ANTI-ATHEISM: A LETTER FROM A CONCERNED CHRISTIAN
(REPRINTED)
"Thank you for your interest. This is an attempt at giving the general layman
information which will help to go on the offensive when it comes to atheism
and the denial of anything metaphysical. Should you have any questions,
don't hesitate to contact me via E-Mail. My training is in philosophy,
orthodox theology, and logic. I am also an armchair enthusiast for what is
going on in frontier science, Quantum Theory (which has science baffled), and
many other issues. I think that for people to engage atheism, they must
understand it. It is with that idea in mind that I have put together a few
ideas, that have come out of some of the questions that people have asked me
in the past.
All of these ideas can be strung together into a logical
symphony in that you can lead one from presupposition to logical conclusion,
using the tools of logic and reason. You are actually asserting nothing,
merely stating facts. Please realize that I had no spell-checker too.
First of all, Atheism is not just about a denial of a supreme being. It IS
about the denial of anything metaphysical. Nietzsche's point about the
"Death of God" has been misconstrued by many. He was actually positing not
just the "death" of God, but the denial of anything metaphysical. You have
to make the atheist realize this early on.
Nihilism:
1. In epistemology, the denial of any objective and real ground or
state of truth; 2. the theory that nothing is knowable. All knowledge is
illusory, worthless, meaningless, relative, and insignificant. 3. No
knowledge is possible. Nothing can be known. 4. the psychological and
philosophical state in which there is a loss of all ethical, religious,
political, and social values. 5. the skeptical denial of all that is
regarded as real\unreal, knowledge\error, being\nonbeing,
illusory\nonillusory: the denial of the value of all distinctions.
Ethical nihilism:
The theory that moral values cannot be justified in any way -- not by
reason, by a God, by intuition, by conscience, nor by the authority of the
state or law. Moral values are (a) expressions of arbitrary and capricious
behavior or (b) expressions of loose feelings and reasonless, social
conditioning; and (c) worthless, meaningless, and irrational.
Political nihilism:
The belief that social organization is so corrupt that its destruction
is desirable. It is sometime coupled with a form of anarchism, whereby no
constructive alternative form of organization is deemed possible, and
terrorism, violent revolutionary activities, and assassination are
advocated.
Metaphysical nihilism:
The theory that (a) the universe is meaningless and without purpose; (b)
human life and its activities are of no value or significance; and (c)
nothing is worth existing for.
Teleology: the study of, the rational principles of, the study of phenomena
exhibiting order, design, purposes, ends, goals, tendencies, aims, and
direction, and how these are achieved in a process of development. Not an
option for the consistent naturalistic atheist who believe only in chance.
The is\ought dichotomy:
Also called fact\value dichotomy. Statements containing the verb "is"
are related to descriptive or factual claims and are of a different order
from those containing the verb "ought" or "should", which are related to
judgments, evaluations, or commands. It is impossible (logically, formally,
conceptually) to derive an "ought" or "should" statement from an "is"
(factual) statement, a normative statement from a statement of facts; it is
impossible to have a valid deductive argument in which the premises state
descriptions and the conclusion states prescriptions or imperatives.
Materialism:
The belief that nothing but matter in motion exists. The mind is
explained as matter in motion, a result of the operation of physics. There
is nothing metaphysical. A necessary postulation for the consistent atheist.
Mechanistic materialism:
The theory that the universe is a machine and can be completely
explained in terms of the effects of the mechanical operation of its parts
upon one another. There are no final causes or purposes in the universe. A
necessary postulation for the consistent atheist.
Reductive materialism:
The theory that everything in the universe, including consciousness, can
be explained in terms of matter in motion. A necessary postulation for the
consistent atheist.
Reductionism:
The belief that all fields of knowledge can be reduced to one science,
now considered to be that of physics. Physics can explain all that "is." A
necessary postulation for the consistent atheist.
The problem of Free Will:
If all human actions are caused, then how can concepts found in our
everyday experience such as blame, responsibility, duty, obligation, etc...be
made meaningful. A problem for the consistent atheist.
Anthropocentric:
Referring to any view which maintains that man is the center and
ultimate goal of the universe. Atheists cannot logically assume an
anthropocentric view of the universe, however, many of them do anyway in
their justifications for morality. Atheist presuppositions do not allow them
to logically assume an anthropocentric view of the universe.
