely make the extropolation and stop there, good with that.

” Stan’s next argument is that, “Atheism has no attached moral theory; Atheists get to make up their own morals du jour, tailored to match their own behaviors”. This is another straw man argument designed to get theists all giddy with delight. As stated earlier, atheism means only a lack of beliefs in a deity. PERIOD. It need not have an attached morality. As someone who claims to have been an atheist, Stan should know this. Straw Man.”

Here you have admitted to what I said: Atheism has no attached morality. Then you call it a Straw Man. No, it is an actual claim, directed at the heart of Atheist morality. Atheists get to make up their own morals or choose the made up morals of another Atheist. Either way, their morals are made up and chosen to fit themselves.

The continuing claim that as an Atheist I should know that Atheists are the way that the accuser claims them to be is little more than an Ad Hominem. It is because I was an Atheist that I see through this kind of B.S., and I understand the convolutions in their thinking. The following is an example of that sort of convolution:

” Second, atheists do not make up their own morality to suit their own behavior. That statement is so errant it almost is not worth commenting on. The only comment I wish to make is that once again this shows a tremendous lack of knowledge this time on morality. Most atheists identify with some other belief system, for example secular humanism. A source and system of morals will be in place, though they may vary depending on the belief system. Stan’s entire argument is not only an incorrect, it is also grossly misinformed.”

And yes, they get to make stuff up if they want to, or they can take on stuff that other people made up, like Secular Humanism, or Virtue Ethics, or stick with the default, Consequentialism. All that stuff is made up stuff. Just… made up. I say time and again, for Atheists, morals are defined away and reductionism leaves them with any system they find compatible with their behaviors. So they either make it up, or they choose a prefab. It's chosen to fit their own proclivities. The paragraph above demonstrates that he agrees with me, but claims that I am grossly misinformed. The convolution is glaring.

” Stan goes on to write, “Trust requires that a fixed moral system exist and that behaviors match the moral theory, not the other way around”. We again see some blatant errors of education. The idea of a fixed moral system is false. See Cephus above for more on that. Nowhere does a fixed moral system exist. Morality is constantly in flux.”

This can be nothing other than willful misunderstanding. The point is not about whether a fixed moral system exists. The point is that trust can only be garnered by comparing a man’s deeds to his claimed beliefs, his behaviors to his moral system. Yes, fixed moral systems do exist, and Atheists rail against them constantly. But in claiming to be an Atheist, there is no fixed standard against which to judge the trustworthiness of that person.

So this commenter ignores all that and tries to defend a non-fixed morality, when that is already a given, at least for Atheists.

” Morality is constantly in flux. In the U.S. alone there are too many grey areas to name—let alone what happens when we open that up to the rest of the world. I, and many others, theists and atheists alike, support homosexuality as moral. Should I not trust someone at all who differs in opinion than I on this one matter? Should I assume that person is immoral or amoral? There are no fixed moral systems and trust is clearly not reliant on them.”

More justification for eliminativism on morals. There are no fixed moral systems, except the one we dislike and dismiss. And yes, trust is clearly reliant on comparing actions to claims.

” For the sake of argument, let us grant the existence of fixed moral systems to Stan. Clearly he would have to agree that there is more than one fixed moral system in the world today.”

Holy smoke. Now there are lots of them. OK. I’ll buy that.

” Let us suppose that Christians have one and Muslims another. Because these two groups do not share the same system, would they be forced to not trust each other? Stan’s argument in that one sentence and thus the whole paragraph is once again incorrect.”

Absolutely false. FALSE. Christians have the twelve (yes, 10+2) Commandments, Islam has imams who vary in their moral pronouncements and two claims to moral authority, Sunni and Shia. There is no comparison because, like Atheist morality, Islamic morality is variable (although not wide open as is Atheist morality). This attempt at analogy fails.

” His last paragraph is more or less a summation of his previous points. There is one thing to note. Stan claims that he is not using a theist bias. While it is true, he does not use the word god or religion in his entire piece it is quite clear from where he is coming from. As Cephus points out, he does not need to use the words to make his bias known.”

I am coming from the side of logic, and it is clear that you identify that as religious. Interesting, a sort of Freudian slip, I suggest. Who is Cephus anyway?

” The sense that I get from reading Stan’s work is that he likes to use sophisticated vocabulary, but does not back up his claims. His own arguments, as they are written by him, would apply to any argument a theist would make—he fails his own tests. Stan is also very interested in semantics. This is nothing more than a straw man…he seems to be willing to tilt at vocabulary rather than address the real argument. At best, this response illustrates confusion about atheism, at worst it is hypocritical. I happen to think it is both.”

Interestingly, none of the claims regarding the Category Error underlying Atheism, or the other logical fallacies of Atheism are addressed. These apparently are regarded as “vocabulary” issues, not worth discussing apparently, and/or Straw Men (still the only fallacy type name that Atheists seem to know, even though they misuse it consistently). The general final paragraph here is Ad Hominem, and entirely to be expected, as the writer attempts to dismiss the arguments made and not addressed as trivial.

In fact, the last paragraph seems phoned in, a cut & paste denial used on all of his argument summaries: "doesn't understand us; doesn't understand Atheism; doesn't address the actual argument (What? I made the arguments which are not being addressed: logic errors); semantics; vocabulary; hypocrisy". Looks like boiler plate to me.

And again, not addressing what argument? The only argument the Atheist of today makes is that he has no argument! He has no beliefs regarding theism. He has no moral beliefs. It's all a big void. He's actually not even an Atheist, he is an agnostic. That is their argument, and I have addressed it. The charge is false, blatantly so.

