The Logical Atheist

I sometimes hear atheists conflate natural law with divine law. While all theists presumably believe in natural law, not all natural-law advocates are theists. God is not the only posited source of law, either in the physical or moral sense. Natural law has often been described as what follows from the law of identity. To exist is to exist as something , that is, as an entity with a specific nature. A is A rather than non-A because it has some characteristics and not others. If that is so, then it follows that it will act or react according to its nature and the situations it finds itself. An acorn under suitable conditions will grow into an oak but never into a trash bin or an aluminum picnic table. Moreover, in the case of human beings, which also have a particular nature, some ways of living are suitable to flourishing and others are inimical. Hence the ideas of right and wrong, good and bad. Thus one can enthusiastically embrace natural law without God or religion. In fact, some pr...

Natural phenomena can be explained without resort to God. Human beings once could not imagine how lots of things happened, but we -- well, not me personally -- have made a lot of progress explaining things in the last few hundred years. That in itself should inform anyone who is tempted to say, "I can't imagine how X happens naturally, so God must be how." That's a colossal failure of the imagination in light of what science has delivered. But do scientific explanations add up to a proof that God does not exist? You might think so, but let's take another look. I draw here on George H. Smith's highly recommended  Why Atheism? Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the great Catholic philosopher, anticipating William of Occam (1285-1347) of razor fame, wrote: What can be accomplished by a few principles is not effected by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all things can be reduc...