The absurdity of atheism

[PRmerger]

My, that’s a broad brush. Let me narrow it down a bit.

The strong atheist argues there are no -]absolute /-] gods

Carry on.

If an atheist argues that there are no gods then it limns his great ignorance of theology.

God, by definition, is One. He who nothing greater can be conceived.

If an atheist is arguing against gods, he is merely arguing against “super heroes, only more awesome”…and no time and energy need be spent on that.

As atheist BC Johnson acknowledges: “Such a god, if not dead, is the next thing to it. And a person who believes in such a ghost of a god is practically an atheist. To call such a thing a god would be to strain the meaning of the word.”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Can you think of any desire that the human person has for something that doesn’t exist?

Borrowing from St. Augustine and CS Lewis–everything that the human person desires we desire because it exists.

We desire food. Food exists.
We desire sex. Sex exists.

We desire eternal life…

How much food do you desire? 10,000 meals? Is that enough? Or, is your desire for food…eternal? Stay with me now! What if you were to go on living forever? Wouldn’t your desire for food also go on forever? Could we then say that we desire endless food? Should we then conclude that endless food exists because we theoretically desire it?

In reality, I think we have a continuous desire for food, not for an endless amount of it. That’s good, because (if you’re very blessed) you have access to continuous food, but no one has access to a literally endless amount of it. However, if you thought you had access to endless food, you might feel less anxious about the possibility of losing access to “continuous” food.

Similarly, I think we desire continuous life, not necessarily an infinity of it. We don’t want to die, because that is an end to the continuity of our lives. We have continuity now, and we don’t want to lose it. We’re anxious about losing what we have, as if it is “ours” and it will be taken away from us. For me, a crucial turning point in my life was when I came to think that I did not need to or deserve to exist. Everything is a “bonus.” Life is all extra, it is totally gratuitous. I cannot “lose” it, it is not “owed” to me. So, I desire continuity of life (which I have…for now) but have realized that I don’t truly desire an indefinite continuity, since I can’t even imagine it.

 

[Aloysium]

Let’s cut to the chase here.
Soft atheists are deluding themselves and not following the logical consequences of their belief that there is no God.

If we base our understanding of our being in the world on what we know of nature:
We are animals, mammals, naked apes.
We are complex physical organisms.
All our behaviour is governed by neurological processes.
There is no person, simply the integrated chemistry of the brain.
No person is acting; the experience and idea of personhood is illusory - merely cortical activity.
There is no morality; physiological activity is not right or wrong - it is.
There is no meaning to anything - no purpose, no destiny other than the nothingness that awaits at the end of all life.
The underlying reality to the illusion that forms our daily life is nature: blind, uncaring and meaningless.

Humanists have no foundation for their ultimately irrational belief that it is we who create meaning and morality - all a feel-good illusion.

This is all pure nonsense, absurd!
No illusions here - the reality is God.

 

[PRmerger]

How much food do you desire? 10,000 meals? Is that enough? Or, is your desire for food…eternal? Stay with me now! What if you were to go on living forever? Wouldn’t your desire for food also go on forever? Could we then say that we desire endless food? Should we then conclude that endless food exists because we theoretically desire it?

In reality, I think we have a continuous desire for food, not for an endless amount of it. That’s good, because (if you’re very blessed) you have access to continuous food, but no one has access to a literally endless amount of it. However, if you thought you had access to endless food, you might feel less anxious about the possibility of losing access to “continuous” food.

Similarly, I think we desire continuous life, not necessarily an infinity of it. We don’t want to die, because that is an end to the continuity of our lives. We have continuity now, and we don’t want to lose it. We’re anxious about losing what we have, as if it is “ours” and it will be taken away from us. For me, a crucial turning point in my life was when I came to think that I did not need to or deserve to exist. Everything is a “bonus.” Life is all extra, it is totally gratuitous. I cannot “lose” it, it is not “owed” to me. So, I desire continuity of life (which I have…for now) but have realized that I don’t truly desire an indefinite continuity, since I can’t even imagine it.