Also no matter what I say about Athiesm and its troubles with logic, even when the Atheist agrees with me, he claims that I just don’t understand Atheism. Why, he is an Atheist and knows some more Atheists, and Atheism includes all sorts. It's totally inconsistent. So no one can make a criticism of something which has no defining characteristics. Therefore anything anyone says about Atheism is just semantics or vocabulary or Straw Men or something. It can't have content because Atheism has no content.

Well yes it does include all sorts. And it is inconsistent. There is nothing consistent about Atheists. No content there. That is their point. And it is also my point: lack of consistency and content in morality and thinking processes is commonplace amongst Atheists. It is why Atheism is dangerous, because it allows moral wandering all over the place and it absolutely kills disciplined thinking processes because that requires submission to defining characteristics. And that would require content.

And A Reaction From "Bitchspot"...

One of the ways bloggers are punished for being bloggers is that newbies show up (that is good) and they don’t understand the nature of the current conversation because it is based on premises long since established and now hard to find in the blog history. So the entire argument has to be recreated for the newbie (newbies are good, I repeat).

In this case, I will have to recreate argument premises for Bitchspot, who claims to be the exposer of stupidity, which we’ll have to take charitably as actually meaning irrationality, which in turn means non-Atheism. Actually we don’t know what it means.

Bitchspot says,

” However, whether you’re being open about it or not, you are comparing atheism to something else, that other thing is clearly theism. “

So we start with a presumption and not actual examples. In fact, what is being compared is Atheism to disciplined logic. If there is a consistent variance here from arguing that Atheism doesn’t pass its own standards of logic and evidence, using just logic and evidence, then show me and I’ll stop doing that (probably). All it takes is actual disciplined logic to refute Atheism. That is different from the “everything I say is logic” viewpoint that most Atheists project.

I’ll be happy to engage using just disciplined logic.

” As such, I’m going to treat it as it actually is and be open in my criticism of theism and demonstrate that your attacks on atheism are unfounded.”

If that's what you insist upon, rather than looking at the actual charges of logic failure and irrationality... Let’s have it. Too bad you don't engage the actual argument though.

” “Do you believe in any gods?” If you answer yes, you are a theist, if you answer no, you are an atheist. Full stop. That is all the word means.”

Nice try. The actual denial of the common deity around these parts known as God is the basis for Atheism, and the actual denial should be accepted and admitted if honesty is part of the deal here. If you choose to claim that you have not rejected the claim of Theism, then you cannot legitimately argue against it, since you have no opinion of it. The claim of having no opinion is a sure sign of intellectual non-integrity, and whether you deny that or not, it is still the case. The Atheist gag is to avoid having any burden of proof for support of their own position by denying their own belief system. And they expect to be trusted?

Further, there are definite, real consequences attached to declaring a void as the foundational basis for a worldview. Those consequences attach to Atheism whether Atheists like it or not. Foremost amongst those consequences is the necessary relativist moral position, which eliminates trustworthiness for Atheists right up front. Atheists might claim a moral system, but it is usually one that is made up by themselves or someone else from whom they stole it. As for culture determining morality, there is quite a variability in that position, what culture should we choose? The direct consequence of Atheism is that without a fixed moral system there is no way to measure behaviors against a defined standard. With no way to measure, there is no way to generate trust. So when any and all behaviors are accepted so long as a moral theory is provided to accompany them, this directly relates to trustworthiness and why Atheists cannot generate it.

” Atheism, he says, claims logic and evidence for itself. How so?”

This is incredibly basic. Anyone who has heard any of the New Atheists and their legions know that this is what they claim. They are rational, logic and evidence based; religion is blind belief in sky fairies. This author uses similar pejoratives. "how so" indeed!

” The reality is, we have no evidence of anything else beyond the material world. Theists want to believe there is more, but they simply have not provided a shred of objective evidence that it’s actually so.”

The modifying adjective, “objective” is the key here. This is code for material evidence of a non-material existence. That is a blatant Category Error Fallacy.

Here is an important fact: Atheists have not provided a shred of objective evidence that it is not actually so. Atheists believe that there is no non-material agent. Denying that they have that belief is fatal to trust, because it is self-evident. But Atheists have no evidence to support their belief, nor do they have any logical case to support their belief. The importance of this is that the Atheist requirement for material evidence is a fallacy: a Category Error. They will readily admit that such evidence cannot logically be provided to support their own case, but never has one relinquished that demand of others. So that Error leads to the next error: Special Pleading for Atheism.

” Until they are able to provide evidence or use logic to show that something exists beyond the material, no one is obligated to take their empty claims seriously. Science isn’t required to prove that only the material universe exists, it rests solely on those claiming that something else is real to demonstrate that it is so. I don’t have to prove unicorns aren’t real either, I just don’t have to take them seriously without corroboratory evidence.”

There are no claims more empty than the Atheist’s claims. He claims that his beliefs are actually a void, and upon this void he builds his very own morality and his very own rules of evidence: there are no facts which are not materialist facts. I will borrow some text here from my response to the other blogger today:

” Sir, your definition of the scientific method is only partial, having omitted the very first sort. The first sort is done by determining the falsifiability of the proposition. This is the Popper Demarcation Principle (note 1). This merely says that if a claim cannot be proven false using empirical, material techniques, then it is not a proposition which science can address. Now you claim to use premise/conclusion, so let’s put this principle into a syllogistic deductive format:

P1: IF[a proposition Q is not falsifiable under empirical material testing procedures], THEN [it is not available for adjudication under the procedures of empirical science];

P2: Proposition Q is not falsifiable under material testing procedures;

C: Therefore empirical science cannot adjudicate Proposition Q.

