Concerning My Contention that *ALL* Atheists Are Intellectually Dishonest, With Reference to Alex O'Connor

The purpose of this post is to expand upon, or explain in more detail, something I had written on GAB. Basically, the purpose here is to reiterate my own approach to the 'Argument From Reason' and by it to defend my assertion that *all* 'atheists' and 'agnostics' can thereby be known to be intellectually dishonest.

Recently on GAB, I had said in passing that I consider Alex O'Connor -- a smarmy young Englishman to whom many 'village atheists with an ethernet cable (*)' currently look to be the salvation of their anti-rational belief-system, and whom many internet apologists for Christianity foolishly extol for his current (**) winsome approach to asserting that 'God is not' -- to be intellectually dishonest.

Someone later asked: 

I'm curious. I have watched Alex for sometime. What did you find particularly intellectually dishonest about him?

I responded in two parts, the first specifically about Alex O'Connor, and the second quickly outlining why I consider *all* 'atheists' and 'agnostics' to be intellectually dishonest.

Concerning Alex O'Connor, I said:

I'll admit that I *haven't* watched/listened to him all that much -- I have an almost physical reaction of repugnance to him. Even in his more recent/current iteration of winsomeness, as compared to his earlier stridency, he strikes me as aiming to be the next occupant of Dawkins' papal throne.

It's his more recent/current pose of "I'm just asking questions; I really want to see 'evidence' of God, but I just don't see it" that I mark as *doubly* intellectually dishonest (*) -- he's *not* just asking questions, and he's *not* looking for evidence of God: he's demanding answers which are category errors; he's refusing to acknowledge that you can't "find evidence of God" when you're insisting that God is like Zeus.

(*) His initial pugnacious iteration was also intellectually dishonest, but at least it was straight-forward attack-mode.

Concerning 'atheists' and 'agnostics' in general, I said:

My position, though I won't detail it here, is that *all* atheists, including the ones who try to hide behind the 'agnostic' label, are intellectually dishonest (*). The main difference between one atheist and another is how obnoxious or strident one is compared to another.

(*) In a nutshell -- IF God is not, that is, IF atheism/materialism is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN there can be no such things as rational beings, there can be no such activity as logical deduction from premise to conclusion, and there can be no such thing as true knowledge -- including the alleged knowledge that "atheism/materialism is the truth about the nature of reality". BUT, there *are* rational beings, and logical reasoning *is* possible, and true knowledge *does* exist and *can* be known.

Atheists and 'agnostics' -- *all of them* -- are intellectually dishonest precisely *because* they persist in their denial of the reality of God even as that denial logically entails the denial of their own natures as rational beings and free wills (**), able to reason logically and to know truth. AND, the cherry on the top is that most of them pose as paragons of reason and logic, and attempt to denigrate Christians as irrational.

(**) It's a misstatement to say that "we have free will", as though it [i.e. the reality of 'free will'] were analogous to having or not having two feet; rather, we *are* free wills.

==========
==========

So, to expand on the above --

Notwithstanding the title of a post I'd made last February ("There Is a Fourth Metaphysic", which title was in response to an attempt to get around the "Problem of Minds" by splitting the single metaphysic of atheism into three distinct metaphysics), there are two, and only two, logically possible metaphysics: that is, the truth about the nature of reality is encompassed, without remainder, either by "theism" or by atheism ... but atheism is anti-rational and indeed self-refuting, as it logically entails the denial of all manner of things we know to be true of ourselves.

Understand, the fatal flaw in atheism isn't due to materialism -- materialism is simply the primary expression of any atheism which acknowledges the reality of a physical/material world. No, the fatal flaw of atheism is that it denies -- necessarily -- the primacy of mind, and thus of free-will, as a causal explanation for events and state-changes in the world, which leaves mechanistic necessity as the *only* causal explanation for events and state-changes in the world.

To make use of an illustration by the Oxford mathematician John Lennox, if you were to ask me, "Why is that kettle of water boiling?", I might explain the boiling of the water by listing a series of facts of mechanical necessity, starting with the the fire under the kettle.  Or, I might answer, "Because I want a cup of tea". Now, while the mechanical necessity explanation isn't false, so far as it goes, it is quite incomplete: it doesn't get to the *real* reason that the kettle of water is boiling; namely that I freely initiated the series of mechanistic events and state-changes which resulted in the water boiling.

C S Lewis distinguished these two different (though not contradictory) explanations for the cause of the water boiling as cause-and-effect (the fire under the kettle and subsequent physical state-changes) on the one hand, and ground-and-consequent (my effecting of an act of will to initiate the series of  physical state-changes which result in the water boiling) on the other hand.

But, see, the problem for atheism, it's fatal flaw, is that IF atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN my "decision" to initiate that series of mechanistic events and state-changes which resulted in boiling water was itself merely the mechanically necessary result of some prior set of state-changes; that is, under atheism, there are no such things as decisions, as we all intend that term, much less any such thing as free-will.

The two, and only two, logically possible metaphysics -- 

On the one hand, IF "theism" is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN the primal fact about reality is 'Mind' (***). That is, logically prior to anything else, before there are any states or events or state-changes, there is a mind, there is a rational being, there is a Who who freely chooses to act or not to act, who freely creates all else that is, who intends 'this' but not 'that'.

