The Logical Atheist

When will the "skeptical" atheists, who seem to value doubt more than reason, get it? Explanation presupposes existence , not vice versa. How could it be otherwise? How could one imagine anything being the explanation for or cause  everything? If it were explanatory, it would have to exist in its own right and hence be part of existence. Or perhaps it created itself? Yet how could that be? It would defy logic.  Yet atheists who strike the skeptic's pose proudly declare that they do not know why existence exists -- as though it could do anything else. They would rather be ignorant than logical. That makes no sense. "The natural universe sets the context in which explanation is possible," George H. Smith writes in  Atheism: The Case Against God , "so the concept of explanation cannot legitimately be extended to the universe as a whole."

The destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone precipitated from Heaven in the form of rain; the blowing down the walls of Jericho with rams' horns, by the triumphant march of the priesthood round the city; the marvellous and frightful story of the witch of Endor; the woeful condition of Daniel in the den of lions; the hot sultry situation of Shadrach and his two companions in the fiery furnace; together with the unnatural and hopeless abode of poor Jonah in the belly of the whale; all these are specimens of that miserable and disgusting extravagance with which this "Holy Bible" is every where replete. These are a few out of the number of that long catalogue of foolish detail for which the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are so remarkable. If any man of the present day, who writes for the instruction and benefit of mankind, were to interlard his works with such idle, extravagant, and useless stories, he would be considered in a state of ...

The highest delight of theology is the destruction of the beauty, order, and harmony of the universe. A world regularly existing from all eternity, and continuing so to exist through an endless futurity, would be, in the estimation of supernatural theology, an object of disgust. To nourish the superstitious pride and folly of man, it is necessary to derange, overturn, and destroy the splendid beauties and majestic grandeur of the vast empire of Nature. Not content with the scheme of prediction, whose fulfilment includ[ed] the ultimate dissolution of the earth, Superstition conceived it was necessary to retrace and discover in the history of past ages, an event equally distressing and terrific. For this purpose the story of the universal deluge was contrived, in which all the animals on the surface of the earth, a select number only excepted, fell a sacrifice to the vindictive vengeance of the Jewish God. --Elihu Palmer (1764-1806), Principles of Nature; or, A Development of  the Mo...

Christian philosophers themselves have acceded to the axiom, that from nothing, nothing can be made; if this be true, as it clearly is, the eternal duration of the earth, in some form or other, will follow as a necessary consequence. --Elihu Palmer (1764-1806), Principles of Nature; or, A Development of  the Moral Causes of Happiness and Misery Among the Human Species

I just saw this quote from Patricia Churchland, a professor of neurophilosophy: "To understand the mind, we must understand the brain." Now this leads one's thoughts in perhaps unintended directions, although Churchland might not disagree with anything I'm about to say. It seems to be equally valid that to understand the brain, we must understand the mind. We must understand, in other words, what it means to understand, which is a mental, but not a brain, activity, as well as a state of being.  I don't see how it can make sense to try to understand what it means to understand if all we talk about is the brain. That sounds like a category mistake: how could neuroscience explain what understanding -- that is, comprehension -- is? Neuroscientists can talk from now till the end of time about what goes on in the brain when we engage in mental activities, but that is nothing like explaining what those activities are in themselves. I am not aware of my brain activity, bu...

When did the light of science begin to extend its benign influence over the surface of the globe? Was it at the commencement of the Christian era, and did it keep pace with the progressive belief of the Christian doctrines? Did the mind of man receive any impulse beneficial to the cause of knowledge, when this religion was first promulgated; and did the extension of useful information bear any justifiable relation to the diffusion of Christian principles? Did the world become either wiser or better after this religion had unfolded its genuine effects for more than fifteen centuries? Was this the cause of giving energy to the intellectual faculties of man? Were the genuine principles of science, which are contained in the system of nature, displayed and manifested by the establishment of this religion? In a word, has Christianity enlightened the world? No! But it has served as a means to suppress useful knowledge; for neither the commencement nor progressive establishment of this religi...

This then is Christian faith. Great God of Nature! Must we then renounce the justifiable exercise of all our faculties, in order to be happy? To attain felicity, is it necessary that we believe in contradictions? Must we deem cruelty one of the attributes of divinity? Must the benevolent mind be called to the view of murder, in order to be fitted for the performance of its essential duties? Must injustice and revenge be interwoven with the morality of man? Shall we never be permitted to love truth, admire nature, and practice a pure and genuine morality? Oh, superstition! how much thou hast to answer for! thine influence has corrupted the faculties of man, debased his heart, and rendered wretched the whole human race. Thou hast spread ruin, misery, and devastation over a beautiful and productive earth, and thou art deserving of the curses of every intelligent being in every part of the universe. --Elihu Palmer (1764-1806), Principles of Nature; or, A Development of the Moral Causes of ...