Why atheism is impossible ...
Why atheism is impossible ...
Hi Folks,
[Note: I could not add the image I refer to in the text below. It is now a link to the image; it will pop up in a new window -- Jim, 9:55 EST, 07/16/03]
Please forgive the delay. While I did not want to give this a cursory treatment, I neither wanted to delay this any longer. I will offer this now (it may need some further tweaking to be clear), and offer more later.
The impossibility of atheism
(Not of its existence, but of its verity)
The atheistic worldview is impossible because is inherently self-refuting, it is internally incoherent, and it is unable to cogently account for reality and the intelligibility of human experience. Aussie Thinker has offered his explanation. I wish everyone could read it, and like me, recognize how fanciful, naive and utterly uncompelling it is. I do not wish to be insulting or condescending, but I am torn between wondering if Aussie Thinker really does know how inadequate his explanation is (but is unaccustomed to having it challenged), or if he really is that naive and unaware of what he is saying.
Why is atheism impossible? The atheist worldview presumes to operate on unwarranted assumptions, believing, with no rational basis, that there is order, connection, predictability or necessity in human experience and reality. But what are the bases of this assumption? Are one's contingent and particular experiences sufficient to justify these assumptions? Why is it that we, as humans, draw abstract universals out of concrete particulars? The atheist cannot answer the problems posed by the existence of universal laws and the orderliness (unity) that is communicated to us in our experience, especially given that our experience is particular (non-universal) and changing (diversity). Atheists cannot rationally deal with the "one-and-the-many" problem. Dualists have tried, but the result is just as irrational as the materialist view. Atheists who simply pretend that there isn't a problem between universals and particulars succeed only in convincing me that they haven't reflected adequately on the problem (or they're being disingenuous).
On the atheist worldview, the "mind" is merely a phenomenon of this product of chance we call the brain, whose functions are as much constrained by the laws of chemistry, biology and physics as all other material objects in the universe. However, as merely another chance arrangement of physical molecules, how can the "thinking" of this physical organ know anything about abstract, non-physical, universal concepts such as induction, necessity, or causation? In a contingent realm of discrete, random facts and events, how does a brain, which is itself a product of random facts and events, warrant such concepts as universals (induction), causality or moral standards? The random and unconnected "facts" that man confronts in his daily experience do not themselves justify categorization, predictability, induction, causality, etc. The assumption that the laws of logic can be taken as objective, universal, unchanging [Parmenides], and applicable to the world of contingent material changing facts [Heraclitus] is unwarranted, especially given how different in character are the assumed laws from material facts.
It is a faith-based assumption that man's space-time experience can be described, let alone warranted, according any kind of unifying principles. To merely stipulate that order exists and that categories can be applied to discrete and contingent facts in the universe is either a naive or a disingenuous failure to adequately resolve whether the order in the physical world is due to the nature of the particles it comprises (atomism), or events occurring according to some pre-existent laws (stoicism), or due to some Hegelian logical necessity based on some assumed greater underlying dialectic reality (Sorry about the run-on sentence). Regardless of which theory is chosen (and it is ever arbitrary), they all blindly assume some kind of universal order that cannot be justified by the worldviews in which we find them.
Thus, the atheistic worldview is unable to bridge the chasm between order [Parmenides] and change [Heraclitus], unity and diversity, universals and particulars, the many and the one (see diagram linked here). Any attempt to bring the two realms together on non-theistic grounds results in making nonsense of both, which further renders intellectually self-defeating all arguments against God. The problem posed to the atheist is that of justifying how he (a) imposes unifying principles of his own mind upon an external realm not controlled by his mind, while at the same time (b) claiming to respect the individuality and uniqueness of every fact in the world, which mitigates against the notion of unifying principles. So on the one hand, the atheist imposes the universal principles of his worldview in advance, which undermines the so-called "science" of his position, and on the other hand, respecting the novelty and particularity of discrete facts and events in his experience undermines the intelligibility of those facts. This makes any attempt to rationally organize and interpret evidence utterly inane. Some atheists admit the inability to justifiably account for the uniformity of nature ("It happened because it happened"); some admit their inability to account for the laws of logic ("they're just there, like an armpit"). With these admissions, however, should also come the recognition that using logic and inference order to explain or understand things is baldly begging the very question, assuming the verity of a system in advance. Therefore, such a worldview comes down to an arbitrary preference, and not an intellectual necessity, and despite this, the atheist blindly assumes to attach meaning to his experience. Of course, I don't expect the atheist to readily acknowledge, but I will expose it nonetheless. Atheists ought not to be allowed to run roughshod over Christian Theism, asserting some claim of intellectual superiority, scientific validity, and rational fact-based/evidentiary conclusions. It's all lip-service, and when it is exposed for what it is, it is shown to be wholly arbitrary. blindly religious and faith-based. For these reasons, among many, the atheistic worldview is impossible and cannot be true. More later.
Jim
Why atheism is impossible ...
