The Complete and Utter Destruction of Modern Atheism

As I was watching some videos on YouTube, I came across one that attempted to show by metaphysics and knowledge justification that atheists are wrong. I didn't think it was very convincing, but it did cite as one of its sources an essay after which I title this blog entry. What surprises me is that the author Lenardos attempts to not only say that atheists have no justification for their beliefs about the universe, but also that they have been "destroyed," which seems more like "complete and utter crap." It baffles me to see articles like this, but in a world where people with no qualifications think themselves educated enough to speak on a topic without researching, this was bound to happen.

The entire essay is about 3700 words so I wouldn't expect anyone to read it, though I got through most of it without barfing. I will cite his major points and provide rebuttals as I think he rambles far too much for me to criticize every minor thing he says.

When one thinks of the modern day atheist, one may think of a rational person, perhaps a scientist, an empiricist; someone who deals with the hard facts found in the world around us, someone who does not accept unjustified beliefs.

Yes, that would be the goal. Unfortunately, imperfect as we all are, we can only strive toward this and we get closer all the time.

This paper will show that there is a disconnect between this image of the atheist compared to the implications of the basic elements that make up the atheists theory of reality. What I mean by this is: we are going to find that if any atheistic theory of reality is true, then there is no justification for any knowledge about a world around us.

So here we go, off on an intellectual journey. We'll see if my world gets blown to bits or if his arguments just fizzle out like that fire cracker you always got on the 4th of July while all the other kids' exploded and caused them great happiness.

Now, I am not saying that we don’t know about the world around us, I am just pointing out that the elements of any atheistic theory of reality do not allow for the justification of that knowledge. We must keep this in mind at all times. The question is not, can we know anything at all about the world; but, given any atheistic theory of reality, can we know anything about the world?

Well that would appear to be a fair question. In fact, it's a fair question if you replace the word "atheistic" with "theistic." Or "deistic." But let's see where he's going with this.

Here is a short list of necessary preconditions the atheist (or anyone for that matter) would need to support the above:

1. sense perceptions that tell about the world
2. the uniformity of nature
3. inductive principle
4. deductive principle

But we are not done yet, there is one more level, the very basic level: one’s theory of reality. One’s theory of reality is the glasses one uses to see everything else. It is this level that must have the elements to support the entire philosophical structure. If it does not, then the entire structure falls apart.

Up to this point, his logic seems to be sound. Or at least, I don't have any objections to it. Now here's the point where he starts to slip up.

In this paper we will examine the implications of all logically possible atheistic metaphysics, to see where they lead. I think you will be surprised. We will go step by step through all atheistic theories of reality. Not only will we show that the elements of all atheistic theories of reality are insufficient to justify sense perceptions, but all of them actively destroy the possibility for any justification of sense perceptions. The first thing we will find is that there are two main categories that all cosmologies fall into; they are atheism and theism (see chart 1)

 

 

The Theistic category says that one element of reality is the existence of God. The Atheistic category says that in the scheme of reality, no God exists. Since this is an antithesis, all cosmologies will have to fall into one of these two categories. In other words, there is no logical third option possible.

My first objection is his classification system. Why classify it according to belief in a God? Why do you think that is relevant at all? Why not according to culture or language or brain chemistry? All of those affect your perceptions of the world as well. Nevertheless, let's follow him down this path.

If everything is what it is by accident or unintentionally, then so is the way that every particle, atom and molecule interacts with every other particle, atom and molecule. There is no intent, reason or justification for them being as they are.

False. This is an equivocation. While it may be true that everything is what it is "unintentionally" (as intentions are typically thought of as coming from minds), that does not mean there is no reason or justification as to why they are as they are. It doesn't even matter if I don't know the reasons why things are as they are. I don't understand how oxygen and hydrogen react, but does that mean there is no reason for them to do so?

From a naturalist point of view, you can say things are what they are, but no justification can be applied to what or why they are. To do so would be to deny the basic concept of unintentionalism. So, there is no reason or possible justification for thinking that our sense perceptions give us information about the world around us. I am not saying that our perceptions don’t give us information about the world around us, I am just saying that the naturalist theory of reality does not allow for a justification that our sense perceptions do tell us about the world around us.

Now how do you make that leap? From "don't know why something is" to "no justification that your sense perceptions are accurate" is a non sequitur. Sorry.

Let me put it this way, given the elements of the naturalist’s theory of reality it is possible that our sense perceptions are telling us about the world around, but it is just as possible that they are not. We can never know.

