The Logical Atheist

Spinoza demolished the intelligent-design argument for God by noting that, contrary to the theists, the universe does not exhibit order. What it exhibits is (the law of) identity. Each thing is what it is -- it has a specific nature -- and does what it does by virtue of its nature. How else could it be?  Thus there is nothing else -- such as order -- to explain. Spinoza was a clever guy! See George H. Smith's article "Freethought and Freedom: Benedict Spinoza" for more detail. 

I sadly must report the death of George H. Smith on April 8. He was 73 and had been in poor health. Smith will be no stranger to readers of this blog, which was inspired by his writings. I was fortunate to have known George since the 1970s and to have had many conversations with him. He was self-educated and nothing short of brilliant. He wrote perhaps the best book ever on why belief in gods or God is not just mistaken but illogical: Atheism: The Case against God  (1974). (The 2016 edition has a foreword by Lawrence Krauss.) Smith wrote two other books that deal with the philosophy and history of freethought: Why Atheism?  (2000) and Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies (1991) .  He also wrote dozens of essays on the intellectual history of individualism, liberty, and anarchism. Many of these can be found at Libertarianism.org . Some of his essays have been compiled as books, available at Amazon .  As I've pointed out often , Smith's work in my view is far superior...

When will the "skeptical" atheists, who seem to value doubt more than reason, get it? Explanation presupposes existence , not vice versa. How could it be otherwise? How could one imagine anything being the explanation for or cause  everything? If it were explanatory, it would have to exist in its own right and hence be part of existence. Or perhaps it created itself? Yet how could that be? It would defy logic.  Yet atheists who strike the skeptic's pose proudly declare that they do not know why existence exists -- as though it could do anything else. They would rather be ignorant than logical. That makes no sense. "The natural universe sets the context in which explanation is possible," George H. Smith writes in  Atheism: The Case Against God , "so the concept of explanation cannot legitimately be extended to the universe as a whole."

The Ontological Argument maintains that the existence of an absolutely necessary being cannot be denied without self-contradiction. This concept of God, Kant says, is logically possible (i.e., it does not contain a contradiction), but we can never establish that something [exists] from a mere analysis of the corresponding concept. Real  possibility can never be inferred from logical  possibility. Indeed, a concept may be logically possible and yet cognitively empty, if it is impossible to conceive what it would be like to experience such a being. This latter point is important because, according to the Ontological Argument, if we can possibly conceive of an absolutely necessary being (God), then God must necessarily exist. Why? Because it would supposedly be contradictory to deny the existence of a being whose existence is absolutely necessary. If it is possible for the most real being to exist, then it must necessarily exist, because existence is part of [what] it means to be...

The contingency argument is generally considered to be the most sophisticated of the cosmological proofs for the existence of a god. Its structure is similar to the causal argument, but it attempts to establish the existence of a "necessary being" [which is said to be required by the fact that everything else is contingent on something else] rather than a first cause....   While we do observe causal dependency of specific entities within the universe, we do not observe a similar dependency with regard to matter itself. We do not observe the creation or annihilation of matter, so the claim that the universe as a whole is contingent cannot be supported by factual evidence. On the contrary, empirical evidence points to matter as a metaphysical primary, which cuts the ground from under any attempt to establish the contingency of the universe by empirical means.... Finally we should mention the underlying dogma of the contingency argument: the so-called "principle of sufficie...

We must ask if this "principle of universal doubt" is itself certain, or is it open to doubt as well? If it is known with certainty, at least one thing is beyond doubt, which makes the principle false. If, however, the principle is open to doubt --  i.e. , if it is not certain -- then on what grounds can the skeptic claim greater plausibility for his theory than any other other? --George H. Smith,  Atheism: The Case Against God , 1974

We must note the main source of confusion in the skeptical approach: the equation of knowledge and certainty with infallibility . When the skeptic claims that every knowledge claim should be doubted because man is capable of making mistakes, he is simply pointing out the obvious: that man is a fallible being. No one, not even the most resolute antiskeptic, will deny the point that man is fallible. (We must wonder, though, how the skeptic arrived at this knowledge. Is he certain  that man is fallible?)    The skeptic fails to realize that it precisely man's fallibility that generates the need for a science of knowledge. If man were infallible -- if all knowledge were given to him without the slightest possibility of error -- then the need for epistemological guidelines with which to verify ideas, with which to sort the true from the false, would not arise....  The skeptic ... starts from the same premise -- that man is fallible -- and uses it to argue that man can nev...

As I note here , when George H. Smith, in Atheism: The Case Against God , constructed a dialogue between a skeptic and an antiskeptic, the theist was the skeptic. That may be counterintuitive, but it shouldn't be. Smith explains that many theists, including career theologians, are happy to present what look like reason-based arguments for God for as long as they can. But as soon as they run into the wall of logic, as inevitably they must, they will abandon -- nay, turn against -- reason and become open skeptics. (The best ones, after pushing reason as far as they can, then proclaim the limit of reason without actually rejecting it. Aquinas and Maimonides come to mind.) I think it was philosopher Antony Flew who said that theists treat debates with atheists like a tennis game in which the net is dropped when it's their turn to hit the ball. Just so. When beaten by reason, those theists will demand that atheists prove that it is efficacious. They will even have the audacity to as...