On the other hand, IF atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN the primal fact about reality is 'Not-Mind'. That is, definitionally: however it is that states, and state-changes, initially came to be, they came to be unintentionally, and thus any and all subsequent events and state changes are, and of necessity must be, the mechanistic result of prior events and state-changes. That is, under atheism, this initial unintentionality pervades all reality and for all time: for 'not-mind' cannot yield, cannot become, 'mind'. 

If 'mind' does not exist already at the initial state of the system, then 'mind' cannot be injected into the system at some later stage of events. For, whence comes this 'mind' to inject into the system? On the one hand, if 'mind' was always "just there, somewhere", waiting in the wings, so to speak, to be injected into the system when "needed" as an explanatory force, then one is just playing disingenuous word-games: one is denying the fundamental tenet of atheism while dishonestly asserting that one is not denying it. But on the other hand, if one asserts than 'mind' just "arises" within the system itself from 'not-mind', then one is *also* just playing disingenuous word-games: but in this case, one is asserting that 'mind' and 'not-mind' are the same thing.

Here is the issue: the existence of mechanistically necessary state-changes is compatible with "theism", but the free-and-intentional initiation of novel events and state-changes is utterly incompatible with atheism. 

Thus (as I said above), to assert that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality is simultaneously to assert the denial of all manner of things which one knows to be true of oneself, including, but not limited to: the freedom of one's will; one's ability to engage in logical reasoning; one's ability to discover truth and know that it is truth; the ability to discover that one has erred in one's reasoning and to correct the error and to know that one has indeed corrected the error.

To deny that God is is ultimately to deny that one's own self is. To put it in the form of a bumper-sticker: You are the proof that God is.

And this is why I contend that *all* 'atheists' and 'agnostics' are intellectually dishonest. And I include in that assessment even the likes of Patricia Churchland, who does with one side of her mouth deny the reality of free-will, while with the other side trying to convince people to believe the proposition that they are not free-wills.

==========

==========
(*) 'village atheist with an ethernet cable' is a phrase I have long used to denote and deride the sort of 'atheist' one typically encounters on the internet.

(**) Until just a couple of years ago, Alex O'Connor was as deliberately obnoxious as Richard Darwkins or Stephen Fry, or Christopher Hitchens.

(***) Some 'atheists' try to evade this problem by appealing to some sort of woo-woo, such as 'Panpsychism'. But, as I explain time and again, there is no such thing a 'Mind' unless there is at least one actually existing mind.

Finding oneself agreeing with Richard Dawkins

Meh. It happens.

Michael at 'Shadow to Light' Atheist Safe Spaces -- "While Dawkins is mocking the whole idea of safe spaces, and I happen to agree with him on this, he fails to realize that atheists have been the safe space pioneers. Someone said a prayer in school? There is a Christmas tree in school? There is a picture of the Ten Commandments in the school? MAKE IT STOP! The atheist students are being traumatised by the scary expressions of Christian belief. If you think about it, the Freedom From Religion Foundation should be renamed the Making Atheist Safe Spaces Foundation."

About 'tidy-minded engineers' and our 'backward' retina

The Pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, in particular, and DarwinDefenders in general, like to claim that the layout of the vertebrate retina is "backwards" ... and that this is proof of the Darwinistic UIND ('unintelligent nondesign', pronounced "wind"), which blows where it blows, with no rhyme nor reason. Dawkins argues (ha!) that as no "tidy-minded engineer" would ever design the vertebrate retina in the manner that we observe, ergo it wasn't designed, but rather, just happened.

Here, Cornelius Hunter discusses merely the most recent finding of *real* science (as distinct from the 'Science!' so beloved of DarwinDefenders) that shows Dawkins and the other DarwinDefenders to be *wrong* in claiming that our eyes are "wired backward" -- It’s Just Getting Worse: Our Retina Structure is “optimized for our vision purposes”

Here is a little something I first read about a good decade ago -- The Retinal Pigment Epithelium in Visual Function

Abstract
Located between vessels of the choriocapillaris and light-sensitive outer segments of the photoreceptors, the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) closely interacts with photoreceptors in the maintenance of visual function. Increasing knowledge of the multiple functions performed by the RPE improved the understanding of many diseases leading to blindness. This review summarizes the current knowledge of RPE functions and describes how failure of these functions causes loss of visual function. Mutations in genes that are expressed in the RPE can lead to photoreceptor degeneration. On the other hand, mutations in genes expressed in photoreceptors can lead to degenerations of the RPE. Thus both tissues can be regarded as a functional unit where both interacting partners depend on each other.

I. INTRODUCTION
The retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) is a monolayer of pigmented cells forming a part of the blood/retina barrier (72, 372, 492, 558). The apical membrane of the RPE faces the photoreceptor outer segments (Fig. 1). Long apical microvilli surround the light-sensitive outer segments establishing a complex of close structural interaction. With its basolateral membrane the RPE faces Bruch’s membrane, which separates the RPE from fenestrated endothelium of the choriocapillaris (Fig. 1).

