The Logical Atheist

A popular skeptical atheist celebrity often cites Carl Sagan's maxim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I think that's right. But our skeptical atheist goes on to show that he's far from a true skeptic. (No true skeptic....) So this person offers this example: if someone tells him that he owns a dog, he's willing to believe this ordinary claim because the skeptic knows that people and dogs exist; he knows that people own dogs; and so on. The purported dog owner might show his interlocutor a dog collar and some doggie treats, which our skeptic is willing to accept as evidence. That's fine, of course. But it shouldn't be fine for a true skeptic. A true skeptic would challenge every piece of evidence for the person's owning a dog. Why? Maybe the person is a liar. Maybe the person is a hologram. Maybe the skeptic is hallucinating. Maybe the skeptic is just a brain in a vat. As W. S. Gilbert has a character sing in H.M.S. Pinafo

Let's face it: for many people the word  atheism and related terms are off-putting. It's been freighted with so much baggage over the centuries that for a long time people were reluctant to claim the label. It's understandable, and I'm happy that has changed. It's been a favorite insult even when it was incorrect. Theodore Roosevelt called Thomas Paine, author of The Age of Reason , a "filthy little atheist." There was just one three problems: Paine was immaculately clean; he was tall; and he (like many of the founders) was a deist. TR wasn't a stickler for facts apparently. Since believers from time immemorial have thought that without God morality is impossible, the conclusion followed that atheists were amoralists -- good and bad were not among their concerns. (Of course the error is in thinking that God is or could be the source of objective ethics .) Let's recall the time when atheists couldn't testify in court because no greater powe