Naturalism has the priority over supernaturalism, not because it is the more economical of two explanations, but because it is the only framework in which explanation is possible.... [T]he contest between naturalism and supernaturalism is not a battle between two rival modes of explanation, in which naturalism is selected because it is a better or more economical mode of explanation. Rather, naturalism is selected because it is the only possible  method of explanation. Naturalism is the only context in which the concept of explanation has meaning.   Once the theist removes himself from the framework of natural causality and the general principles or "laws" by which man comprehends the universe, he forfeits his epistemological right to the concept of explanation and precludes the possibility of explaining anything. --George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God , 1974

From George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God , in which he presents an invented dialogue between a Christian who resorts to skepticism to rebut rational arguments against the existence of the supernatural and an atheist antiskeptic. That's right; in Smith's view the Christian is the skeptic, in the philosophical sense of believing that reason is unable to yield knowledge about reality. By attacking reason the skeptic imagines he can clear the way for revelation and other nonrational justifications for his beliefs. He goes so far as to reject the reliability of the senses, which are at the base of our knowledge. Of course, he cannot attack the senses without at least implicitly relying on sensory evidence. Here is an excerpt: Skeptic : "But don't you agree that all we ever have direct awareness of is immediate sense data?" Antiskeptic:  "No. What we have direct awareness of is reality, and we are given this awareness through perception. Perception ...

"More and more the myths put about by these Christians are better known than the doctrines of the philosophers. Who has not heard the fable of Jesus' birth from a virgin or the stories of his crucifixion and resurrection? ...But the point is this, and the Christians would do well to heed it: One ought first to follow reason as a guide before accepting any belief, since anyone who believes without testing a doctrine is certain to be deceived.... Just as the charlatans of the cults take advantage of a simpleton's lack of education to lead him around by the nose, so too with the Christian teachers: they do not want to give or receive reasons for what they believe. Their favorite expressions are 'Do not ask questions, just believe!' and: 'Your faith will save you!' 'The wisdom of the world,' they say, 'is evil; to be simple is to be good.' If only they would undertake to answer my question--which I do not ask as one who is trying to understand t...

The theists get it wrong when they say we can spot design in the world the same way that we spot design when we find a watch in the woods. This is a bit strange. We spot a watch in the woods precisely because it stands out against the natural background. If all was designed, the watch ought to blend in. Here's another quote from George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God : The inferential process represented in the design argument is the reverse of what actually occurs. We conclude that a watch is the result of design, not because we see "that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose," but because we know by direct experience that watches are made by men. We do not, as [William] Paley insists, infer that a watch is made-made because we perceive design in it; rather we infer that a watch is designed because we know it is man-made.... ...In order to conclude that an object was designed, we must first establish that it was manufactured. Therefore,...

Many religious believers are hung up on existence. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" they ask, perplexed by the world around them. Here's the odd thing: many atheists are hung up on it too. I don't know how often I've heard hosts of atheist call-in shows say to a theist who raised this question: "The right answer is: I don't know." No it isn't! If you just stare at it for a bit, you'll see that it's a very bizarre question. I have to wonder why anyone ever thought to ask it. I want to say: what did you expect? Nothing, after all, is no thing . It's not a special sort of thing. It's the void, the absence, the zero. Nothing does not exist , and so nothing can come from nothing. Why should it be thought of as the default? Why does existence itself need explaining? Of course something exists. It's the only thing that could exist. And yes, it displays order. What would you expect of something that is subject to the law...

When the atheist is told that God is unknowable, he may interpret this claim in one of two ways. He may suppose, first, that the theist has acquired knowledge of a being that, by his own admission, cannot possibly be known; or, second, he may assume that the theist simply does not know what he is talking about. If the atheist regards the second assumption as far more likely, if he suspects the theist of uttering nonsense, this is partially because the first assumption is appallingly convenient. The theist, in affirming the existence of an unknowable being, ... [has] an all-purpose excuse for exempting [his] claim[] from the burden of proof and the canons of critical scrutiny. George H. Smith, Why Atheism?  (2000)

Contrary to what many people think, the intellectuals known as the New Atheists pull their punches in their case against theism. Indeed, because they promote a philosophically watered-down version of atheism, they are way too easy on religious believers. While engaged in a worthwhile cause, they go about it in a weak and self-subverting way. How so? By giving undeserved credit to their religious opponents. They could pull the rug right out from under them, but they don’t do it. Too bad. Here’s a typical example: in an interview with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Ron Reagan said this about his lack of belief in God: “You show me evidence, I’ll reconsider, but in the absence of evidence I do not believe.” You can find similar statements from the late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins , Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty,* Aron Ra,** and many others, all of whom I respect. Dawkins, a biologist, for example, writes, in The God Delusion , “The existence of God is a sc...