[figure 1]

Summary of retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) functions. PEDF, pigment epithelium-derived growth factor; VEGF, vascular epithelium growth factor; Epithel, epithelium.

As a layer of pigmented cells the RPE absorbs the light energy focused by the lens on the retina (72, 86). The RPE transports ions, water, and metabolic end products from the subretinal space to the blood (144, 236, 369, 402, 558). The RPE takes up nutrients such as glucose, retinol, and fatty acids from the blood and delivers these nutrients to photoreceptors. Importantly, retinal is constantly exchanged between photoreceptors and the RPE (30, 58, 596). Photoreceptors are unable to reisomerize all-trans-retinal, formed after photon absorption, back into 11-cis-retinal. To maintain the photoreceptor excitability, retinal is transported to the RPE reisomerized to 11-cis-retinal and transported back to photoreceptors. This process is known as the visual cycle of retinal. Furthermore, the voltage-dependent ion conductance of the apical membrane enables the RPE to stabilize ion composition in the subretinal space, which is essential for the maintenance of photoreceptor excitability (144, 558, 559). Another function in the maintenance of photoreceptor excitability is the phagocytosis of shed photoreceptor outer segments (72, 170, 187, 575). The photoreceptor outer segments are digested, and essential substances such as retinal are recycled and returned to photoreceptors to rebuild light-sensitive outer segments from the base of the photoreceptors. In addition, the RPE is able to secrete a variety of growth factors helping to maintain the structural integrity of choriocapillaris endothelium and photoreceptors. Furthermore, the secretory activity of the RPE plays an important role in establishing the immune privilege of the eye by secreting immunosuppressive factors (280, 581). With these complex different functions, the RPE is essential for visual function. A failure of any one of these functions can lead to degeneration of the retina, loss of visual function, and blindness. In the following sections these functions will be described in more detail. ...

To put this into plain English: the supposed "backwards" design of the retina is actually critical to "maintain the photoreceptor excitability" of the cone and rod cells -- that is, to allow us to see as efficiently as we.

To put it another way, if Dawkins, being a "tidy minded engineer", had designed our eyes, our vision wouldn't be nearly as good as it is, and it wouldn't be nearly as fitted to how we actually live as it is. Since the photoreceptor cells couldn't react as quickly as they do to the *next* photon to strike them, we'd need to have much bigger eyes, with far more photoreceptor cells,to send the same amount of visual information to the brain. Or, perhaps our visual experience of the world would have to be as a series of stills, instead of smoothly flowing.


So, if it really were the case that our eyes were "wired backward" ... and that this were then proof that Darwinism, and atheism, are the truth about the nature of reality ... does the *real* scientific finding that they're not "wired backward" count as proof that Darwinism, and atheism, are falsehoods about the nature of reality? Of course not! For the "our eyes are wired backward" argument (ahem!) was never offered ion good-faith in the first place.

PZ Myers is spot on

Shadow to Light: Does Richard Dawkins Defend Pedophilia? -- “... PZ Myers is spot on when he observes that Dawkins['] position on pedophilia “sounds like something out of NAMBLA.””

Where was ol’ PZ ten years ago? Somehow, I can’t quite seem to squech the suspicion that there’s a reason he’s admitting this *now*, rather than then. In case Gentle Reader is unaware of it, the Gnu Atheists are presenty going through a period of self-cannibalization ... as is inevitable with groups of humans who insist upon denying reality and actual morality in favor of a contrary-to-reality "morality" that is based upon nothing more than political force and compulsion.

“Dawkins is clearly try to cast pedophiles as the victims. Am I wrong?”

It's of a piece with his false worldview and false anthropology -- which he admits, in public writing, that he himself doesn't even believe.

“Adult hang-ups?? Let’s get this straight. Some old man exploits some situation where he decides to touch, grab, and handle the genitals of a young child. If you think that is not just wrong, but very wrong, it’s because you have an “adult-hang-up.” And it is your “adult hang-up” that keeps you from understanding that since the child was not violently raped, nothing truly bad actually happened. In fact, what’s truly bad is that you have over-reacted because of your “adult hang-up.””

That's "liberalism" (i.e. "soft leftism") for you -- the immoral/criminal aggressor is always "the real victim", and the more so the more immoral and perverted the act, whereas those who dare to judge/condemn the act are the "real" aggressors.

This topsy-turvy black-is-white mindset is on display everywhere the leftists are actively working to overthrow traditional social understandings and norms. For example, not only can a "gay" person not help his/her sexual attractions (which belief is at least plausible, whether or not it's true in fact), but is helpless to resist expressing those attractions, and thus deserves sympathy (*) and *approval*. Meanwhile, if *you* disapprove of the public flaunting of and expressing of those attractions, you're a vile "homophobe" -- who *can* choose to be otherwise -- who deserves public censure and condemnation, and political/legal prosecution.

(*) that is, not sympathy in the sense of pity for suffering from a psycho-sexual abnormality, borne of an understanding of one's own broken nature, but sympathy in the sense of fawning celebration.

