The Logical Atheist

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...

Here's more from Auburn University philosopher Roderick T. Long ( Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand ) on coherentism and reflective equilibration . The point of all this is to show that we can rationally construct reality-based systems of belief that do not require infallibility. Aristotle thus appears to be counseling two steps. First, pursue a coherentist strategy for discovering first principles, by provisionally accepting all the beliefs that initially seem true or plausible to us (including, but not limited to, our perceptual beliefs) as defeasibly justified, and then try to see which candidates for first principles best cohere with our total set of beliefs in wide reflective equilibrium. Second, once the first principles have been thus identified, pursue a foundationalist strategy for demonstrating and thus explaining the truth of our initial beliefs (or some of them) by deriving them from these first principles. The things well-known to us are genuinely known but not ...

Just to recap what I reported here , this is from Leonard Peikoff's essay  "The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy" : In one sense, no  truths are "analytic." No proposition can be validated merely by "conceptual analysis"; the content of the concept--i.e. the characteristics of the existents it integrates--must be discovered and validated by observation, before any "analysis" is possible. In another sense, all  truths are "analytic." When some characteristic of an entity has  been discovered, the proposition ascribing it to the entity will be seen to be "logically true" (its opposite would contradict the meaning of the concept designating the entity). In either case, the analytic-logical-tautological vs. synthetic-factual dichotomy collapses. If you wonder about this, ponder the proposition  water is H 2 O.

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural -- that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world--not even in infinite space. I was free--free to think, to express my thoughts--free to live to my own ideal--free to live for myself and those I loved--free to use all my faculties, all my senses--free to spread imagination's wings--free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope--free to judge and determine for myself--free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past--free from popes and priests -- free from all the "called" and "set...

"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