Now then, the proposition, Q, might be that ”there is no non-material existence”

Empirical science is voluntarily and functionally material-limited (not philosophically, only functionally). So there is no material procedure which can test for non-material existence. This is a given, an understood limitation of science. Being unable to test the proposition, the proposition cannot be either proven nor can it be falsified (refuted). So science is impotent in the case of Proposition Q.

In fact, the assertion/belief that science can, in fact, adjudicate questions of non-material existence is false, and is known as Scientism, an erroneous belief system. It is also a Category Error of the most basic kind, expecting to find Set [!A] within Set [A].”

The perception that demanding material evidence is a rational procedure for dealing with processes outside science is merely a door-stop.

” Furthermore, you have not attempted in the slightest degree, so far, to provide any actual empirical scientific data that shows the complete non-existence of non-physical existence. What you have chosen to present is presumptions (based on ignoring certain issues which I will get to in a moment) which are that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”, a demonstrably false proposition. Here is your basis for your Truth statement.

IF [there is no evidence for P], THEN [P cannot exist].

Since science is your only source of knowledge, then I challenge you to devise an experiment which shows this to be the case for all possible P.

What you are actually asserting is the standard Inductive Fallacy of philosophical misapplication, which says that if there is no evidence for black swans, then black swans do not exist. This is false. It is an improper inductive extrapolation. Further, true logical induction does not assert that its findings are adequate to be a universal philosophical Truth, as you do. Inductive logic merely says that no swans that are not white have been observed so far. This is a statement of fact, not of philosophical Truth.”

Now let’s assume that you are really asserting that you feel that you should remain skeptical until material evidence is found. The Category Error assures us that no material evidence is possible for a non-material entity, therefore that none will ever be found, so of course your skepticism is guaranteed to be absolute. But it is meaningless due to the Fallacy involved.

” As I was saying before, we use logic and evidence as tools for determining the most likely solution to questions. The goal of science is to reach a true understanding of the universe around us, not to embrace something that makes us feel good. One of the most important tools that we have is the concept of falsifiability. That says, among other things, that if taking a position among two in conflict, choosing the one which is most easily falsified is best.”

That is not what falsifiability means, that is parsimony. Falsifiability was defined by Karl Popper, as the demarcation between propositions which are available for material, testable science, vs. propositions which are not available for material, testable science. A non-falsifiable proposition will always test true, because it cannot be falsified. Metaphysical propositions are non-falsifiable, and cannot be adjudicated by scientific methodology. Failure to make this connection/distinction leads to the ever present Category Error of Atheism.

Next, it is the inevitable unicorn analogy:

” If you substitute “gods” for “unicorns”, the problem remains. Gods are often very ill-defined or defined in such a way to make finding them through scientific means impossible. Thus, the only rational position one can take is that gods, provisionally, do not exist until someone can demonstrate a single objective example that they do.”

This is still Parsimony, only using falsification as the metric. Take the simplest answer as valid, because the other position is too hard. But that cannot be a truth statement; it is only a statement of what is the easiest. This is not a principle of rational thinking and it was falsified by Einstein.(note 1). And it maintains the Category Error as its criterion for judgment.

” This has been a long way to explain why materialism is also the only rational argument one can make. We have trillions of examples of material things, no one has ever produced any evidence of a non-material thing. Until someone does, there’s no reason to take claims of the supernatural seriously. It’s nothing personal, it’s just being logical.”

Actually it’s not being logical, it is invoking a Category Error in the futile pursuit of Positivism.

” Atheism is not a worldview, it has no requirement to have a moral theory. Yet again, we see an empty claim by a theist about atheism which they clearly do not understand.”

Atheism is the foundation for a Positivist worldview; without Atheism and its void(s), the Materialist worldviews would not develop. Denying the role of Atheism and its consequences in worldviews is on a par with denying that Atheists reject God hypotheses; it is completely non-credible because the contrary is self-evident.

” Certainly you can find a non-religious moral system, secular humanism certainly is one such system to which many atheists subscribe. However, let’s keep assuming that morality is somehow attached to atheism and evaluate it that way.”

Go ahead, but that is not my position. My position is that Atheism has no morality attached: none whatsoever. So Atheism results in moral positions being determined primarily if not solely by the individual Atheist, who has presumed for himself the moral authority to invent morality. And because there are as many moral systems as there are Atheists, there is no possible way to determine in advance what sort of behavior any given Atheist will consider moral. For this reason Atheists are unable to generate any trust.

>Insert standard slavery argument< Does the slavery argument invalidate the position that Atheist morals are self-derived and based on the presumption of the moral authority of the self? No. The slavery argument is a blatant Tu Quoque, intended to veer the actual argument off into the weeds. The fact of slavery is that the debate was over who was fully human and deserved the respect of full humans, an issue that still plagues Atheists, who reserve the right to make that determination as they wish. It was Wilberforce and the Theists that brought the initial logical and moral leverage to end slavery. Atheists cannot justify why slavery might be immoral, because morals are culture dependent. And the fact that they still reserve to themselves the right to determine who is and who is not fully human renders Atheists not trustworthy.

” However, today you’d be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people who thought that way. Society, and thus morality changed. Morals are entirely secular in their origin and vary from society to society and time to time.”

False. This view of morals completely reduces the concept to nothing:

If [morals are secular], AND [morals are relative to the seculars involved], THEN [morals can be any behavior whatsoever];

This definition attempts to absolutely destroy the concept of right behaviors, decency, and valued character traits. No, rather it does destroy those things, and it leads to distrust of Atheists.