Don’t think about quantity right now.

Just consider the question I asked.

Can you think of any desire we have for something…that doesn’t exist?

 

[Peter_Plato]

How much food do you desire? 10,000 meals? Is that enough? Or, is your desire for food…eternal? Stay with me now! What if you were to go on living forever? Wouldn’t your desire for food also go on forever? Could we then say that we desire endless food? Should we then conclude that endless food exists because we theoretically desire it?

In reality, I think we have a continuous desire for food, not for an endless amount of it. That’s good, because (if you’re very blessed) you have access to continuous food, but no one has access to a literally endless amount of it. However, if you thought you had access to endless food, you might feel less anxious about the possibility of losing access to “continuous” food.

Similarly, I think we desire continuous life, not necessarily an infinity of it. We don’t want to die, because that is an end to the continuity of our lives. We have continuity now, and we don’t want to lose it. We’re anxious about losing what we have, as if it is “ours” and it will be taken away from us. For me, a crucial turning point in my life was when I came to think that I did not need to or deserve to exist. Everything is a “bonus.” Life is all extra, it is totally gratuitous. I cannot “lose” it, it is not “owed” to me. So, I desire continuity of life (which I have…for now) but have realized that I don’t truly desire an indefinite continuity, since I can’t even imagine it.

A “good" that can be imagined as indefinitely continuous would be something like truth or meaningfulness. If truth or meaning leads to further and more satisfying ultimate meaning which never gets gratuitous, never gets tiresome or sated, then it can be imagined as desirable in an eternal or continuous sense.

The reason, in fact, that physical desires feel tiresome and undesirable at some point is because of the effort expended to attain or retain the same level of happiness or satisfaction. In themselves, the ends of these desires are essentially meaningless because they are means to further ends but do not truly bring about the end good or Summum Bonum but merely symbolize or represent it in limited ways. This is precisely why the desire for ultimate meaning or truth is not to be mistaken for the limited representations or tokens of it, but also shows that since we have glimpses of that kind of meaning we are – as CS Lewis points out – made for it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

As atheist BC Johnson acknowledges: "Such a god, if not dead, is the next thing to it. And a person who believes in such a ghost of a god is practically an atheist.

Note sure I could agree with you here. As I read it I think about a couple of high school friends, a college roommate, and even coworkers within the past few years that had beliefs of what they referred to as “gods.” People that believe there are gods don’t seem to match any of the usages of the word “atheist” with which I’m familiar.

To call such a thing a god would be to strain the meaning of the word."

It’s a word that already has already had widely varied usage having been used to refer to various beliefs from various culture. You might find that its difficult to come up with a more specific description of how the word is used unless there are also restrictions on the cultures and people whose beliefs are being discussed.

 

[Rohzek]

Let’s cut to the chase here.
Soft atheists are deluding themselves and not following the logical consequences of their belief that there is no God.

If we base our understanding of our being in the world on what we know of nature:
We are animals, mammals, naked apes.
We are complex physical organisms.
All our behaviour is governed by neurological processes.
There is no person, simply the integrated chemistry of the brain.
No person is acting; the experience and idea of personhood is illusory - merely cortical activity.
There is no morality; physiological activity is not right or wrong - it is.
There is no meaning to anything - no purpose, no destiny other than the nothingness that awaits at the end of all life.
The underlying reality to the illusion that forms our daily life is nature: blind, uncaring and meaningless.

Humanists have no foundation for their ultimately irrational belief that it is we who create meaning and morality - all a feel-good illusion.

This is all pure nonsense, absurd!
No illusions here - the reality is God.

