The Logical Atheist

Aristotle (385-323 BCE) At least some members of the New Atheists embrace skepticism in a general way to explain why they 1) reject belief in God exists and 2) also reject belief in the nonexistence or impossibility of God. So they endorse negative atheism, but not positive atheism. This is ironic because some theologians have embraced skepticism to explain why they believe in God. The atheists I have in mind say that our fallibility demonstrates that reason, although it usually works, is "limited" or is not "absolute." These are suspect terms though. Reason is of course limited in the sense that everything is limited: to exist is to exist as something specific, and to exist as something specific is to have a limited number of attributes. A is A means that A is limited to being A and cannot also be not-A (at the same time and in the same respect). This is hardly a controversial point. See Aristotle for details. As for reason not being absolute, this brin...

Benedict de Spinoza Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677),  Ethics , Appendix to Part One, "Concerning God" : All such [misconceptions about God or nature] spring from the notion commonly entertained, that all things in nature act as men themselves act, namely, with an end in view. It is accepted as certain, that God himself directs all things to a definite goal (for it is said that God made all things for man, and man that he might worship him). I will, therefore, consider this opinion, asking first, why it obtains general credence, and why all men are naturally so prone to adopt it? secondly, I will point out its falsity; and, lastly, I will show how it has given rise to prejudices about good and bad, right and wrong, praise and blame, order and confusion, beauty and ugliness, and the like….  [J]udging from the means which [human beings] are accustomed to prepare for themselves, they are bound to believe in some ruler or rulers of the universe endowed with h...

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...

Evidentialist atheists often conflate the concepts evidence and good evidence. But I see a world of difference between saying, "You offer no evidence for your belief" and "You offer no good evidence for your belief."It's an important distinction. First off, is it really true that theists offer no evidence whatever? In "Defensor Fidei," Roderick T. Long, an Aristotle and Wittgenstein scholar at Auburn University, says this not usually the case. Theists and atheists clearly use the word faith in different senses, which impedes the conversation. Long writes: It seems to me that what the word [ faith ] means in ordinary language is not belief that goes beyond the evidence, but rather belief that goes beyond one’s personal experience. To someone of skeptical tendencies these might of course come to the same thing, but for most of us they do not. My belief that Stonehenge exists is not based on personal experience (nor on demonstrative deduction therefrom),...

A favorite goal-attempt by theists against atheists is to argue that without God we could have no morality. That, in fact, is an own goal. How so? Right off the bat (to mix metaphors), even if the point were true, it wouldn't prove God's existence. The most it would do is show that if we want a moral society, we'd better persuade a whole lot of the people to that believe God exists. When atheists see things that way, it's call a "noble lie." But that's not what the theist intends, I presume. More fundamentally, the claim is just wrong. God is not needed for morality. I'll make just one point here. What is God's supposed relationship to morality, good and bad, right and wrong? Does God make it up as he goes along, or does God discover morality? Bertrand Russell had a go at this question in 1927 in "Why I Am Not a Christian." Russell wrote: If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation...

We've all heard the line "There are no atheists in foxholes," but are there any in pandemics? Before l I get to that, whenever hear the snide foxhole remark I immediately think of the comedian's one-liner: "I became an atheist because there are no atheists in foxholes." As an old antiwar activist, I can appreciate that. Anyway, I'm confident that atheists have been in foxholes, even though, fortunately, I've neither been in one nor have been anywhere near one. I'm confident about this, though, because we know there have been atheists on deathbeds. The late Christopher Hitchens comes to mind. As for pandemics, you just need to look on YouTube to find atheists persevering during these trying times. What we need during a pandemic are all kinds of people -- medical personnel, policymakers, and just regular folks -- who are uncompromisingly committed to reason. Atheism is really nothing more than an implication of such a commitment. Atheism is...

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...