Make no mistake, in just a few short years, the leftist-atheist alliance will be giving the expression of pedophilia the same treatment they are currently giving the expression of same-sex attraction -- and *you* will be the vile, immoral criminal for trying to protect children from sexual predators.

Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks III

I suspect that I could make a new "Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks" post every day from the raw material provided by the 'atheists' who infest Michael Egnor's blog and not run the risk of exhausting the vein. Mind you, Gentle Reader, I'm not saying that any of these 'atheists' are themselves stupid. No, no, no: it's the tricks that are stupid; the 'atheists' are just intellectually dishonest.

Consider this recently unearthed gem, concerning a video to which Michael Egnor had linked --

troy: "Apart from the gullible and the demented, does anyone take that huckster still seriously?"

Ilíon: "We all know what you mean, troy. *Everything* about Dawkins, and especially that [prissy] sissy accent he uses, is hucksterish and quite annoying."

troy: "No, obviously I meant that huckster WLC. Except lining his own pockets at the expense of the gullible and demented, and making the insecure believers feel a little better about their superstitions, what do know now that we wouldn't have known without his 'scholarship'?"

And that, boys and girls, is atheistic "reasoning" in a nutshell.

Why is Willian Lane Craig a "huckster", who is "lining his own pockets at the expense of the gullible and demented"? Why is it that all he does is "making the insecure believers feel a little better about their superstitions"? Why is it that it is questionable there is anything we "know now that we wouldn't have known without his 'scholarship'"?

Why? One reason, and only one reason -- because he kicks atheistic butt, using logic they cannot counter; you know, logic, which 'atheists' like to imagine that they own, or even invented.

Why is it that Christians are "gullible and demented", who hold to "superstitions", rather than to ralional beliefs? Why is it that Christians are "insecure believers [who need someone to make them] feel a little better about their superstitions"?

Why? One reason, and only one reason -- because, in utter contrast to atheism, Christianity can be supported by evidence and logical reasoning ... and, because, moreover, even if evidence-and-logical-reason were to falsify Christianty, it remains forever the case that logical reasoning falsifies atheism.

This "projectile reasoning", as I call it -- this psychological "projection" having nothing to do with actually reasoning -- is how 'atheists' tend to "reason" about "religion", especially Christianity (*), and their own God-hatred.

Which is to say, they do not reason, for, they do the very opposite of reason. And this little example I've shown above really is standard-issue "reasoning" amongst the 'atheists' one will encounter on the internet or in real life.

(*) And really, other than Judaism, what other religion does *any* member of a Western society really care about?


BUT, let's play pretend -- let us pretend that some 'atheist', perhaps even this 'troy' (who brings disrepute to a noble name), has shown that WLC is a "huckster"; further, let us even pretend that some 'atheist', perhaps even this 'troy', has falsified Christianity, and thereby shown it to be a "superstitions" (which would, of course, seem to entail that Christians are "gullible and demented" "insecure believers [who need someone to make them] feel a little better about their superstitions).

NOW, having pretended the truth of these things that 'troy' asserts (but *never* even attempts to demonstrate), allow me to ask you: So, what?

Do you not get it? On top of his claims-of-fact, this so-called atheist is asserting moral claims -- he is asserting that there is an objective-and-transcendent moral reality, knowable to human beings, and to which we are obligated to conform ourselves.

As the old saying goes: what the Hell?! Where did that come from?

I'd raather spread memes than genes, anyway

Via Shadow to Light --

Richard Dawkins (in prissy 'posh' Brit accent): (at the 4:03 mark) "As for me, I'd raather spread memes than genes, anyway." -- this is the same fellow who, not so long ago, expressed the odd opinion that Pope Benedict's life has been a pathetic waste ... because he'd missed out on lots of sexual activity.

In other words, while Dawkins now (*) claims that he'd "raather spread memes than genes, anyway" (**), and that's a good and noble way to live, if Benedict spends his life "spread[ing] memes [rather] than genes, anyway", his life is a pathetic waste.


(*) the same Dawkins who claims that the desire for, and expectation of, sexual fidelity is somehow immature ... and immoral.

(**) but, of course, spreading your genetic material everywhere, with persons not your spouse, as Dawkins advocates and which practice he apparently has long-since enthusiastically embraced, is not quite the same thing as "spreading your genes".

Richard Dawkins is an inveterate liar

Dawkins, now: Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig -- This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him

Dawkins, then: There are no such things as 'right' and 'wrong'

Ilíon, then and now: Dawkins is an inveterate liar (and even admits as much in print)

edit:
Tim Stanley: Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig (Dr Tim Stanley is a research fellow in American History at Oxford University.)

There are probably no elevators; now stop worrying and have a nice chat

There are probably no elevators; now stop worrying and have a nice chat

Atheism, violence and human rights

Victor Reppert: Atheism, violence and human rights

Here is the final words of a comment on a Debunking Christianity thread:

I long for the day when you people are put into camps and made sterile, so you cannot spread your destructive hate and child abuse any longer.

