More Nonsense of The New Atheists

More Nonsense of The New Atheists

I hope the reader will bear with me as I share with you some nonsense about something that I’ve inherited from the new atheist. It is nonsense, which means that my response is also probably nonsense as well. At least what I have to say will give you something to think about, but I’m not completely certain because it is a non-belief and I’m unsure as to whether you can actually think about it.

The new atheist claims that they have no burden of proof because atheism is not a belief but rather a non-belief[i].  Right.  Atheists, along with everyone else, can or cannot prove or disprove a non-belief.  Nor can they argue for, or against, a non-belief. In fact, you could argue that you cannot even speak from a non-belief other than simply to say, “I do not believe it,”  i.e. I’ve never made an argument for or against the existence of a spaghetti monster.  If you’re talking about spaghetti monsters, the first thing you must do is define it, which no one has ever done for me, so I would have to say that when it comes to spaghetti monsters, I’m agnostic. However, I know of only a handful of atheists who refuse to speak about the subject of God and offer arguments against his existence. They must believe something about the God they are arguing against. Of course, the truth is they build a straw man God in their imaginations and then argue against it.

If you are arguing for or against something, you are not arguing from a non-belief because that is impossible. Moreover, when arguing against something, the argument “I don’t believe” is insufficient because that is an opinion, not an argument. If you argue, you must argue from some other position or ideology not a non-belief. You cannot as atheists do, argue against God and then claim atheism as a non-belief that you have no burden of proof to justify. Atheists must argue against God from either materialism or naturalist ideology, which are beliefs. In other words, the minute they open their mouths the burden of proof lies on the one trying to prove their unbelief by means of other beliefs. In essence, they have to borrow a belief structure from other ideologies in order to speak against a belief in God.  If they don’t want any burden of proof, they should simply not speak and quit arguing from materialism, scientism and naturalism.  Once they argue from these other “isms” or ideologies, they then have the burden of proof to demonstrate its truthfulness. [1]

[i] what is a non-belief? If I hold a belief in my mind that is not true is that a non-belief or is it a false belief? Actually, the only non-belief that a human being can entertain is that God is nothingness. Nothingness is the only non-belief that a human can entertain.

Atheism an Assumption Based Faith

Atheism an Assumption Based Faith

The atheism faith is based on at least two assumptions that cannot be proven.  And yes, it is a faith because it is an idea that exists in the human mind and is supported by other human beliefs.  The idea that it is a non-belief is nothing but atheistic sophistry.  Calling it a non-belief is like calling it a non-idea.  Just some more nonsense.

Let’s look at a couple their assumptions.  The first one being that there is no God.  No one can prove that there is no God for in order to do so they would have to be everywhere in the universe at the same time and also outside of the universe at the same time, for the very place that they were not, might be the very place that the Uncreated One is present.  They would also have to know everything there is to know in the universe, for if there was one thing that they didn’t know it might be that there’s a God.  In essence, they would have to be God in order to say with certitude that there is not a God.  The atheist always has to leave a small possibility that there might be a god, in which possibility itself negates the very idea of atheism.  However, out of fear of the camel getting his nose into the tent, many pretend to deny the possibility altogether.

The second assumption that I have found in most atheist’s is the belief that they are smarter than those that believe in a God.  I have found this trait even in those who seem to be friendly towards religion.  Of course, this is an assumption that has no scientific basis.  In fact, recent polling of scientist’s indicate that the split is about 50-50 as to whether or not they believe in some kind of higher power.  There is also evidence that at the higher levels of IQ there is about equal numbers that believe in a Higher power.  Some believe that the American philosopher and psychologist  William James was the most intelligent man in recent times and of course he was a believer.  I have read estimates that his IQ was twice that of Einstein’s.  Many people believe that Chris Lagan, a believer, is the smartest man alive at the present time with an IQ of over 200.  Of course, this does not prove or disprove the existence of a God, but it does prove the atheists second assumption that they are smarter than believers, as totally wrong.

The only argument that an atheist has, if it can be called an argument, is that the human mind can create alternatives to the God hypothesis.  However, alternative narratives are neither evidence, nor proof that a position is right, they are simply positing another position.

The Myths of Atheism

The Myths of Atheism

Myth #1

Atheists are smarter than believers.  This is a common myth among many non-intellectual atheists and even the sentiment of some of their more intelligent expounder’s.  If this myth is true, we would expect to find those on the higher IQ level to be unbelievers.  However, that is not what we find.  In fact, we find somewhat of the opposite for example; Christopher Langan who many believe to be the smartest man on earth has an IQ of close to 200 and he is a theist.  The philosopher William James who some believe to be the smartest man that ever lived with an IQ of 270 or above, he also was a believer.  Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal God but did believe in a higher power[i].  Then there is Copernicus, Newton and Galileo, Shakespeare and Goethe.  All of these men were estimated to have had very high IQ’s and all were also believers.  The founding fathers of our country were all brilliant men with high IQs and all were either Christians or Deist.  My personal belief is that IQ has little or nothing to do with belief or non-belief in God.  It most likely includes a number of components ranging from genetics to environment.

Myth #2

Most scientists are unbelievers.  A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science was conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June of 2009 and they found finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1  Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or in a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.  By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006.  Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or in a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.  This poll was taken in 2007 and may not reflect present figures.

Myth #3

Science disproves religion.  “Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won’t help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science.”  Science Dept, University of California at Berkeley

“Science describes and explains the natural world: it does not prove or disprove beliefs about the supernatural.”  American Anthropological Association

“No aspect of science can address supernatural questions…supernatural entities by definition operate outside of natural laws and so [truly] cannot be investigated using methods of experimentation.”  American Association for the Advancement of Science

“Science is not based on faith, nor does it preclude faith.”  American Astronomical Society”

“Theologians may also be interested in the physical world, but in addition they usually believe in a metaphysical or supernatural realm inhabited by souls, spirits, angels, or gods, and this heaven or nirvana is often believed to be the future resting place of all believers after death. Such supernatural constructions are beyond the scope of science.”  National Academy of Sciences

The National Science Teachers Association adds, “Science is precluded from making statements about supernatural forces because these are outside its provenance.”

“Explanations employing no naturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science …. all of science, is necessarily silent on religion and neither refutes nor supports the existence of a deity or deities.”  National Association of Biology Teachers.

The US National Academy of Sciences has gone on record with the following statement: “Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes.  Science can say nothing about the supernatural.  Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”

When a scientist speaks about religion he is not speaking as a scientist.  He is speaking as a philosopher or a theologian.  For example, when you ask a scientist if there something outside of the natural order?  He may say no, but his answer is not based on science but on presuppositions taken from philosophy.

[i] Einstein faith question has been settled by Max Jammer’s book on “Einstein and Religion, Physics and Theology.”