Hi Folks,
[Note: I could not add the image I refer to in the text below. It is now a link to the image; it will pop up in a new window -- Jim, 9:55 EST, 07/16/03]
Please forgive the delay. While I did not want to give this a cursory treatment, I neither wanted to delay this any longer. I will offer this now (it may need some further tweaking to be clear), and offer more later.
The impossibility of atheism
(Not of its existence, but of its verity)
The atheistic worldview is impossible because is inherently self-refuting, it is internally incoherent, and it is unable to cogently account for reality and the intelligibility of human experience. Aussie Thinker has offered his explanation. I wish everyone could read it, and like me, recognize how fanciful, naive and utterly uncompelling it is. I do not wish to be insulting or condescending, but I am torn between wondering if Aussie Thinker really does know how inadequate his explanation is (but is unaccustomed to having it challenged), or if he really is that naive and unaware of what he is saying.
Why is atheism impossible? The atheist worldview presumes to operate on unwarranted assumptions, believing, with no rational basis, that there is order, connection, predictability or necessity in human experience and reality. But what are the bases of this assumption? Are one's contingent and particular experiences sufficient to justify these assumptions? Why is it that we, as humans, draw abstract universals out of concrete particulars? The atheist cannot answer the problems posed by the existence of universal laws and the orderliness (unity) that is communicated to us in our experience, especially given that our experience is particular (non-universal) and changing (diversity). Atheists cannot rationally deal with the "one-and-the-many" problem. Dualists have tried, but the result is just as irrational as the materialist view. Atheists who simply pretend that there isn't a problem between universals and particulars succeed only in convincing me that they haven't reflected adequately on the problem (or they're being disingenuous).
On the atheist worldview, the "mind" is merely a phenomenon of this product of chance we call the brain, whose functions are as much constrained by the laws of chemistry, biology and physics as all other material objects in the universe. However, as merely another chance arrangement of physical molecules, how can the "thinking" of this physical organ know anything about abstract, non-physical, universal concepts such as induction, necessity, or causation? In a contingent realm of discrete, random facts and events, how does a brain, which is itself a product of random facts and events, warrant such concepts as universals (induction), causality or moral standards? The random and unconnected "facts" that man confronts in his daily experience do not themselves justify categorization, predictability, induction, causality, etc. The assumption that the laws of logic can be taken as objective, universal, unchanging [Parmenides], and applicable to the world of contingent material changing facts [Heraclitus] is unwarranted, especially given how different in character are the assumed laws from material facts.
It is a faith-based assumption that man's space-time experience can be described, let alone warranted, according any kind of unifying principles. To merely stipulate that order exists and that categories can be applied to discrete and contingent facts in the universe is either a naive or a disingenuous failure to adequately resolve whether the order in the physical world is due to the nature of the particles it comprises (atomism), or events occurring according to some pre-existent laws (stoicism), or due to some Hegelian logical necessity based on some assumed greater underlying dialectic reality (Sorry about the run-on sentence). Regardless of which theory is chosen (and it is ever arbitrary), they all blindly assume some kind of universal order that cannot be justified by the worldviews in which we find them.
Thus, the atheistic worldview is unable to bridge the chasm between order [Parmenides] and change [Heraclitus], unity and diversity, universals and particulars, the many and the one (see diagram linked here). Any attempt to bring the two realms together on non-theistic grounds results in making nonsense of both, which further renders intellectually self-defeating all arguments against God. The problem posed to the atheist is that of justifying how he (a) imposes unifying principles of his own mind upon an external realm not controlled by his mind, while at the same time (b) claiming to respect the individuality and uniqueness of every fact in the world, which mitigates against the notion of unifying principles. So on the one hand, the atheist imposes the universal principles of his worldview in advance, which undermines the so-called "science" of his position, and on the other hand, respecting the novelty and particularity of discrete facts and events in his experience undermines the intelligibility of those facts. This makes any attempt to rationally organize and interpret evidence utterly inane. Some atheists admit the inability to justifiably account for the uniformity of nature ("It happened because it happened"); some admit their inability to account for the laws of logic ("they're just there, like an armpit"). With these admissions, however, should also come the recognition that using logic and inference order to explain or understand things is baldly begging the very question, assuming the verity of a system in advance. Therefore, such a worldview comes down to an arbitrary preference, and not an intellectual necessity, and despite this, the atheist blindly assumes to attach meaning to his experience. Of course, I don't expect the atheist to readily acknowledge, but I will expose it nonetheless. Atheists ought not to be allowed to run roughshod over Christian Theism, asserting some claim of intellectual superiority, scientific validity, and rational fact-based/evidentiary conclusions. It's all lip-service, and when it is exposed for what it is, it is shown to be wholly arbitrary. blindly religious and faith-based. For these reasons, among many, the atheistic worldview is impossible and cannot be true. More later.
Jim
Last edited:
o you have such "peripherals"? Have you tested them to see if they work? How did you go about testing them?