There you have it. I argued at some length on this site a couple of years back that the logical conclusions of some of Richard Dawkins' ideas about child abuse lead logically to violence against Christians and the forcible denial of fundamental human rights to Christians by the government. I pointed out that even if Dawkins hadn't drawn out those conclusions from his own arguments, some of his followers would eventually do so. People tried to argue that, no, it really doesn't have to come to this, and he was just talking about Christians who frighten their children with hell to get them to be obedient.

Well, I was right. I hope Loftus will post a response saying that he does NOT approve this message. In the meantime, you have to start rethinking the argument that RELIGION leads to violence.

Generally, Dawkins does the thinking for vast numbers of self-identifying atheists, including prominent ones (this is why I sometimes refer to him as "the Pope of Atheism") -- but, regarding this meme, one might well say that Dawkins was the follower, rather than the leader.

I've had this wish, sans the "child abuse" rationalization, "jokingly" tossed in my virtual face years before Dawkins infamously equated a Christian upbringing with child abuse.

The desire to make Christians "go away" is strong within the "reality-based community." If they had the power to make us "go away," they would; if they ever think they have the power to make us "go away," they will use it.

Dawkins merely supplied the rationale to justify (in their own minds) a desire they already had.


AND, by the way, the quote-of-the-day "definition" of faith which leads off the thread in which Mr Reppert encountered that expression of the deepest longing of so many God-deniers is for shit:

Faith is a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition in spite of evidence that the belief is incorrect. Faith is clearly NOT a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition that is SUPPORTED by the evidence, because if that belief was supported by the evidence, it ipso facto does NOT REQUIRE Faith. [See on Faith]

... and John Loftus, who posted that quote, *knows* that it, and he, are misrepresenting what faith is.

This "definition" of faith is both tendentiously false ... and a case of atheistic "projection."

The Question Is

It seems to me, Gentle Reader, that the proper question is: "Are there *any* real atheists?" That is why I almost always put the word atheist in single-quotes, or write "so-called atheists" or "self-identifying atheists," when referring to specific (or generic) God-deniers. And, similarly with respect to 'agnostics.'

Victor Reppert links to this page, commenting:

There are no ex-atheists

I guess this is the atheist equivalent of the Fifth Point of Calvinism: There are no ex-atheists. People who claim to be atheists but became Christians [] were never REAL atheists in the first place.

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.- I John 2:19.

Now, no one is a Christian by birth (interestingly, some 'atheists' like to claim that everyone is born an atheist ... being a Christian, I would say that that is *almost* correct, the truth being that everyone is born in a state of enmity to God). Even if there were a person now living whose every ancestor going back 1800 or 1900 years had been a Christian, that person will not be, and cannot be, a Christian by virtue of his birth or ancestry. Everyone who has ever been, or will ever be, a Christian must decide to believe that the claims of Christianity, and the reasoning advanced in support of those claims, are true and sound, respectively.

To put it into the form of an aphorism: "God has no grandchildren."

Now, the truth-claims of Christianity are not changing. The evidence advanced for those truth-claims, the evidence upon which one will reason whether to embrace or reject its truth-claims, is mostly not changing (by which I mean that such things as miracles at Lourdes are really superfluous). And, the rules of logic, the rules by which we judge an act of reasoning to be valid or invalid, are not changing.

AND, truth does not change to un-truth, nor un-truth to truth. Thus, if the truth-claims of Christianity are true, they are always true, now and forever.

And so, if a person examines the truth-claims of Christianity, and the evidence advanced in support of these truth-claims, and decides to become a Christian, but later renounces this decision, then EITHER:

1) his initial decision was based on some error; meaning that, either:
1a) the evidence advanced/presented to him did not really support the decision he made;
1b) his reasoning on that evidence was logically invalid in some way;
OR:
2) his subsequent decision to renounce the prior decision was logically invalid.

That is, EITHER his initial decision to become a Christian was logically invalid (which still doesn't tell us anything about the logical validity of Christianity itself), meaning that he didn't really understand the decision he made, OR his subsequent decision to renounce Christianity was logically invalid.

And, the above doesn't begin to address that persons have "converted" to Christianity for many reasons other than a rational examination of its claims and evidence; for instance, social convenience.

And so, this New Testament verse Mr Reppert quotes is saying something very different from the (increasingly common) atheistic claim or argument that anyone who self-identifies as an atheist and later converts to Christianity was never an atheist in the first place.

The "reasoning" of 'atheists' on this seems to be something like this:

1) There are no, nor can be any, real evidence(s) nor rational argument(s) to support the belief that God is;
1a) therefore, atheism (God-denial) is ipso facto rational;
1b) therefore, Christianity and Judaism are are ipso facto irrational;
2) Rational persons do not embrace irrational beliefs;
2a) therefore, 'atheists' (God-deniers) are ipso facto rational persons;
2b) therefore, Christians and Jews are ipso facto irrational persons;
3) Therefore, anyone who previously denied that God is, but now embraces Christianity (or Judaism) is not a rational person;
3a) therefore, he never was a rational person;
3b) therefore, he never was really an atheist in the first place.

Now, as to my initial question: "Are there *any* real atheists?"

