The Logical Atheist

There is no need that I should go through the whole Pentateuch. If anyone pays attention to the way in which all the histories and precepts in these five books are set down promiscuously and without order, with no regard for dates; and further, how the same story is often repeated, sometimes in a different version, he will easily, I say, discern that all the materials were promiscuously collected and heaped together, in order that they might at some subsequent time be more readily examined and reduced to order. Not only these five books, but also the narratives contained in the remaining seven, going down to the destruction of the city [Jerusalem], are compiled in the same way. For who does not see that in Judges ii:6 a new historian is being quoted, who had also written of the deeds of Joshua, and that his words are simply copied? For after our historian has stated in the last chapter of the book of Joshua that Joshua died and was buried, and has promised, in the first chapter of Judg...

My summary of Gilbert Ryle ( The Concept of Mind , chapter 3, The Will ):  Denying freedom on the grounds of causality is like denying that the chessboard is an arena for surprise, innovation, purposiveness, aimlessness, attentiveness, inattentiveness, alertness, dullness, mindfulness, unmindfulness, determination, fecklessness, creativity, brilliance, foolishness, and stupidity because it is strictly "governed" by internal rules as well as the laws of physics. Those rules and laws "govern" the game but do not "ordain" the moves. If this is true of the chessboard, one can readily see that it is also true of the proverbial billiard table. Ryle's project was not to establish that the features I've listed exist; everyone knows them when they see them. He did not, he said, "intend to increase what we know about minds, but to rectify the logical geography of the knowledge which we already possess." In other words, the source of those things i...

Skeptics either have valid reasons for their universal doubting, or they have no valid reasons for it. If they have valid reasons, they surely know something that is valid, and they no longer are real skeptics. If they have no valid reasons, they have no reason to doubt. In the first case their position is inconsistent, and in the second case their position is irrational. Whichever way they turn, their position is untenable. --Celestine N. Bittle, Reality and the Mind , 1936

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

Skeptical atheists (who might better be called evidentialist atheists) like to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I think that obscures a fallacy committed by theists and many atheists alike. I agree with the principle, except for the caveat I will discuss shortly. I would put it this way: the evidence you require for a proposition ought to vary with its plausibility. Remember the three burdens that any sponsor of a proposition must bear: 1) the burden of coherence, 2) the burden of plausibility, and 3) the burden of proof. You don't get to #2 before meeting #1, and you don't get to #3 until you meet #2. If a proposition contains no logical contradiction, then we can move on to plausibility. Logical possibility doesn't guarantee material possibility. It makes sense to require stronger evidence for a less plausible or implausible proposition than for a more plausible proposition. That's just common sense, and most people understand it i...

What's the deal with prayer? Think about it: it seems aimed at getting Yahweh to do what he otherwise would not have done. Let's leave out the football players who pray for victory and stuff like that. We'll confine ourselves to serious things: praying that your very sick child will recover, or that you'll be able to feed your family, or that we won't go to war. Why would Yahweh need to be prayed to about such things? Doesn't the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe know the right thing to do without being begged by suffering supplicants? And besides, wouldn't Yahweh have foreseen the whole thing: the tragedy, the prayerful response, and his own response? Is this a game he plays, sort of like the cruel game he and the devil played with regard to Job? I just don't get it. By the way, whenever a pope is deathly ill and looks to be heading to his great reward, I hear Catholics urged to pray for him. Come again? If we...