Re: Why I can’t be an atheist, part 2

Robert Meyer posted his second part to his "Why I can’t be an Atheist" series, here: http://www.americandaily.com/article/16753

 

Robert’s words are in red (and in quotes). My responses follow.

"I could conclude that greater levels of intelligence present a pitfall of conceit that the atheist steps into. High levels of intelligence can cause a belief of invulnerability and hubris–that humanity will solve all problems and eventually gain a comprehensive knowledge of the universe–thus God is, or will become, unneeded and unwanted."

 

I’m just going to start with this second sentence. "High levels of intelligence can cause a belief of invulnerability and hubris" — all right it’s worded like a tautology… Of course ANYTHING "can" cause a belief of invulnerability. But speaking as a scientist, I can’t think of an area where people are more concerned about figuring out what they know and what they don’t know. The entire process is humbling; there isn’t a single scientist that thinks he has it all figured out. So while you may guess that the smarter people are, the more invulnerable they feel; I have not seen that to be the case.

 

"that humanity will solve all problems and eventually gain a comprehensive knowledge of the universe…"

 

Why? Because this is what Robert Meyer would need to believe in order to replace "God" with "science" in his head? Or is he actually just replacing his concept of God with science, because people have to believe that all problems will be solved, all things will be known — either by God or science?  Again, I’m not sure what atheists he’s talking to, but I’ve never heard an atheist argue that since we’re going to know all things, and all problems will be solved, we don’t need God.

 

Let’s see… here are a few affirmations of secular humanism that talk to this point:

 

•           We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

•           We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

•           We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

 

Yeah, that’s the kind of thing that I’m more used to seeing. Science and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life… that should be uncontroversial. Take smallpox for example. Hundreds of years of prayers did nothing; science then eradicated it. It wasn’t like we overcame the job God was doing with science. It’s as though there was exactly nothing being done by any God. Things only got done when someone (a real person) actually took action.

 

"While is it true that empirical knowledge has grown exponentially, few are sagaciously differentiating between that which is presently unknown and that which is by definition unknowable (as theists might say, hidden in the mind of God)."

 

There are many things that are unknowable (as far as I can tell). What Caesar was thinking when he ate his last breakfast, for example?

<font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000000" arial

=””> 

"The atheist’s confidence to comprehend the "unknowable," comes from a belief that empirical investigation can eventually explain everything conceivable."

 

Who is arguing this?

 

"Atheists often claim their belief system is based on logic and reason. Again, this is almost a tautology that goes something like this.

 

We believe that logic and reason is the only revelation of truth.

 

Theism isn’t logical or reasonable.

 

Therefore, theism must be false, hence, atheism is reality."

 

Christ, this is the worst logic I’ve seen in a while. "logic and reason is the only revelation of truth"? Say something like… empirical data, logical reasoning, etc., is the only reliable way of gaining knowledge about the external world. "Theism isn’t logical or reasonable" — Ok, I agree. "Therefore, theism must be false" — no. I would say, Therefore, we have no good reason to think that theism is true. Might it be? Sure. Any reason to think so? No.

 

"Hence, atheism is reality"? Atheism is the lack of a belief…

 

"Let’s test this philosophically with an assumption about my own hypothetical experience. One night I walk out to the mailbox for the mail. As I am about to return to the house I hear the audible voice of God telling me to write this editorial. For a minute, presume this actually happened. Exactly what empirical fingerprint can I show you to verify my talk with God, thus proving I’m not a crackpot? None. That is my point."

 

I fully understand the point. Sure, I’m agreeing for the sake of argument that Robert Meyer heard the voice of God. In response, I would say, "I have no reason to believe that you have heard the voice of God." So what? I have no reason. You haven’t given me a reason to believe it.

 

"Empirical methods cannot test for all truth or truth claims, because of the metaphysical nature of the entity subject to investigation."

 

Empirical methods cannot test for my Caesar example, either. Did Caesar think while eating breakfast? Probably.

 

"Any truth claim can be philosophically cross-examined for logical cogency, however. I have shown theoretically, that truth can exist outside the parameters of empirical analysis. A denial of this claim is not based on objectivity, but a presupposition and bias toward empiricism."

 

It’s a good thing that I’m not denying it, then. Are you (Robert) actually stating your argument like this:

 

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;” class=”MsoNormal”>Atheists use evidence and reason to come to conclusions about the real world.

 

I can think of a thing that is true, that cannot be concluded from evidence and reason.

 

Therefore, since evidence and reason cannot comprehensively learn every true thing in the possible universe, I cannot be an atheist.

 

Is this because believing in God somehow gives you reliable access to all possible true things?

 

If so, tell me what Caesar was thinking while he ate his last breakfast.

 

If not, why choose theism over atheism?