Atheism: an irrational worldview

[Gup20]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational


The article above makes a fanstastic point about atheism:

The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.
​

 

[Magnetic Poles]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational


The article above makes a fanstastic point about atheism:

The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.
​

Strawman argument. Atheists don't say that everything is physical. They say there are no gods. It is fallacious to say that atheists don't believe in concepts, ideas or logic. Making such arguments make Christians look very silly indeed.

 

[matt wade]

As someone who used to be an atheist, I can tell you that the line:

"He believes that everything that exists is material"

is completely untrue. I, an every other atheist I knew, believed in things non-material. For starters, I believed in ghosts. I didn't believe there was a God in heaven, but I believed that people's ghosts could live on after their bodies.

 

[Gup20]

Strawman argument. Atheists don't say that everything is physical. They say there are no gods. It is fallacious to say that atheists don't believe in concepts, ideas or logic. Making such arguments make Christians look very silly indeed.

It isn't a straw-man because it doesn't argue that the atheist doesn't believe in concepts, ideas, or logic. However, it does argue that, within his own worldview, he cannot account for why they exist.

The atheist typically believes in materialism, naturalism, or empiricism - all in varying amounts. Yet none of these beliefs can account for laws of logic, reason, uniformity of nature, or morality. Yet all of these immaterial entities are agreed to exist.

Only the Biblical God can account for things such as logic and reason.

Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.​

Therefore, the atheist must be inconsistent and borrow from the Christian worldview (logic and reason) to argue against the Christian worldview.

As someone who used to be an atheist, I can tell you that the line:

"He believes that everything that exists is material"

is completely untrue. I, an every other atheist I knew, believed in things non-material. For starters, I believed in ghosts. I didn't believe there was a God in heaven, but I believed that people's ghosts could live on after their bodies.

I'm not arguing that atheists are consistent - in fact they are not. Perhaps if the line read "If he is a consistent atheist, he believes that everything that exists is material," that would be better suited.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Atheist believe in logic. Why are you saying they don't?

 

[RAdam]

I think the point being made isn't what an atheist does believe but rather what an atheist should believe were the atheist consistent. For instance, how many times have you heard this phrase from people (not necessarily atheists but not bible believers): "what goes around comes around?" Huh? How can you believe that unless you believe there is a supreme being that is dealing out judgement? It is inconsistent. The atheist has several like problems. Perhaps he should have worded things differently than "the atheists beleives..." and rather used something like, "were the atheist consistent he would believe..." As it is he does kind of open himself up to being refuted rather easily.

 

[Gup20]

Atheist believe in logic. Why are you saying they don't?

I am not saying that atheists don't' believe in logic. I am saying that they shouldn't, if they were being consistent. The atheist has no rational basis for logic within his worldview.

 

[matt wade]

I am not saying that atheists don't' believe in logic. I am saying that they shouldn't, if they were being consistent. The atheist has no rational basis for logic within his worldview.

Sure they do, an atheist believes logic comes from their own mind.

Your arguments on this aren't working....

 

[Gup20]

Sure they do, an atheist believes logic comes from their own mind.

Your arguments on this aren't working....

Ah... but logic and reason are abstract, universal, and invariant entities. If they came from a person's own mind, then they wouldn't be universal, and since everyone's brain is different, they wouldn't be invariant. If they were simply a product of the mind, then logic wouldn't exist on Mars, for example, because no one's brain is on Mars. But because they are universal, they work and exist everywhere.

Furthermore, this makes another assumption that is incompatible with the atheistic worldview - that the mind and memory is reliable. If our brains are just the result of random chemical processes, what reason would we have to believe that our memory is reliable? In the atheistic worldview, anything that conferred a greater survival potential would be "more logical", and logic would be constantly changing, and different based on environmental conditions.

 

[matt wade]

They aren't working and existing in your arguments. You are not demonstrating logic or reason.

 

[Gup20]

They aren't working and existing in your arguments. You are not demonstrating logic or reason.

Did you have a problem with something I've said, or is this statement completely useless and invalid?

 

[matt wade]

You've said that "they work and exist everywhere" (logic and reason that is). I'm simply pointing out that your arguments on this subject contain neither logic or reason. As such, your statement is false.

 

[Gup20]

You've said that "they work and exist everywhere" (logic and reason that is). I'm simply pointing out that your arguments on this subject contain neither logic or reason. As such, your statement is false.

So it is your contention that laws of logic do not work everywhere, nor do laws of logic exist everywhere?

If that is the case, may I ask what is the purpose of science? If we can't expect the laws of logic to be universal and invariant, why bother thinking rationally or using logic and reason at all? Why bother studying anything if there is no uniformity?

 

[billwald]

>If that is the case, may I ask what is the purpose of science? If we can't expect the laws of logic to be universal and invariant, why bother thinking rationally or using logic and reason at all? Why bother studying anything if there is no uniformity?

This is a good example of the common misuse of the word, "law." For example, Newton's "laws" of motion are approximations that work on a human scale but fail at a very large or a very small scale. They seemed absolute within the ability of Newton to measure such things but his measurements were crude by modern standards.

Plane geometry works just fine for building houses but there is no such thing as a plane surface on this earth. Yes, we can come very close at a human scale but no cigar.

