The Logical Atheist

"Skeptical" atheists often admonish their theistic interlocutors thus: you have a hypothesis, namely, that God exists. So get out there and try to confirm it empirically -- better yet, try to disprove it. When you've done either, get back to me. This is said to be the proper way to acquire knowledge and to dispose of erroneous beliefs. Ignoring the logical problem with any notion of the supernatural (as if...), which I've discussed several times, the skeptic's admonition depends on epistemological considerations that were demolished in 1951, notably by W.V.O. Quine in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism."  (It's, again, a case of basking in the light of a long-dead star.) Specifically, the simplistic admonition depends on the analytic/synthetic dichotomy , which holds that meaningful statements can be only one of two kinds: 1) analytic: necessarily true by definition (convention) and so, as tautologies, uninformative about the world (e.g., cats are domestica...

I believe that the natural is supreme -- that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken -- that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer -- no power that worship can persuade or change -- no power that cares for man.  I believe that with infinite arms Nature embraces the all -- that there is no interference -- no chance -- that behind every event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond every event will be and must be the necessary and countless effects.  Man must protect himself. He cannot depend upon the supernatural -- upon an imaginary father in the skies. He must protect himself by finding the facts in Nature, by developing his brain, to the end that he may overcome the obstructions and take advantage of the forces of Nature. --Robert G. Ingersoll, "Why I Am Agnostic"

Dispensing with the concept soul  does not require us to dispense with the concept mind  -- as long as we remember that mind  is a verb, not a noun

Why the world began, or why life began ... I think are pseudo questions, because I can't imagine what an answer would look like. --W.V.O. Quine, Talking Philosophy (Brian Magee)

That question may not be as straightforward as it seems. I could rephrase it like this: do atheists seek a world without God-believers full stop or a world of rationalists? (I don't mean rationalists as opposed to empiricists, but those who govern themselves by reason, which includes sensory evidence). Alas, mere nonbelief and rationalism don't necessarily go hand in hand. Irrational atheists are not impossible.  Online celebrity atheists, who fancy themselves skeptics, claim the title negative atheists , by which they mean that with regard to God (as supernatural creator of the universe), they merely lack belief for want of convincing evidence. Their aim is to distinguish themselves from positive atheists , who are convinced that no God exists.  Negative atheists insist that their form of atheism need entail no other beliefs about anything. It's a mere lack of a particular belief. But that can't be true because they also believe that one ought to have evidence for all...

If, as many "skeptical" atheists maintain, we cannot be certain about facts ("capital-T Truth") and if statements of value are subjective and noncognitive, then why should atheists care what theists believe and why they believe it? Moreover, what standing do atheists have that entitles them to talk theists out of their deeply held beliefs? If atheists want to be taken seriously, they need to grapple with these issues. Otherwise, their mission -- and many see it as a mission -- is doomed. Many theists get this, but the atheists I have in mind just plunge ahead, boasting of their edgy "skepticism." This is a sad state of affairs for those of us who are committed to reason, logic, and objectivity in fact and value since those values are key to a humane society. The atheists I'm thinking of seemed to be in the thrall of philosophers who have long been seriously challenged if not discredited entirely. On both counts -- fact and value -- that challenge dates...

Strictly speaking, to think uncritically is not to think, just as to think illogically is not to think. (See Wittgenstein for details.)