Yes, it is true that our sense perceptions could be fundamentally completely wrong. I don't know why they would be, but it's possible, sure. Perhaps the question you should ask yourself, Lenardos, is, "do I have any reason to disbelieve my senses?" And not in an "oh, sometimes I can be wrong" kind of way but in a basic, conceptual way. Do you think that, largely, our senses are wrong about pretty much everything? The author seems to think they're OK, but also claims that I can't say that. So far he hasn't offered any real logical reason for me to believe him yet.

The next question is about unintentionalism. There are three possible positions here:

1. Everything is what it is unintentionally
2. Everything is what it is intentionally
3. Some things are what they are intentionally.

The latter two require an intender be involved either in all things or some things. May I suggest that a cosmic intender might be a problem for any atheistic position? So we are left with just unintentionalism, everything is what it is unintentionally. So, here we are at naturism.

It depends on what scale you ask that question. It may well have been unintentional for whatever process brought about the universe as we know it today, but some things are what they are intentionally due to natural beings capable of intent.

Since we have now shown that the only logically possible atheistic cosmologies are negationism and naturism, and since we have shown that neither of these can offer a justification for sense perceptions, we have shown that if ANY atheistic worldview is true, there can be no justification for sense perception.

You are correct in that on some level, we must assume it to be true that our senses do function in a way that accurately represents the reality we live in. What you haven't demonstrated is the idea that I have no reason whatsoever to believe that my sense perceptions are wrong, or what the alternative is in that case. But you don't offer one and in fact don't touch on the theist's position at all.

So, where does this leave the modern atheist? Let’s see: There is no reason for the atheist, given any atheistic theory of reality, to believe that his sense perceptions are telling him anything about the world around him. The basic assertion that his sense perceptions do tell him about the world around him is an unjustified belief.

No reason to believe that my sense perceptions tell me anything about the world around me? How about the world around me? Is that not a good reason to believe one exists? Do you recommend I reject this reality that I experience and instead stare at a wall for hours trying to come up with some way to  prove that I exist in a universe? I admit that it could be all wrong. It could just be an illusion or a trick that my mind is playing on me or a trick a god is playing on me, but I have no reason to think so. I do have every reason to believe that the world I see is the world that I am a part of and to not do so would be both irresponsible and insane.

What irks me is that you trot out this idea that because I can't conclusively prove that my sensory inputs are perfect, I have absolutely no justification in my beliefs about anything. You have not demonstrated this point (nor have you come close) but you speak as though you have "utterly destroyed" atheism. I still fail to see how the concept of a god has anything to do with this discussion. One point I would bring up to him is one that he thinks he has answered in his paper:

Objection 1— “You are in the same boat as I am, you can't justify sense perception from your theory of reality either!

Answer— First, the assertion that I can’t justify sense perception from my theory of reality is unproven, before you can make that assertion you have to provide the argument for it.

Second, it wouldn’t matter if I was in the same boat as you. That does not further or change your position. Regardless of who is in the boat with you, you still remain in the boat. The atheist's failure to justify sense perception from the elements of his theory of reality remains.

This objection is known as “Tu Quoque,” or the “You too! fallacy.” It is a fallacious means of reasoning. It falls under the category of “fallacies of relevance,” for the reason I mention above.

My assertion wouldn't need to be proven because you have provided no justification for your own senses based on a deity. I assume you do think that you have done so because if you hadn't this essay would have been irrelevant. However, you don't attempt to prove your position because you couldn't. Because as I've already said, the concept of gods has nothing to do with the discussion at all. My assumption is that you believe that a god (and not just any god, but the one you came up with in your own mind or believe because of your faulty perceptions) wouldn't deceive you with this reality. While that may sound more convincing, it's actually less convincing. On top of the assumptions that atheists make (that the universe exists, that we can know something about it, etc), theists make another assumption that is that a god exists. Well done. You've now made the problem worse. You have to attempt to show that a god exists for which there is no evidence in this reality (much less in any other reality that could possibly exist that might apparently be real but we couldn't know because our senses are wrong) and as show the other axioms to be true as well.

And that's your problem, Lenardos. Believing a god to exist doesn't make your problems go away. It just makes you look more like an amateur philosopher that hasn't taken the basic introductory course that any good university should offer. It didn't take me half a second to see past this "destruction" of atheism - and that should say something. If I've got it bad, you've got it worse. Stop bickering over "you can't prove that reality exists" and do something constructive, like building houses for poor people.

Unless you think they don't exist.