Existential: (not to be confused with Existentialism)
The vivid awareness that one "is" and that one is an acting, choosing
being creating and expressing one's self-identity in the process of acting
and choosing responsibly. A problem for the consistent atheist as these
considerations should logically be classified as non-existent, or illusory
given the above concepts of reductionism, etc.
Emotive Theory of Ethics:
A non-cognitive theory: ethical knowledge is different from other kinds
of knowledge in that it is based on what one's emotions tell them what is
right. It assumes that all "rational" humans will "emote" the same ideas of
right and wrong. This is the logically fallacious claim of most inconsistent
atheists. Please see the five fallacies listed below in the context of this
particular term.
These are the five fallacies that most atheists and non-christians commit
when trying to justify their ethics:
1. The fallacy of argumentum ad misericordian: arguing by appeal to
pity in order to have some point accepted.
2. The fallacy of argumentum ad personam: arguing by appealing to the
personal likes of others in order to have an argument accepted.
3. The fallacy of argumentum ad populum: arguing in order to arouse an
emotional, popular acceptance of an idea without presenting logical
justification of the idea, in order to evoke assent rather than to rationally
support the idea.
4. The fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam: appealing to authority in
order to gain acceptance of a point at issue or appealing to the feelings of
reverence or respect we have for those in authority, or those who are famous.
5. The fallacy of consensus gentium: arguing that an idea is true on
the basis that the majority of people believe it, and\or that it has been
universally held by all men at all times.
Existentialism:
Also called existential philosophy, existentialist philosophy, a
relatively modern view in philosophy (although with historical roots as far
back as Greek and medieval philosophy) associated in its inception with Soren
Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche. Its primary and best-known exponent in
contemporary philosophy is the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. Other
existentialists: Camus, Jaspers, Heidegger, Marcel. There are many varieties
of existentialism ranging from atheism to theism, from phenomenalism and
phenomenology to forms of Aristotelianism. Some of the following themes are
common to existentialists: 1. Existence precedes essence. Forms do not
determine existence to be what it is. Existence fortuitously becomes and is
whatever it becomes and is, and that existence then makes up its essence.
2. An individual has no essential nature, no self identity other than that
involved in the act of choosing. 3. Truth is subjectivity. 4.
Abstractions can neither grasp nor communicate the reality of individual
existence. 5. Philosophy must concern itself with the human predicament and
inner states such as alienation, anxiety, inauthenticity, dread, sense of
nothingness, and anticipation of death. 6. The universe has no rational
direction or scheme. It is meaningless and absurd. 7. The universe does
not provide moral rules. Moral principles are constructed by humans in the
context of being responsible for their actions and for the actions of others.
8. Individual actions are unpredictable. 9. Individuals have complete
freedom of the will. 10. Individuals cannot help but make choices. 11. An
individual can become completely other than what he or she is.
Humanistic Existentialism:
1. The universe (a) is not in itself intelligible (humans make it
intelligible); (b) does not conform to any rational, logical order or
process; and (c) is not created, supported, or designed by an omnipotent,
benevolent God. 2. All things are contingent; nothing is necessarily
decreed to occur as it occurs. 3. All meaning, order, explanation,
classification is given to reality by consciousness and is not part of any
reality other than the reality of consciousness. 4. Reality cannot be
reduced to a neat system since it is inherently unintelligible,
non-categorizable and amorphous. 5. There is no objective moral realm;
moral values do not exist outside of consciousness.
Process Philosophy: (similar to Process Theology)
Alfred North Whitehead was the leading exponent of process philosophy, a
theory that emphasizes the creative and novel advance of nature. Some of its
tenets: 1. nature is a continuously changing but progressing series of
events. 2. the fundamental ground of reality is not substance in which
properties inhere, but process: directional and unified change. 3. there
are no durationless instants except as abstract concepts. 4. language and
its concepts cannot without creating paradoxes express (a) the continuous (no
instants, no discrete units) nature of processes (change, becoming) or (b)
the identity (individuality, unity, wholeness) of events in process.
Note: in understanding and collating process theology and
the concept of "nothingness," understand that much of this is from within a
paradigm with some of the presuppositions of Existentialism.
Paradigm:
A way of looking at things; systematically consistent (at least
internally) systems.