Just as one can't *really* be a Christian (no matter what one calls oneself) while denying the divinity of Jesus, the Christ, so too, one cannot *really* be an atheist (no matter what one calls oneself) while denying the propositions which *must* be true if atheism is the truth about the nature of reality. If one calls oneself a Christian, or advocates that Christianity is true, yet denies the divinity of Christ, then either one does not *understand* what one is claiming/advocating, or one is a liar. If one calls oneself an atheist, or advocates God-denial, yet denies the logical consequences of atheism, then either one does not *understand* what one is claiming/advocating, or one is a liar.

Friedrich Nietzsche might have been a real atheist (for a *real* atheist is simultaneously a nihilist). Bertrand Russell was just a poseur.

Of living famous so-called atheists, Daniel Dennett, and Paul and Patricia Churchland seem to come closest to being real atheists ... and all three are still just poseurs. And Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous of living God-deniers? He's just a fool and a liar (there is a redundancy in that statement); he's a mere poseur -- who *knows* he's a mere poseur -- who doesn't even come close to being a real atheist.

The three I mentioned come close to being real atheists because they understand and acknowledge certain unwelcome truths (*) which logically follow from the denial, and therefore *must* be true if the denial is true, that we are creations of the transcendent God. For instance, acknowledging (some of) the inescapable logical entailments of atheism, they assert such things as:
1) consciousness in "an illusion;"
2) there is no self;
3) there is no free-will (**);
(they are fond of denigrating the concepts 'consciousness' and 'self' and 'free-will' as "folk psychology," by which they mean something like "the erroneous-and-unscientific beliefs-about-themselves-and-about-their-natures of ignorant-and-prescientific persons").

BUT, they are poseurs because they don't really believe these things they acknowledge and assert; certainly, they do not believe these things to be true of themselves ... but they also don't believe them to be true of you and me (so, they are not solipsists). For instance, they try to convince you (whom they assert doesn't even exist) that you do not exist -- the mere attempt to convince you of anything is the acknowledgement that you exist, that you are a self, that you are a reasoning self, that you are a self who may freely embrace or reject the claim being advanced.

Now, it is true that their attempts to convince you that you are an illusion are built mostly on bluster and attempted intimidation (Just LOOK at my credentials!) and hand-waving (among other things, the "folk psychology" trope); it is true that there is precious little reason in their argumentation (and, given the content and the target, how can it be otherwise?). But nonetheless, the fact remains: they're still trying to convince you to believe the false things they want you to believe about reality and about yourself. They have no choice, really:
1) since you *are* a self, a reasoning being, if they want you to believe that you are not a self, nor a reasoning being, they *must* somehow convince you to believe it;
2) since what they want you to believe is false, and anti-rational, they *must* resort to anti-rational argumentation: assertion, bluster, intimidation, equivocation, burden-shifting, and so forth.


(*) That is, these propositions are unwelcome to most self-identifying atheists and agnostics -- most of those folk will do any number and sort of logical contortion to avoid even noticing these propositions, much less admitting that they are truth-claims which logically follow from God-denial.

(**) Almost every discussion of, or reference to, "free-will" is mis-stated: it is not that we *have* something called "free-will;" rather, it is that we *are* free-wills.

The argument from ancient credulity

Victor Repport has a recent post called 'The argument from ancient credulity:'

A popular argument against the New Testament miracle claims is to say that ancient peoples were credulous and would be disinclined to doubt miracle claims in general. Glenn Miller responds, mostly, to Richard Carrier on this point, suggesting that present-day skeptics overrate ancient credulity.

The response by Glenn Miller to this (so-called) argument that Reppert references is here.

I have a few thoughts to add:
1) my post called ''Science! and Miracles ... and Skepticism!'
2) Richard Dawkins' (and his acolytes') amusing, and frequent, assertions that anti-Darwinists (and anti-atheists) are guilty of, and primarily motivated by, some logical fallacy he calls the "argument from incredulity" or the "argument from personal incredulity."

Because, as we all know, credulity is such a Good Thing (*).

This "argument from ancient credulity" is but one more instance of the intellectual dishonesty which is epidemic amongst God-deniers. When it suits their purposes, they will fault their opponents as being too credulous (or so they will assert of them). When it suits their purposes, they will fault their opponents as being not credulous enough for continuing to be unimpressed by their assertions which they imagine are arguments.

And, meanwhile, when it suits their purposes, they will be credulous or incredulous, as the need of the moment dictates.


(*) So, keep this in mind, Gentle Reader:
God-deniers (and Darwinists, and "liberals") are frequently credulous; they're frequently believe any damned fool thing, just so long as it doesn't appear to call into question what is really important to them.

Basil's Car ... and Justice

This post is offered in fulfillment of an implied promise I'd made to 'Crude' to "dig up and post my analys/smackdown of Richard Dawkins' "Dangerous Idea"."

Gentle Reader may, at his leisure, peruse Mr Dawkins' "Dangerous Idea" in his essay 'Let's all stop beating Basil's car.'

And, in contrast, here is C.S.Lewis' 'The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.'

