Dogmatic Atheism?

If the word dogma denotes a set of first principles that cannot be questioned, then not all dogmas are bad. For good or ill, the word is a pejorative for many people, although it's all right for some religious folks. But atheists ought to realize they have a dogma too. No, not in the sense that the theists think. The atheists's dogma is -- or should be -- logic.

The laws of logic -- Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle -- are first principles that cannot be questioned -- without question-begging. Any argument against them would have to employ them if it was to qualify as an argument. (This is true of the senses also. You have to use sensory evidence in trying to make a case against sensory evidence.) Therefore, the laws are self-evident axioms, which means they cannot be rationally questioned. It also means they cannot be proved because they are what make the idea proof coherent and possible. Any attempt to show that these laws -- A is A; nothing can be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect; and everything is either A or not-A -- are not necessarily true must secretly use them or else the argument would have no force whatsoever. 

And that's just not kosher. (More on this in a future post.)

Full disclosure: my inspirations in matters metaphysical and epistemological are Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, George H. Smith, and Roderick T. Long, though of course this does not imply that I necessarily agree with them on everything. They, in turn and like me, were inspired by the ancient Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle. I have been further inspired by Benedict Spinoza, the great 17th-century Dutch naturalist philosopher; Ludwig Wittgenstein, one of the pioneers of British analytic philosophy; and Gilbert Ryle, the wonderful common-sense philosopher. (I expect that I'll soon add J. L. Austin to my list.)

Had I been more mischievous, I might have called this blog The Dogmatic Atheist.