Second, for 100 years it has been known that all logic systems are ultimately circular because they all include unprovable axioms.

Third, True Believers try to apply deductive logic to situations that do not warrant it.

 

[BobRyan]

As someone who used to be an atheist, I can tell you that the line:

"He believes that everything that exists is material"

is completely untrue. I, an every other atheist I knew, believed in things non-material. For starters, I believed in ghosts. I didn't believe there was a God in heaven, but I believed that people's ghosts could live on after their bodies.

The argument is not that Atheist do not hold to two conflicting ideas at the same time -- rather the argument is that "they do".

Therefore disproving that opening statement cannot be done by showing yet another area where atheists are being inconsistent when it comes to "naturalism" and a universe that simply "blows up" to come into being.

If you begin with nothing - and all you have to account for the mass and energy appearing is the circular argument that mass and energy in the universe come from the mass and energy of the big bang, then you don't have a gateway or a bridge for claiming that mass and energy eventually develop their own ability to apply "logic" to problems. How did mass + energy come to even "know what a problem is" let alone "apply logic to solve it"?

The sentient universe, sentient matter or sentient energy-matter problem has yet to be solved.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think the point being made isn't what an atheist does believe but rather what an atheist should believe were the atheist consistent. For instance, how many times have you heard this phrase from people (not necessarily atheists but not bible believers): "what goes around comes around?" Huh? How can you believe that unless you believe there is a supreme being that is dealing out judgement? It is inconsistent. The atheist has several like problems. Perhaps he should have worded things differently than "the atheists beleives..." and rather used something like, "were the atheist consistent he would believe..." As it is he does kind of open himself up to being refuted rather easily.

That's an interesting point. Let me take it from the Atheist point of view. The world operates in such as way that there is numerical set of probabilities that some action or activity will occur which will affect your person. In the case of one person mistreating another person the probability that you will be mistreated as a result has increased. The more you do that the chances increase. This is based on multiple factors not the least being human behavior. It obviously is a safe saying because the more people you meet the eventuality that you will be mistreated will increase therefore "what goes around comes around" is a very good probability.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am not saying that atheists don't' believe in logic. I am saying that they shouldn't, if they were being consistent. The atheist has no rational basis for logic within his worldview.

I disagree entirely.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The argument is not that Atheist do not hold to two conflicting ideas at the same time -- rather the argument is that "they do".

Therefore disproving that opening statement cannot be done by showing yet another area where atheists are being inconsistent when it comes to "naturalism" and a universe that simply "blows up" to come into being.

If you begin with nothing - and all you have to account for the mass and energy appearing is the circular argument that mass and energy in the universe come from the mass and energy of the big bang, then you don't have a gateway or a bridge for claiming that mass and energy eventually develop their own ability to apply "logic" to problems. How did mass + energy come to even "know what a problem is" let alone "apply logic to solve it"?

The sentient universe, sentient matter or sentient energy-matter problem has yet to be solved.

in Christ,

Bob

I don't see how they believe in "two things at once" or two condratictory things. I believe that premise is flawed.

 

[Gup20]

>If that is the case, may I ask what is the purpose of science? If we can't expect the laws of logic to be universal and invariant, why bother thinking rationally or using logic and reason at all? Why bother studying anything if there is no uniformity?

This is a good example of the common misuse of the word, "law." For example, Newton's "laws" of motion are approximations that work on a human scale but fail at a very large or a very small scale. They seemed absolute within the ability of Newton to measure such things but his measurements were crude by modern standards.

Plane geometry works just fine for building houses but there is no such thing as a plane surface on this earth. Yes, we can come very close at a human scale but no cigar.

Second, for 100 years it has been known that all logic systems are ultimately circular because they all include unprovable axioms.

Third, True Believers try to apply deductive logic to situations that do not warrant it.

A circular argument is a valid argument, though they tend to blow themselves up. All ultimate truth claims are circular, because they must affirm themselves as well as everything else.

2Ti 2:13 If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
​

For example, God is non-contradictory for he cannot deny Himself. Therefore a law of non-contradiction makes sense.

An ultimate truth claim may be circular, but it's not a vicious circle, and it wouldn't be an ultimate truth claim if appealed to a greater authority than itself:

Hbr 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
​

 

[Gup20]

That's an interesting point. Let me take it from the Atheist point of view. The world operates in such as way that there is numerical set of probabilities that some action or activity will occur which will affect your person. In the case of one person mistreating another person the probability that you will be mistreated as a result has increased.

Hold on now - if an atheist is consistent he has no basis for morality. When you say "mistreated" you are making a moral claim which has no consistent basis in an atheistic worldview. The atheist must borrow his concept of morality from the Christian worldview.

For if our thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains, then what justification can be given why one chemical reaction is better than another chemical reaction. You don't disparage baking soda and vinegar for reacting... they are chemicals... that's what chemicals do - they react with one another. Love and hate would simply be chemical reactions, therefore, who is to judge which chemical reaction is "right" and which are "wrong"?

The entire concept of morality is inconsistent with an atheist worldview. But a Biblical worldview makes sense of the existence of morality. It is God's standard of living.