This isn’t accurate. Again, many atheists are philosophical dualists or Mysterianists to say the least. Many atheists don’t claim that human understanding is capable of understanding everything, hence science has limitations. That being said, they are not convinced that there is a god. You’re linking a strict understanding of materialism with atheism, and while many atheists think that, not all do. And it isn’t illogical for an atheist to not be a materialist in the strict sense that you imply the term. Here is probably a really good example of one atheist who doesn’t fit the bill you describe (some of the videos lack sound for a small portion of the beginning, but bear with it):

youtube.com/watch?v=Y74KYikMAlg What is the Mind Body Problem

youtube.com/watch?v=_rYw439TNvg What’s the Essence of Consciousness

youtube.com/watch?v=p4w2C4t3VlI Does Consciousness Defeat Materialism

youtube.com/watch?v=45dnQ-z3lSo Is Consciousness Irreducible

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Don’t think about quantity right now.

Just consider the question I asked.

Can you think of any desire we have for something…that doesn’t exist?

I think it might be impossible to have a productive philosophical discussion if we start with “Don’t think…”

I am familiar with all the apologetics games PR. I’ve read dozens of CS Lewis’ works. I just finished Till We Have Faces last week (a mildly entertaining story by the way). I used to “trap” people in the “trilemma” when trying to evangelize them, lol . I read The Pilgrim’s Regress when I was 12 years old (he makes the “argument from desire” there too).

Lewis is careful to argue more formally in his other works that it is “innate” human desires which have concrete objects. Well, I’d argue that the desire for “eternal” life is not innate but either acquired or the result of mistaken understanding. I would argue that we don’t desire eternal life per se, but that we desire continuous life and we can’t think of a particularly good time to die LOL! However, surely you have met people who have come to terms with death. Surely there are people who are ready to die and recognize that their time has come. May all of us go peacefully like this!

 

[Aloysium]

This isn’t accurate. Again, many atheists are philosophical dualists or Mysterianists to say the least. Many atheists don’t claim that human understanding is capable of understanding everything, hence science has limitations. That being said, they are not convinced that there is a god. You’re linking a strict understanding of materialism with atheism, and while many atheists think that, not all do. And it isn’t illogical for an atheist to not be a materialist in the strict sense that you imply the term. Here is probably a really good example of one atheist who doesn’t fit the bill you describe (some of the videos lack sound for a small portion of the beginning, but bear with it) . . .

What I see when humanists claim that there exists morality and meaning in the absence of a God are only vague arguments reflecting foggy thinking and misunderstanding.
The videos you posted are a case in point. “Electromagnetism refutes materialism.” Really?! He does not address what is quite simple actually, that we are a body-spirit unity, made in the image of God.
“Nogod” of the gaps, “The Force”, whatever, all the qualities that pertain to the world of the spirit are to be explained by some obscure, yet-to-be-discerned properties of nature.
Many atheists while being “not convinced there is a god”, are ready to believe in all sorts of unspecified and indetermined natural factors as being at the basis of attributes of the spiritual soul such as consciousness, goodness, beauty and meaning.
Absurd nonsense.

 

[Rohzek]

What I see when humanists claim that there exists morality and meaning in the absence of a God are only vague arguments reflecting foggy thinking and misunderstanding.
The videos you posted are a case in point. “Electromagnetism refutes materialism.” Really?! He does not address what is quite simple actually, that we are a body-spirit unity, made in the image of God.
“Nogod” of the gaps, “The Force”, whatever, all the qualities that pertain to the world of the spirit are to be explained by some obscure, yet-to-be-discerned properties of nature.
Many atheists while being “not convinced there is a god”, are ready to believe in all sorts of unspecified and indetermined natural factors as being at the basis of attributes of the spiritual soul such as consciousness, goodness, beauty and meaning.
Absurd nonsense.

Your answer explains nothing really. It still doesn’t explain how it works. All it says is: God made it. Okay, so what? Are we really any further in explaining how consciousness or free will works now that we know who made it? Nope. You’re confusing two different issues here. So unless you can actually explain how consciousness works if we take into account the existence of God, then your entire accusation that the atheist is full of nonsense is itself a nonsensical and illogical conclusion for you to reach. It is like the pot calling the kettle black.