More text borrowed from the prior post:

Yes, this is the concept which many Atheists use: morals are socially derived, so in a given society, whatever they choose for themselves is Moral, by Atheist definition. This total flexiblity in moral sense is the reason that Dawkins observed that it is not possible for him to fault Hitler, who was doing the socially-derived moral thing. Under the Atheist concept of morality, there is exactly no morality as a fixed concept. As society “evolves”, it can accept killing fetuses, then killing defective postnatal babies (PNAC), then killing old people by denying health care (Obama's "grandma"), then killing subnormal individuals who “can’t have a productive, happy life”, then killing subnormal ethnic groups who are not productive, etc., and there is no end to this "rational" progression.. This is only an example, not an actual progression, yet it is not precluded under Atheist variable moral theories (think Peter Singer).

These progressions, while not yet in force, of course are not morals, they are Consequentialist tactics which are deemed moral, because Atheists thought them up and call them such. The word "morality" has come to have no meaning under Atheism, because it encompasses any and all behaviors, discriminating against none. A concept which has no capacity to discriminate or differentiate against what it is not, is useless: morality = any and all behaviors. Under Atheism it has no meaning.

In the shorter term, however, Atheists find that they cannot generate any trust from others, because they believe in the total variability of Consequentialism as their ethic/tactic. In fact, there is no reason for one Atheist to trust any other Atheist, because of the extreme fluidity of their “moral” system.

Here the Tu Quoque is driven home:

” If you go back through the writings of the day, you essentially find the same kind of thing going on. “God demands that XXX is immoral, you need to repent!” Yet society does change and the religious fanatics of the day fade into obscurity. In another 15-20 years, we’re all going to look back and wonder why anyone made a big deal about gay marriage. The religious will find some way to justify it by interpreting the Bible differently because they’re part of society as well and they need to fit in. The idea that atheists have no morality is laughable in light of the fact that so-called religious morality is just as malleable.”

None of the Theist moral tenets are malleable. What is malleable is the understanding brought to the tenets. Atheists refuse to understand that, or at least they show no sign of understanding that. What has changed is not the religious tenet, it is the underlying secular issues of whether a certain race or group is fully human, an issue on which Atheism is consistently on the side of "not fully human", and the consequences attached to that position.

” In reality, all morality is secular because all morality comes from our need to live together in a cohesive social group. It wasn’t spoken into reality by some imaginary father figure in the sky, it was made up by people who have to find a way to live together. Atheists recognize this simple and demonstrable fact.”

Then demonstrate it empirically; the hard data you generate should be interesting. Being evidence based, you will surely wish to provide that for us. If you cannot, then your claims are not accepted.

” The religious do not. If anything, we ought to criticize the theists for their anti-social, immoral behavior. After all, you don’t see atheists dragging gay people around behind their cars or burning crosses on the lawns of their black neighbors. That’s religion, folks.”

Atheists do things in a bigger way, killing thousands and millions at a time. 250,000,000 at last count just in the last ten decades. In fact, the biggest hazard to gays is other gays, from their violence and their diseases, and from themselves through suicide; and the biggest hazard to blacks is other blacks and abortion. Your comments are bigoted and misapplied; Atheist murders are commonplace around the globe. Take a look at China, North Korea, and Cuba for continuing Atheist brutality. That's Atheism folks.

” These are all moral commandments which aren’t taken seriously anymore.”

False. They were functional codes. Like traffic laws or EPA regulations.

” Christians find some way to justify it, saying Jesus came and “fulfilled the law” and made them moot, but hey, a fixed moral system is a fixed moral system. If it can change, if it demonstrably has changed, it’s not fixed is it?”

You conflate the functional codes with the moral codes. A necessary error for the Atheist view of the Bible.

” So where is the much vaunted claims of theist logic and reason? We have a word for what’s happening here, it’s “hypocrisy”. Purely “do as I say, not as I do” and that’s absolutely dishonest. Now maybe this individual has never thought about their religion that way, certainly I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but I can’t tell you how many Christian apologists I’ve run into who make exactly these kinds of claims and when I point out the exact same thing I’ve pointed out here, they run and hide. They knew about the inconsistencies in their beliefs, they just choose to ignore them.”

This is absolute bullshit. The claims I made were in regard to Atheism, its fallacies and non-coherences. There were no “do as I say” statements. None. All that was provided was the pointers to the obvious irrationality which accompanies all of Atheist thought. This last portion of his blog veers into irrational claims about positions which were not taken. He has presumed that my position must be X and so he declares that X and I are hypocritical and absolutely dishonest. That alone is enough intellectual dishonesty on his part to demonstrate the underlying irrationality to any observer. He declares inconsistencies in my beliefs without any knowledge whatsoever as to what my position might be. If there is any bigotry and hypocrisy involved in this exchange, it is right here in his charges.

However, let me make my position clear:

Atheism is not provable using materialist empirical techniques and demanding such is a Category Error; so Atheism is a belief without proof: a blind belief. As a bind belief it is indiscernable from any other religion which is so based. And not all belief systems are so based; some have intellectually justifiable beliefs (rationally probable, and fully grounded).

Materialism cannot support its own claims using its own principles, and is therefore internally contradictory and false. The use of philosophical Materialism in a worldview is fatal to any truth claims about that view of existence.

Atheo-Materialism is ultimately indiscernible from Positivism; Positivism has long since been discredited.

Atheism has no morals attached and is vulnerable to any behaviors, which it will define as moral. This is because there is no differentiation in Atheist morality: all behaviors can qualify as moral, if a group (or even an individual) so claims.