Nothingness, Sartre's concept of
Sartre has told us that to be a human being is to be this concrete
conscious being, this being-for-itself, confronting a kind of being which it
is not, the being of object, of causally determined things, of
being-in-itself. To be a conscious being is to be aware of a gap between my
consciousness and its objects; it is to be in the world, and yet to be aware
of not being one of the causally determined objects of the world; it is to be
aware of a distance, an emptiness, a gap that separates me from the region of
things. Sartre will now argue that there is such a thing as nothingness in
the world and that it arises solely in relation to conscious being. It is
only through conscious beings that nothingness enters the world. To be a
conscious being, to be a being-for-itself is endlessly to bring nothingness
into the world of being. What is Sartre up to?
Sartre is trying to shed light upon the human condition and to show the
crucial differences which separate conscious being from the causal,
deterministic order of things. (in my opinion, he is reacting against the
modern world view, and hence, his reaction and philosophy are a direct
example of a part of that which could be called Post-Modernism) In the modern
world which he is reacting against, the deterministic order of things (see my
definitions of reduction, free will, etc., above) , all objects are what they
are causally determined to be, they exist as they are, as
things-in-themselves, without consciousness (reductionism says it's an
illusion), without awareness of gaps, without any lacks of possibilities,
without any possibility of questions or doubts. Sartre now moves on to show,
by contrast, that conscious being is the realm of being which has the power
to separate itself from its objects, to distinguish itself from the realm of
things, to question, to doubt, to entertain possibilities, to be aware of
lacks. But all of these - separating, distinguishing, raising questions,
having doubts, thinking of possibilities or deficiencies - introduce a
"negative element" into the world, they involve what is not, or nothingness.
It is thus only in the distinctive capacities of a conscious being, a
for-itself, that you can think of what you lack, do not have, and what your
possibilities are. Only as a conscious being can you be dissatisfied with
yourself, and desire not-to-be what you are now, and desire to be what you
are not. This is the meaning of Sartre's starkly contrasting definitions of
being-in-itself and being-for-itself: "...being is what it is....the being
of for-itself is defined, on the contrary, as being what it is not and not
being what it is."
In all of these capacities on your part- your awareness of lacks,
possibilities, unsatisfied desire, expectations of the future - you have been
conscious of what is not the case, what is not present, what is not actual.
You have been conscious of negating what is. And so, says Sartre, you have
brought negation, nothingness into the world.
My analysis of all of this is that Sartre, instead of taking "head on"
the materialistic and reductionistic paradigm, sought to get around it by
playing philosophy in his head. The modern paradigm was that which was (and
is) reductionist and mechanistic. The post-modern paradigm is a reaction to
that, and against what the modern paradigm said about man's place in the
universe: that it had none. That is one of the reasons that post-modernism
is so Nihilistic. They have made an existential jump, or grasp, for meaning
to their lives, but they haven't shown as false the dehumanizing
presuppositions of modernism. They are trying to live in spite of them. The
problem, as it continues to develop, is that Science is still working from
within the modern paradigm, still marching towards a total reduction of all
that is. What this does, is to increase the intensity of the post-modern
reaction against that dehumanization. The modern aim in all of the sciences
is to explain humanity, along with all that "is", in terms of matter and the
laws of physics. This is the problem with the presupposition that the
scientific method is the ONLY method for obtaining "Truth." I call this
Scientism. This is the problem with the scientific method. They are not
philosophers, and many of them choose not to, or do not see, the
philosophical ramifications of what they are doing. But, what I do is to
instead of trying to live in spite of what Scientism is doing, I attack what
Scientism is doing on scientific ground itself. I think that their whole
reductionist enterprise is false and inherently inconsistent. But
post-modernism is a reactionary movement (paradigm) and is not really
equipped to "deal" with it. The more nihilistic post-modernism becomes, the
more it disdains logic and the "rational" pursuit of "truth," thereby making
themselves more helpless when it comes to refuting that which they are
reacting against It is kind of a self-perpetuating dynamic going on here.
The first "area" of a culture to look at to see what the "coming"
philosophical trends are going to be is the "arts." If you look at the arts
you see total nihilism right now. That is what is coming. Also, the French
are about 10 years ahead of the US philosophically. They are a good
indicator of the future as well. Most post-modern philosophy has come out of
France: Sartre, Foucoult, Derrida (the whole deconstructionist thing),
etc....
I hope this helps. This is really just the tip of the iceberg of the whole
dynamic. It is actually a lot more complicated than this, but this is a good
outline of the basic issues. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to
ask. Take care and keep in touch.
-Scott"
The Voice In The Wilderness, Inc., 1996