It’s about time my fellow Christians recognize why Christ said “Blessed are those who do not see yet believe. (John 20:29)” Christ said it because he recognized that faith has no proof whatsoever, whether it be empirical or logical. Any ontological or moral argument that there must be a god is vacuous nonsense. The only reason one believes is because they want to believe. They make the decision to believe. And it is because of that, that they embark upon a harmonious relationship with God. This part here is just a personal and improvable theory of mine, but it seems to me that many theists put forth the so-called “proofs” of God because they are trying to convince and justify themselves against any insecurities they might have. For me at least, I have no problem with the lack of proof. I just believe because I want to, and am fairly comfortable with that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This part here is just a personal and improvable theory of mine, but it seems to me that many theists put forth the so-called “proofs” of God because they are trying to convince and justify themselves against any insecurities they might have. For me at least, I have no problem with the lack of proof.** I just believe because I want to**, and am fairly comfortable with that.

So you don’t believe because it is plausibly true, but merely because you “force” yourself to “believe” it.

There is something you are not telling, or something you haven’t admitted to yourself.

I highly, highly doubt you believe MERELY because you WANT to.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

First, I did not attack this website. In fact, this website is a very good place to discuss things at. I just merely pointed out how absurd and close-minded your logic is for discounting an entire survey of philosophers solely because an atheist happened to write an informative blog about it. If an atheist tries to present themselves in a light that finds common ground with us theists, then according to you it’s propaganda instead of legitimate common ground.

I think I’ll be ignoring all your future posts as we seem to engage in fruitless exchanges.

Good luck!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So you don’t believe because it is plausibly true, but merely because you “force” yourself to “believe” it.

There is something you are not telling, or something you haven’t admitted to yourself.

I highly, highly doubt you believe MERELY because you WANT to.

If we follow Aquinas, what Rohzek seems to be demonstrating is that, logic aside, men have a natural desire to know God.

That being the case, atheism is unnatural because it is an attempt to short-circuit a natural desire.

 

[Rohzek]

So you don’t believe because it is plausibly true, but merely because you “force” yourself to “believe” it.

There is something you are not telling, or something you haven’t admitted to yourself.

I highly, highly doubt you believe MERELY because you WANT to.

“Forcing” myself to believe implies that there is indubitable proof to the contrary, which is not the case. I believe in God in just the same fashion that I arbitrarily decide to trust my senses in so far that they are actually sensing an outside world that truly exists. It is both plausible that God exists or that he does not. It is also plausible that my senses are coming into contact with an outside world or conversely that my senses are deceiving me and that everything is just in my head. Both are matters of faith.

 

[Peter_Plato]

“Forcing” myself to believe implies that there is indubitable proof to the contrary, which is not the case. I believe in God in just the same fashion that** I arbitrarily decide to trust my senses in so far that they are actually sensing an outside world that truly exists**. It is both plausible that God exists or that he does not. It is also plausible that my senses are coming into contact with an outside world or conversely that my senses are deceiving me and that everything is just in my head. Both are matters of faith.

If you suppose that trusting your senses is just as “arbitrary” as not trusting them, there is not much I can say to discuss the matter with you because you obviously don’t have the same consciousness of the reality around you that I do.

I think Alvin Plantinga’s idea of properly basic beliefs is more what you have in mind, however.

The question of whether or not your senses are “deceiving” you is, on the face of it, nonsensical. You may or may not be receiving all the information you would want for certainty from your senses, but to say they are "deceiving you” is overstating the matter to the point of incoherence.

You might just as well claim that you are deceiving yourself when you have a well-considered thought in mind. After all, it might not be your “thought" in the same sense that your sense perceptions may not be yours.

 

[Aloysium]

Your answer explains nothing really. It still doesn’t explain how it works. All it says is: God made it. Okay, so what? Are we really any further in explaining how consciousness or free will works now that we know who made it? Nope. You’re confusing two different issues here. So unless you can actually explain how consciousness works if we take into account the existence of God, then your entire accusation that the atheist is full of nonsense is itself a nonsensical and illogical conclusion for you to reach. It is like the pot calling the kettle black.