Atheists presume for themselves the moral authority to define morality for themselves and others, and then to declare others immoral, hypocritical, etc. even though in Atheist land all behaviors are moral depending upon the group which holds them moral (especially under Consequentialism).

Atheists want to believe that theist precepts are as variable as the Atheist moral void produces; in fact, although people fail the precepts, the precepts do not change. Moreover, the secular cultural influence on the understanding of those precepts requires shaking loose the secular influence in order to comprehend the actual meaning of the precept, free of secular bias. This is called radical fundamentalism which is morally condemned under Atheo-Secularism. That condemnation is an aspect of the Special Pleading which is common to Atheist reasoning: all behaviors are moral unless the group holding to that behavior is Theist.

The charges against me above are made in a vacuum and are false; and the pretension of having knowledge which enabled judgment is also fallacious. So if there is bigotry here, on which side is it demonstrated?

Note 1: Parsimony, Mach and Einstein
Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which he called the Principle of Economy, stating that

"Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."

Taken to its logical conclusion this philosophy becomes positivism:
the belief that there is no difference between something that exists but is not observable and something that doesn't exist at all.

Mach influenced Einstein when he argued that space and time are not absolute but he also applied positivism to molecules. Mach and his followers claimed that molecules were metaphysical because they were too small to detect directly. This was despite the success the molecular theory had in explaining chemical reactions and thermodynamics.

It is ironic that while applying the principle of economy to throw out the concept of the ether and an absolute rest frame, Einstein published almost simultaneously a paper on brownian motion which confirmed the reality of molecules and thus dealt a blow against the use of positivism.

The moral of this story is that Occam's razor should not be wielded blindly. As Einstein put it in his Autobiographical notes:

"This is an interesting example of the fact that even scholars of audacious spirit and fine instinct can be obstructed in the interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices."

Jake Farr-Wharton Responds

Jake Farr-Wharton has engaged the observations which I placed on the Martin S Pribble blog yesterday. Farr-Wharton has claimed exceptional morality and now takes on the task of providing data for the proof of Atheism:

“On the contrary, every field of study attributing their findings to the scientific method (i.e. we made a prediction and tested it, then repeated it, then put it out for everyone else to test it, and it remains valid until proven invalid or improved upon) finds that we live in a natural universe without any influence from outside (supernatural) forces.”

Sir, your definition of the scientific method is only partial, having omitted the very first sort. The first sort is done by determining the falsifiability of the proposition. This is the Popper Demarcation Principle (note 1). This merely says that if a claim cannot be proven false using empirical, material techniques, then it is not a proposition which science can address. Now you claim to use premise/conclusion, so let’s put this principle into a syllogistic deductive format:

P1: IF[a proposition Q is not falsifiable under empirical material testing procedures], THEN [it is not available for adjudication under the procedures of empirical science];

P2: Proposition Q is not falsifiable under material testing procedures;

C: Therefore empirical science cannot adjudicate Proposition Q.

Now then, the proposition, Q, might be that ”there is no non-material existence”. Empirical science is voluntarily and functionally material-limited (not philosophically, only functionally). So there is no material procedure which can test for non-material existence. This is a given, an understood limitation of science. Being unable to test the proposition, the proposition cannot be either proven nor can it be falsified (refuted). So science is impotent in the case of Proposition Q.

In fact, the assertion/belief that science can, in fact, adjudicate questions of non-material existence is false, and is known as Scientism, an erroneous belief system. It is also a Category Error of the most basic kind, expecting to find Set [!A] within Set [A]. (note 2)

So the use of science to make a claim about non-physical existence is a false procedure. It proves nothing, because of the impotence of science when science is pushed outside its limitations. This is fatal to Scientistic claims.

Therefore, now that you see the full extent of scientific theory, the limitations of science to material questions, and the failure of Scientism as a philosophical proposition, surely you will reconsider your evaluation.

” The premise above, which posits that all scientific findings support a naturalistic universe without any requirement or evidence of any of the millions of gods and supernatural deities that humanity has believed in since our ancestors gained an enormous cortex capable of introspection, concludes that atheism is indeed an evidence based position.”

The abject failure of the first proposition causes the use of that proposition in this claim to flunk this claim as well. Furthermore, you have not attempted in the slightest degree, so far, to provide any actual empirical scientific data that shows the complete non-existence of non-physical existence. What you have chosen to present is presumptions (based on ignoring certain issues which I will get to in a moment) which are that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”, a demonstrably false proposition. Here is your basis for your Truth statement.

IF [there is no evidence for P], THEN [P cannot exist].

Since science is your only source of knowledge, then I challenge you to devise an experiment which shows this to be the case for all possible P.

What you are actually asserting is the standard Inductive Fallacy of philosophical misapplication, which says that if there is no evidence for black swans, then black swans do not exist. This is false. It is an improper inductive extrapolation. Further, true logical induction does not assert that its findings are adequate to be a universal philosophical Truth, as you do. Inductive logic merely says that no swans that are not white have been observed so far. This is a statement of fact, not of philosophical Truth. The comparable statement in your case is this:

”No gods or God or god-dependency has been observed in the observable portion of the universe, using current technology for material observation”.

That is the full extent of the capability of inductive science; the actual limits of inductive knowledge must be honestly declared. To claim more than is actually inductively known is to add metaphysical presumptions which are not in any way scientific understandings. However, even the limited inductive statement shown is false, because there are observations of non-physical interference which have to be ignored in order to make that claim.