There are three main points I wish to make here:

1. Richard Dawkins is a liar (worse than a mere liar, actually, as I'll explain) ... and that he admits so, in print;
2. Richard Dawkins' "Dangerous Idea" is inhumane, and anti-human, and anti-justice; it is a sure 'Road to Hell' for any society to operate as though his assertions were true;
3. Richard Dawkins' atheism compels him to assert these false and wicked things which he doesn't himself believe.

(I'll explain point #1 last) #2 Richard Dawkins' "Dangerous Idea" is inhumane, and anti-human, and anti-justice; it is a sure Road to Hell for any society to operate as though his assertions were true The introduction to Dawkins' essay:

Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution. There may be passing mention of deterrence or rehabilitation, but the surrounding rhetoric gives the game away. People want to kill a criminal as payback for the horrible things he did. Or they want to give "satisfaction' to the victims of the crime or their relatives. An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as "atonement' for "sin'. Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. ...

Punishment primarily for the sake of "deterrence" or "rehabilitation" is immoral, it is wicked (see Lewis' essay). The proper end of punishment is exactly "retribution," which is to say, "just deserts." Any moral, just, and proper rationale for inflicting punishment on a person must primarily involve the fact that he deserves it; if the punishment should happen to accomplish other good, that is bonus. But notice: Mr Dawkins is trying to raising a moral objection (to be more precise, moralistic, rather than moral) to retribution-as-justice; which is to say, he is objecting to justice, period. He is not putting forth an argument, mind you, but merely making an objection -- though one that gets any force it may ever have from his reader's willingness to be emotionally cowed or shamed by the baseless assertion that one is somehow immoral and/or "unscientific" if one believes that retribution is fit and proper when deserved. On a side note, the Christian understanding of the meaning of the Crucifixion may be incomplete, but that is a very different thing from being flawed, warped, or disgusting. AND -- considering what he wants *you* to believe to be true about the nature of reality -- where does he get off asserting that the Christian understanding of the meaning of the Crucifixion is "[a]n especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution," anyway? IF his other assertions in the article are true, then this assertion about Christianity is, at best, meaningless. Richard Dawkins holds forth with the "argument" for his "Dangerous Idea:"

... Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software. ... Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes? Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me). But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car? Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. ...

Note, first, that nowhere in his essay does Mr Dawkins actually present a logical argument supporting what he wants to convince his reader to believe to be the truth about the human condition and the nature of reality. Now, on my point here, rather than reinventing the wheel from scratch, I first direct Gentle Reader's attention to C.S.Lewis' 'The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.' The thrust of Dawkins' "Basil's Car" argument, such as it is, is not that punishing people for their behavior may be ineffective in modifying their behavior, but rather that the concept of punishment is a category error. For, he starts with the assertion that human beings are not agents, any more than an automobile is; and since (as he asserts) humans are not agents, then they logically cannot be morally responsible for their behaviors. From the "Basil's Car" pseudo-argument, it is clear that Dawkins would have no philosophic difficulty with inflicting upon "criminals" the sorts of unpleasant conditions we already do ... just so long as it's not conceived as deserved punishment, but rather as therapy; that is, to "track down the problem [of their behavior] and fix it." Punishing (or, as we should say, "punishing") people for the primary purpose of modifying their behavior (i.e. "track[ing] down the problem and fix[ing] it") is exactly what Lewis is arguing against in 'The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.' To punish a miscreant because he deserves to be punished is to affirm that he is a moral and rational being (and that we all are); to subject persons to certain conditions for the express purpose of "track[ing] down the problem [of their behavior] and fix[ing] it" is to deny all humans' status as moral and rational beings; it is to subvert actual justice. Once the immoral and unjust "therapeutic" model of "criminal justice" fully supplants the moral and properly just "retributive" model, there remains no philosophic hindrance to "punishing" some persons for "crimes" which they did not commit. For, after all, under the "therapeutic" model the philosophic rationale for the "punishment" is not actually to deservedly punish behavior which has occurred, but rather to deter behavior which has not occurred. And "punishing" the innocent may oftentimes be even more effective for that end than punishing the guilty. #3 Richard Dawkins' atheism compels him to assert these false and wicked things which he doesn't himself believe In the "Basil's Car" pseudo-argument, Dawkins asserts:

1. that ALL things are fully explicable in terms of physics and mechanistic processes working out the effects of "antecedent conditions" -- that is, he asserts that materialism is the truth about the nature of reality;
2. that there as no such things as 'good' and 'evil,' as men have always understood those terms, and certainly not with respect to morality;
3. that we imagine the terms 'good' and 'evil' refer to real things is but the result of a "mental construct" -- constructed by a mindless and goalless mechanistic "process" -- and is similar to the fact that we breathe and eat;
4. that agency is a fiction we construct in our brains about ourselves and others -- that is, he asserts that we ourselves do not actually exist, but that even if we did exist, we could not *choose* to do or not to do;
5. that assigning blame (or praise!) is an aspect of the fiction that we, and others, are agents;
6. that we construct this fiction to avoid knowing the truth about ourselves.