It’s about time my fellow Christians recognize why Christ said “Blessed are those who do not see yet believe. (John 20:29)” Christ said it because he recognized that faith has no proof whatsoever, whether it be empirical or logical. Any ontological or moral argument that there must be a god is vacuous nonsense. The only reason one believes is because they want to believe. They make the decision to believe. And it is because of that, that they embark upon a harmonious relationship with God. This part here is just a personal and improvable theory of mine, but it seems to me that many theists put forth the so-called “proofs” of God because they are trying to convince and justify themselves against any insecurities they might have. For me at least, I have no problem with the lack of proof. I just believe because I want to, and am fairly comfortable with that.

The problem with Humanists is that they are riding on the reverberations of the Christian faith that speaks of the specialness of mankind, each person made in the image of and loved by God, our being truly brothers and sisters and one body in Love/Christ. Within its feel-good belief system, there is no philosophical basis for morality, meaning and love. It rests on the reality of God.

Consciousness has many meanings. Let me just say this:

God is the transcendant triune being, who is Love itself.
God is perfect relationality.
There’s no way to communicate what is above, at the same time within and also beyond everything thing. You’re going to have to do a lot of work here. Or not, maybe it will all come in an instant.
God is Life creating all life, Beauty and Truth

We are created in His image as a body-spirit unity.

• We are 100% material participating in a material world
  Every thoughtand every perception is correlated to a neurological event
  We need a brain to engage in the world
  So, consciousness is as the neurologists say, physiological
• There is an order to our thinking, to these words.
  The order in itself is insufficient to explain consciousness.
  A computer is not a person.
• We are spiritual souls
  As such we are relational beings, existing as self-other.
  Perceptually we exist through our physical senses, in relation to the physical word around us.
  The existence of self and other unite in the perception and through cognition.
  We see, hear, taste and touch, we understand and feel, giving of ourselves through those capacities, to what is other.
  Reason allows us to be other to ourselves.
  Without the soul, none of this happens; you and I are real persons connected to each other as we connect to Reality itself
  -Ulimately this relational nature exists because we are in relation to Relationality itself - God.
  Coming into being in each and every moment by virtue of His love, we come to know the world around us, albeit through the fog of ignorance caused by the damage done by sin.

That’s the short of it. It’s up to you to do the work. This stuff can’t be spoon-fed.

 

[Rohzek]

If you suppose that trusting your senses is just as “arbitrary” as not trusting them, there is not much I can say to discuss the matter with you because you obviously don’t have the same consciousness of the reality around you that I do.

I think Alvin Plantinga’s idea of properly basic beliefs is more what you have in mind, however.

The question of whether or not your senses are “deceiving” you is, on the face of it, nonsensical. You may or may not be receiving all the information you would want for certainty from your senses, but to say they are "deceiving you” is overstating the matter to the point of incoherence.

You might just as well claim that you are deceiving yourself when you have a well-considered thought in mind. After all, it might not be your “thought" in the same sense that your sense perceptions may not be yours.

Well I didn’t intend to give personhood or otherness to my senses, although I understand as to why you might read it that way when I said, “my senses might deceive me.” I just merely pointed out that one knows what they sense, but the sense does not necessitate an outside object.

 

[Rohzek]

The problem with Humanists is that they are riding on the reverberations of the Christian faith that speaks of the specialness of mankind, each person made in the image of and loved by God, our being truly brothers and sisters and one body in Love/Christ. Within its feel-good belief system, there is no philosophical basis for morality, meaning and love. It rests on the reality of God.

Consciousness has many meanings. Let me just say this:

God is the transcendant triune being, who is Love itself.
God is perfect relationality.
There’s no way to communicate what is above, at the same time within and also beyond everything thing. You’re going to have to do a lot of work here. Or not, maybe it will all come in an instant.
God is Life creating all life, Beauty and Truth

We are created in His image as a body-spirit unity.