The claims made regarding an observed series of non-natural occurrences at Lourdes, France is always available for material refutation. There is even a material remnant which is available for refutation, and a heavily documented observation of its occurrence. This constitutes a refutation of the original calim which you made regarding a complete lack of evidence: evidence is available for you to examine and refute using the empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable, peer reviewed techniques which you prefer. Until you have presented replicated and non-falsified data refuting this claim at Lourdes, you cannot make the statement that there exists no evidence, because there is evidence at Lourdes.

Further, the existence of agency is contradictory to a deterministic universe, as is life, consciousness, mind, qualia, and irrational behaviors as well as rational comprehension and self-awareness. So scientism, even if it were coherent, is not enough to declare knowledge which Atheists think they have.

To summarize this part before venturing further:

1. Your claim of evidence is shown to be a Category Error and misapprehension of the limits of materialist science.

2. Your claim of evidence is based on the Inductive Fallacy and cannot be accepted.

3. Your claim of evidence is falsified until the claims made at Lourdes and similar claims are successfully empirically refuted.

4. Your Scientistic claims are non-coherent as will be demonstrated below.

Since the evidence which you claim is actually inadequate and inappropriate to the purpose given it, the original position that Atheists have no evidence and are therefore engaged in blind belief stands.

Next:

” While I am unsure of what is meant by the term “escalating scepticism”, chiefly because you made it up, I can indeed speak to the idea of an asymmetrical approach to dealing with multifaceted issues.
If you told me that there was a white chair in my office, I could walk into my office and check your claim. In a metaphorical way, this could be described as a symmetrical or linear way to address your claim. If, however, you told me that there was a white chair orbiting the distant star Betelgeuse, I would, metaphorically speaking, have to take a multifaceted approach to counter your claim. Such an approach, again, metaphorically, could be considered asymmetrical.

With that stated, your claim is an ad hominem, and thus not considered an argument. As such, sir/madam, your argument premise is faulty, thus your argument is invalid. Please retract it at your earliest convenience.”

Escalating skepticism is observable as a process within the Atheist argumentation procedure. Being observable, it is an empirical statement and not an imagined fabrication as you imply. It generally works like this: After Scientism has been deleted as a way of knowing anything about the non-physical esxistence, Atheists tend to use their own metaphysical beliefs, of which they are completely non-skeptical. However, any contrary metaphysics presented to them, even as grounded deductive propositions which are grounded in both empirical observations and First Principle axioms, those propositions will be attacked with increasing skeptical denialism until complete Pyrhonnian denialism is used, if necessary.

So the skepticism generally used by Atheists in argumentation is both asymmetrical (not applied to their own propositions), and escalating as deductive propositions are presented to them.

So the claim, being empirically observed, is not Ad Hominem in the least. The supposed refutation is denied.

Next:

” The first premise of your argument, that “atheism presents no morals” is correct. Around 2.5 million years ago our ancestor, Homo habilis began congregating in ever larger groups, as evidenced by the remains they left behind. Due to the fact that the ability to congregate, an ability which we take for granted (if you question this, please experiment by placing a foreign mature male gorilla in an established group), confers such an immense advantage in survival, those who were able to stay in groups passed on their sociable genes and propagated the remainder of the Homo genus with that trait.”

This is a Just So Story without any empirical, replicable data for support. Which genes are the “sociable genes”? What mutations brought them into place? When were they actually observed to have been passed on for the first time? What data shows that non-gene carriers did not survive because they could not assimilate into the group? This is a fabricated story which is fabricated out of whole cloth in order to satisfy a hole in the actual, empirical knowledge base. Using such a fatuous fable for a Truth statement renders the worldview which depends on it to be based on a demonstrable fable, not on any sort of Truth. It is actually a metaphysical prop, not fact in any sense.

” Today, we call this trait “morality” (the elements that make up morality we call “ethics”), despite the fact that theists give it an absolute value, it is a continuously evolving socially derived mechanism.”

Yes, this is the concept which many Atheists use: morals are socially derived, so in a given society, whatever they choose for themselves is Moral, by Atheist definition. This total flexiblity in moral sense is the reason that Dawkins observed that it is not possible for him to fault Hitler, who was doing the socially-derived moral thing. Under the Atheist concept of morality, there is exactly no morality as a fixed concept. As society “evolves”, it can accept killing fetuses, then killing defective postnatal babies (PNAC), then killing old people by denying health care (Obama's "grandma"), then killing subnormal individuals who “can’t have a productive, happy life”, then killing subnormal ethnic groups who are not productive, etc., and there is no end to this "rational" progression.. This is only an example, not an actual progression, yet it is not precluded under Atheist variable moral theories (think Peter Singer).

These progressions, while not yet in force, of course are not morals, they are Consequentialist tactics which are deemed moral, because Atheists thought them up and call them such. The word "morality" has come to have no meaning under Atheism, because it encompasses any and all behaviors, discriminating against none. A concept which has no capacity to discriminate or differentiate against what it is not, is useless: morality = any and all behaviors.

In the shorter term, however, Atheists find that they cannot generate any trust from others, because they believe in the total variability of Consequentialism as their ethic/tactic. In fact, there is no reason for one Atheist to trust any other Atheist, because of the extreme fluidity of their “moral” system.

”Evidence of this is the fact that slavery is abhorred in the West, yet continues in the East (and is both justified and endorsed in the New and Old Testaments of the bible). Further evidence of this is feminism and equality in the West and honour killing, segregation and subjugation of women in the East.”

The difference in morality show above is merely the difference between good and evil, not in genetic evolutionary processes. In fact, Atheists claim that there is no good or evil, but that God is evil, of course.