His implicit reasoning behind these assertions is logical, his assertions/conclusiosn logically follow from his mechanistic/materialistic view of the nature of reality; the problem is in his false foundational premise: atheism. And YET, for all that these assertions are logically consistent with his foundational premise, the whole structure of it is all vastly incoherent -- FOR human beings exist and these claims are about us, and they are false with respect to us. For one thing, if we are not really agents, then we cannot *ever* understand anything -- if we were indeed not agents, then we could never know that we are not agents. (I've explored this logical inevitability at more length in this post: You Cannot Reason.) The point now is that the claims he advances in this essay -- that concepts such as 'right' and 'wrong' and 'blame' and 'responsibility' are "outmoded" and false and "unscientific," for these and similar concepts refer to non-existent things -- follow directly from atheism. As I have explained in the You Cannot Reason thread:

GIVEN the reality of the natural/physical/material world, IF atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, THEN everything which exists and/or transpires must be wholly reducible, without remainder, to purely physical/material states and causes.

IF atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN however it is that the world, and all that is in it, happens to exist, it is not (and cannot be) the result of an intention or intentions (I've explored this logical inevitability at more length in this post: The First Question), and *everything* must be wholly explicable and reducible, without remainder, to purely physical/material states and causes -- because, logically, that would be *all* "the universe" ever has with which to "work." Of course, were atheism/materialism the truth about the nature of reality, then we cannot state, and certainly cannot grasp the truth of, the prior paragraph. Dawkins' assertions listed above are false, but they inescapably follow from the denial that there is a Creator -- this is why so many so-called atheists like to wave around the word 'emergence' as though it were a magical talisman. That the majority of self-professed atheists refuse to grapple with the logical entailments of atheism is quite irrelevant to the truth of the matter -- one simply cannot be a logically consistent atheist and simultaneously believe that any person is responsible for any behavior or choices. Another way to put this is that one simply cannot be a logically consistent atheist and believe that "free will" exists. Another way to put this is that if atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then there are actually no such things as choices, as we have always understood them to be, for there exists nothing with the ability to choose. But, notice also, that if one is a logically consistent atheist, them one must, perforce, be irrational and incoherent! To be logically consistent (as an atheist), one must choose to become illogical! It's mind-boggling, isn't it? #1 Richard Dawkins is a liar, and admits so, in print This is easy to show. Let us now ignore the content of Mr Dawkins' "Dangerous Idea" and his argument (such as it is) aiming to convince others of its truth, let us ignore its inhumane implications, and consider merely the conclusion of the piece:

"... My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this [i.e. believing certain allegedly "unscientific" concepts] and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment."

Now, what does it mean to allege that some person lacks "enlightenment" with respect to some idea or concept? It is to assert that he does not (at least yet) understand it, and thus does not (at least yet) grasp the alleged truth of it, and therefore does not (at least yet) believe it to be true. But, this is not *me* asserting that Mr Dawkins lacks "enlightenment" about this or that; this is Mr Dawkins asserting about himself that he lacks "enlightenment" about the very thing he's trying to convince you to believe is the true picture of yourself and of everyone you know and of all reality. The man is a liar, and he admits so in print: He seeks to convince you to believe -- on the basis of nothing more substantial than the "authority" of his prestige and social status -- that which he admits that he does not himself believe, and recognizes that he probably never shall believe. Mr Dawkins says, on one hand, that the rational and "scientific," and hence *right* thing to do, is to reject the God of the Bible and the morality which follows from that God. And then, on the other hand, he seems to be saying that he hopes to one day arrive at a place where he no longer holds moral convictions at all -- including the "moral" convictions that we *ought* to reject God and accept "Darwinism." The man's not only a liar, and worse than a liar: he's incoherent and irrational. #1a Richard Dawkins is worse than a mere liar This goes back to something I'm forever, it seems, talking about: the moral and rational distinction between mere lying and intellectual dishonesty. Mere lying is episodic; but intellectual dishonesty is systemic. Mere lying is episodic: The man who is a mere liar lies about this or that truth-claim. To be sure, he may lie constantly, he may lie when there in "no percentage" (as the saying goes) to doing so, he may even lie when doing so defeats his own self-interest. He may act outraged when caught out ... but his lies depend upon truth being truth and reason being reason. On the other hand, intellectual dishonesty is systemic: The man who is intellectually dishonest, such as a Dawkins or an Obama, lies about the very natures of truth and reason themselves. To be sure, the intellectually dishonest man lies about this or that truth-claim, but the main thrust of his lies is to murder truth itself, to make rational reasoning difficult or impossible. As hypocrisy is to morality, so intellectual dishonesty is to reason. Intellectual dishonesty is hypocrisy with respect to truth and reason. Consider just this one assertion he has made in the article: "But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment." Now, consider his purpose in this article: to assert (and browbeat the reader into assenting) that it is blameworthy for human beings to hold to the supposedly primitive and outmoded and "unscientific" concepts of blame and responsibility, and punishment. According to this paragon of reason (and we know he is, for he has told us so!), no one is blameworthy -- or praiseworthy! -- for anything; rather, all behaviors of human beings are due to "antecedent conditions acting through the [person's] physiology, heredity and environment." But, at the same time, *you* are blameworthy if you do not agree with the prior assertion. ===========
(On a really weird side-note, the MS Word spellchecker knows that "Dawkin" or "Dawkin's" is a misspelling.)