• We are 100% material participating in a material world
  Every thoughtand every perception is correlated to a neurological event
  We need a brain to engage in the world
  So, consciousness is as the neurologists say, physiological
• There is an order to our thinking, to these words.
  The order in itself is insufficient to explain consciousness.
  A computer is not a person.
• We are spiritual souls
  As such we are relational beings, existing as self-other.
  Perceptually we exist through our physical senses, in relation to the physical word around us.
  The existence of self and other unite in the perception and through cognition.
  We see, hear, taste and touch, we understand and feel, giving of ourselves through those capacities, to what is other.
  Reason allows us to be other to ourselves.
  Without the soul, none of this happens; you and I are real persons connected to each other as we connect to Reality itself
  -Ulimately this relational nature exists because we are in relation to Relationality itself - God.
  Coming into being in each and every moment by virtue of His love, we come to know the world around us, albeit through the fog of ignorance caused by the damage done by sin.

That’s the short of it. It’s up to you to do the work. This stuff can’t be spoon-fed.

I appreciate the condescension that I must somehow grow out of being spoon-fed to grasp your truth. Truly nice of you.

God is not perfect relationality precisely because that reduces God to a concept. Relations themselves do not have ontology. Now, I know you might give concepts some sort of ontology, but I prefer to ditch such Platonisms that lend themselves to strange thoughts that are present in Continental Philosophy. In short, your conception of a god has no meaning to me in terms of God having any personhood let alone ontology whatsoever.

As for morality, yes humanists both atheists and theists developed clear conceptions of morality without having to appeal to a priori or revealed knowledge. That was a major part (not the only part) of the Enlightenment project. It was Rousseau who recognized that one aspect of human nature was that it was creative. Therefore, anything that infringed upon that creativity must be justified by some means. If it cannot, such as in the case of a monarch limiting the press, then it is unjust and immoral and warrants overthrowing. This is where the whole concept of human rights comes from. And while you are more than free to argue that all of morality cannot be grasped by merely understanding human nature, and that we need God to complete it (an argument I would agree with btw), you cannot say that atheists are illogical for claiming any moral foundation. Their moral foundations are rooted in the study of human nature and natural rights.

 

[PRmerger]

Note sure I could agree with you here. As I read it I think about a couple of high school friends, a college roommate, and even coworkers within the past few years that had beliefs of what they referred to as “gods.” People that believe there are gods don’t seem to match any of the usages of the word “atheist” with which I’m familiar.

I’m not understanding you here, TS.

Could you please explain?

It’s a word that already has already had widely varied usage having been used to refer to various beliefs from various culture. You might find that its difficult to come up with a more specific description of how the word is used unless there are also restrictions on the cultures and people whose beliefs are being discussed.

Well, TS, an atheist named BC Johnson seems to grasp the concept quite trenchantly: if you are talking about the existence of super-heroes, and denying their existence, then we are wasting our time.

But if you are talking about God, as classically defined and understood by philosophers and thinkers, then we can continue to dialogue.

 

[Aloysium]

I appreciate the condescension that I must somehow grow out of being spoon-fed to grasp your truth. Truly nice of you. . . .

I tried to give up arrogance for Lent one year; no one noticed any change.

The sort of stuff I’m talking about has to do with one’s relationship with God.
As I inferred, all of us have a relationship with our Father.
It is grown through charitable works, contemplation of scripture, meditation and participation in the mass, sacraments and the Eucharist.
I don’t see much point in pursuing this discussion, but a just couple of thoughts more:
I did not communicate my point and you will never convince me that following an atheistic course, no matter how rosey it is portrayed, will come to any good. The only hope lies in an easy fall.
Love transcends concepts; and the Triune Godhead is the Source and the model for all creation. I don’t know how else to phrase it.
If the truth of fraternity, liberty and equality lies in the fact that they are proclaimed by mankind, the converse ideals would also be true. Wherein lies their truth?