In fact, by making this claim you are claiming that the denizens of the West are further morally evolved than the denizens of the East. And that claim is obviously racist. Unless you care to back up your evolution claim with genetic data showing that the denizens of the East are actually genetically inferior to the denizens of the West your claim must be seen as bigoted. In your defense, I doubt that you will claim that there is a genetic lag in Easter peoples; I suspect that you didn't see the consequence of your theory, which is non-coherent even under Atheist standards.

Now you might argue that neither moral claim is better or worse than the other moral claim; that would prove that there is no consistent moral basis for the Atheist worldview, and anything goes, morally.

Or you might claim that it is Western society which evolved, not humans, and that would invalidate your evolutionary claim above regarding humans and genetic change.

And this:

” The remainder of your argument is objectively invalid because, as explained in the above two paragraphs, atheists do not make up morality, morality, an evolved trait, exists as a social construct independent of any religion or ideology.”

Until you present your empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed data to support this metaphysical claim, you have not proven your case. In fact, you have made up the concept that morality is [R], where R = social construct. Other Atheists do not agree, and accept Consequentialism, and still others don’t agree with that and accept Virtue Ethics. So your position is a fabricated one, one which is not universal within Atheism, and not proof of anything regarding Morality, except that for Atheists, it is whatever they say it is, whenever they say it.

Your argument then cannot be accepted.

Now for this:

” “Here’s another claim: Atheists have no evidence or logic which proves incorrigibly that there is no continuity of life which is not attached to the dead corpse.”

If you will consider reading my first response, you will find that I have already addressed this claim. As such, sir/madam, your argument premise is faulty, thus your argument is invalid. Please retract it at your earliest convenience.”

You have in no manner presented the empirical, experimental data you promised up front. Where is your experiment on dead corpses showing that consciousness, for example, is dead also (producing the dead consciousness for our examination) and therefore without any continuity? My claim is that you don’t have such data, and my suspicion is that you will claim something along the lines of “that requirement is unfair”, or some other claim absolving yourself from providing the empirical, scientific data you promised.

Remember this about science: deduction is useful only for creating hypotheses; the hypotheses must be physically tested, or they cannot have any value as knowledge. Hard data is required, in real science.

And this:

” What I do notice, however, is that both sides are rarely able to find common ground due to the theist’s inability to move past the inherent cognitive dissonance and into the evidence refuting their belief system. The inherent cognitive dissonance I speak of is summed up in the first point I made above.”

Your claim #1 is demonstrably false, so the cognitive dissonance would be on your side, because you have accepted a false premise which you use as the foundational argument. There has been no evidence provided in the form of direct empirical testing of the propositions, despite your claim to adhere to thescientific method. None: zero hard data. So your claim to science as the basis for your belief is false.

Your insults are unbecoming and yet are common to the Atheist dialog:

” You’ve gone from making inconsistent and fallacious claims bereft of all evidence, to ranting. As such, I assumed you were low on batteries, though I fully acknowledge that you could be a diabetic, in which case, please, for the appeasement of the 10,000 gods of the Hindu pantheon, eat some sugar!”

You probably mistake that for wit, the wit of the master you suppose yourself to be. In fact those are merely cheap childish insults, and quite standard for Atheist comments. Yet you, the master, have provided no hard evidence to support your case.

Here’s what evidence would be required to support your case:

1. Data on non-physical entities, showing conclusively that they do not exist. (not possible due to the Popper demarcation principle).
2. Data showing that there is no knowledge outside of empirical science.
3. Data showing that there is a “sociability gene”.
4. Data showing observations of the sociability gene evolving.
5. Data showing that gene to have created ethics.
6. Data showing that there is a moral genetic difference between Western and Eastern populations.

Finally,

” We have demonstrated above that atheism is an evidence based, logically coherent and rational position to hold.”

You have demonstrated that you do not understand the fallacy of using inductive evidence for philosophical purposes. That alone falsifies your entire set of arguments. And you have not even made a claim of demonstrating logical coherence, so it is legitimate to wonder if you know what that entails. As for logical coherence, your first point above (the basis for the rest of your argument) is in fact not logically coherent. Here’s why:

P1: [if science can provide all knowledge], THEN [science can prove itself true].

This is a statement of Scientism in syllogistic form: it is clearly not the case that science can prove itself true (Godel's second theorem). Therefore your Scientistic claim is internally contradictory, and non-coherent. Being non-coherent, it is not rational. Here's why:

P1: IF [science can provide all knowledge] & [science cannot prove itself true], THEN [the truth value science is not provable or knowable].

Since the consequent contradicts the antecedent (first part) then the idea of Scientism is non-coherent.

So your entire last statement is false. Your argument is not evidence-based, it is not coherent, it is not rational.

You have provided no actual scientific material data except that which you erroneously use as an inductive base, and you have ignored existing contrary evidence; you have provided no case for logical coherence and have failed coherence as demonstrated; you have presented only one premise: scientism as fact (it is not coherent). So your argument cannot be accepted.

Note 1. Popper, Karl; "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", 1935, routledge, p 11-26.

Note 2. Boole, George; "An Investigation Of The Laws Of Thought", 1853, Proposition III, p 34.

Atheist Deconversion Evangelism

Jake Farr Wharton discusses why Atheists should stop the abusiveness and try to be nice during deconversion processing; he posts over at Pribble’s place as a “morally superior Atheist” (a clue to his demonstrable delusion):

“What we need to be doing is three-fold;

1. Continue to actively counter the claims of those holding irrational beliefs with evidence refuting their claims.”

Here’s a claim: Atheists have no logic or evidence to support their own claims, which are mere denials and/or rationalizations, not syllogistic proofs, or experimental falsifiable data.

