The Logical Atheist

Aristotle (385-323 BCE) Atheists properly balk at the question Why are we here?  because unless this is a request for a description of human reproduction, the question implies that a transcendent intelligence placed us here for a reason--a most flagrant case of question-begging. On the other hand, Aristotle and his fellow Greek philosophers had a notion that human beings, as creatures with a nature significantly different from other living and nonliving things, had a proper way of to live appropriate to that nature; that is, a function. He used the term final cause  in this respect,  by which he meant the ultimate end, or telos , toward which a thing tends under normal circumstances precisely because it is the kind of thing it is.  Think of the relationship between an acorn and oak tree, though unlike a human being, an acorn does not act to fulfill its function. Think further of the relationship between the eye and sight. These are not evidences of intelligent design...

Aristotle identifies the distinctively human capacity for reason and speech as the basis of our being naturally political animals, for it enables us to pursue our goals through discussion with one another. Moreover, Aristotle famously regards logos , reason or speech, as the essential trait around which a flourishing human life must be organized. This, it seems, is why Aristotle regards it as an essential component of a truly human life to deal with others politically , i.e., through reason and discourse–i.e., as conversation partners. But such an ideal creates a strong presumption  against the use of force, and in favor of relying on persuasion as far as possible.... To deal with others by force is to act in a subhuman manner, like a beast of prey; we live a more human life (and therefore, in Aristotelian terms, a better life) to the extent that our relations with other people embody reason and persuasion rather than coercion. Therefore, the need to avoid the besti...

 [A]theism was a narrative possibility within Greek myth. A world without gods could be imagined. The possibility that the Olympian gods might cease to exist (or at least to hold power over the cosmos, which amounts to the same thing) was built into the Greeks' story-world. --Tim Whitmarsh, Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World

 [W]hy should we believe that it is our flourishing [and all it implies about treating others justly] rather than our bare survival that serves as our natural end and so constitutes our self-interest?... [O]n an Aristotelian conception of rationality, one may legitimately take the fact that a goal of flourishing coheres better than a goal of bare survival with our other moral beliefs as a sufficient (though defeasible) justification for believing that flourishing rather than bare survival is our natural end.... [Philosophers such as J. L. Mackie and Ayn Rand] would no doubt object strenuously to the idea of using premises about value to derive conclusions about human nature. But for the Aristotelian, once gain, the growth of knowledge is not a matter of rigid hierarchies but of networks of mutual adjustment, and no privileged class of beliefs holds absolute veto power over beliefs of another class. Hence, we are justified in taking the greater moral appeal of flourishing survival a...

Atheist call-in show hosts like to glibly dismiss some theistic callers as guilty of using the  argumentum ad populum ; that's the claim that a proposition must be true because lots of people believe it to be true. This is considered an informal fallacy  and a fallacy of relevance rather than a formal, or logical, fallacy. But is it really a fallacy? It depends, as we'll see. I'll say right at the top that no less a thinker than Aristotle held that our knowledge is and should be chock full of endoxa , which is Greek for reputable beliefs that almost all people hold without having personally confirmed them. Oops, by dropping Aristotle's name, did I just commit the fallacy of the argument from authority  ( argumentum ab auctoritate ) ? We'll see. When I said above that "it depends," part of what I meant is that it depends on how we phrase the alleged fallacy. "That most everyone believes X is true proves that X is true" is clearly fallacious. But h...

Does rejection of God-based morality--that is, commandments from really on high--leave utilitarianism as the only reasonable approach to ethics? Some atheists think so. Let's start with the definition. Utilitarianism holds that we ought to pursue the greatest happiness/pleasure/good for the greatest number. It sounds reasonable and simple enough, but philosophical critiques of utilitarianism abound. I'll briefly touch on a few points. We could begin by asking why that ought to be our goal. Is this a subjective preference, or can an objective case be made? If it's subjective, then why that one rather than something else? We may wonder whether it's a problem for the theory that people have different ideas about happiness and pleasure. To pick an extreme example, think of the masochists and sadists. Do they count? And do only people count? Moreover, isn't it possible that the two parts of the principle might conflict? Why the greatest happiness for the greatest number?...

By free-thinking I mean the use of the understanding in endeavoring to find out the meaning of any proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the evidence for or against it, and in judging of it according to the seeming force or weakness of the evidence.  --Anthony Collins, Discourse of Free-Thinking , 1713