Here’s another claim: Atheists believe with blind faith that there is no existing non-physical rational agent; it is blind faith because they have no evidence to the contrary, nor do they have any logical refutation.

Here’s another claim: Atheists depend on asymmetrical and escalating skepticism for defending their beliefs – when they are not rationalizing or making false claims.

Here’s another claim: Atheism presents no morals other than what Atheists make up for themselves, perhaps daily or as required, or which someone else made up and they accept.

Here’s another claim: Atheists have no evidence or logic which proves incorrigibly that there is no continuity of life which is not attached to the dead corpse.

“2. Doing it very nicely, so that those who invariably leave the belief see atheists as delightful bastions for intelligence, reason and rationality (rather than bearded curmudgeons with tiny penises and halitosis).”

That would be good, the nicely part; it’s so rare in Atheist land as this article admits. The remainder is delusional, which fits with the Atheist idea that they know something which stupid people don’t know. But they know nothing of the kind. They believe it without evidence or logic: blind belief, and truly self-delusional. And in that capacity they are superior and oh so moral.

“3. Be there to help pick up the pieces when the house of cards topples.”

Dream on. This only happens when the deconversion target becomes as irrational as the Atheist. Given any amount of rational capability and logical discipline, the target will see that the house of cards is actually supporting Atheism, in the form of irrationality, amorality and self-delusion.

Justifiable Fear of Atheism

I somehow got directed to a site pimping Secular Humanism which had a post called Fear of Atheism. The author, Martin S. Pribble, scratches his head trying to figure out why poor Atheists get such a bad rap. His immediate conclusion in paragraph one is that those who distrust Atheists are deluded by thinking that they are amoral:

"For many, the atheist represents everything that is bad in the world; without god, only evil is possible. Without the guiding hand of god on your side, then things like rape, murder, incest, cannibalism, stealing, lying, and deliberately causing pain and suffering to small animals are totally acceptable. But of course, just a moment’s thought by the person claiming this and they will see that this is not true at all, and only a person living with delusions or living in denial would give these assertions a second thought. Whether you like it or not, herein lies the problem; delusion and denial."

I doubt that many actually think that Atheists are raping, murdering, mother-schtupping, cannibals etc. as Pribble claims. He doesn't make any case which claims an actual morality exists for Atheists, he just thinks it is "delusion and denial" to think one doesn't exist. In the end, Pribble is completely unable to come up with the correct answer: Distrusting Atheists is a natural and logical consequence of the choice Atheists have made.

So I made this comment, which I was totally unable to get registered at the site, so I'll just make it here:

"Atheism is dangerous. It claims logic and evidence for itself, but it cannot prove its own position with either logic or evidence. Its main thesis is Materialism which is demonstrably false, being unable to prove its own tenets under its own evidentiary theory, rendering it non-coherent and irrational. Further, Atheist reasoning is post hoc rationalization, and never syllogistic deduction: so it is demonstrably irrational.

Atheism has no attached moral theory; Atheists get to make up their own morals du jour, tailored to match their own behaviors. When a theory is made to match behaviors, rather than behaviors made to match the theory, the theory is not a moral theory, it is a self-indulgence which is used to claim morality where it does not and cannot exist.

Trust requires that a fixed moral system exist and that behaviors match the moral theory, not the other way around. That Atheists do not understand this requirement makes them even more suspect to those around them.

Demonstrable irrationality and amorality are natural, necessary consequences of the variable and relativist universe which Atheists create for themselves. There is no religious bias here, it is the rational conclusion based on the inability of Atheists to meet the fundamental requirements of trustworthiness. Yet Atheists fail to even recognize the inevitable consequence of their choice, and call those necessary consequences "delusions", which indicates that it actually is the Atheists who are self-deluded, as well as irrational and amoral.

Self-delusion, irrationality and amorality; these are the inevitable natural and logical consequences of Atheism."

That's why Atheism and Atheists are not trusted, and are dangerous.

Friendly Atheists Still Aren't Trustworthy

Over at the Friendly Atheist site, Molly proclaims that Atheism is beautiful. She laments that the word “Atheist” is a negative:

”It’s a bummer the word atheist has such a negative connotation when the only reason the word exists is because of religion. Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s a way to categorize a minority of people who want to take responsibility for themselves rather than credit or blame a supernatural designer. We do believe in something. Ourselves.”

Molly is still naïve enough to blurt out the obvious things about Atheism that more hardened Atheists want to deny: Atheism is about the self. It is what Atheists believe in: their own responsibility which they have taken away from God, responsibility for such things as morals and their “own reality”. Far from being "not a religion" it is the worship of the self as the moral authority and the supreme being of their personal universe. It is "beautiful" to be supreme.

She is too naïve to understand how trust is manufactured only by consistency in a moral belief system, and consistency in behaviors to that system, as well as rational thought processes. It is the lack of these characteristics in Atheism which lead, no, force distrust of Atheists; distrust is the rational response to auto-worship, it is not mere prejudice.

”And it is not just other atheists we believe in. We believe every individual has the power to mold their own reality and that there are simply things out there that we do not quite understand yet. Uncertainty is what makes life interesting. It’s a reason to learn, grow, and challenge ourselves to be better and a chance to discover new things about the universe through science and exploration. There are certain things we may never know or understand in our lifetimes, but this doesn’t make them less beautiful or intriguing.”

Yes, science and exploration, as if only Atheists have any capacity for that. Appreciation of the… umm creation, as if only Atheists have a capacity for that. And things we don't understand yet (but we scientistically know that science can answer everything). Hopefully, she will learn and grow via coming to understand the process of valid thought and the functional limits of science, and add that to her capacity to learn. If she does, her ideas will change.