The Atheistic Criticism of Religion


The Atheistic Criticism of Religion

When an atheist criticizes religion for the most part  they are simply criticizing the human condition; which is one of ignorance, sinfulness and hypocrisy.  These characteristics can be found in any society, culture and civilization and for that matter in every person.  They are found in religious cultures, secular cultures and atheistic cultures.  They are common to all men. Pointing these things out in any culture modern or ancient does not take a great deal of intelligence nor understanding.  It reflects a pretentious self-righteousness when criticizing others to exalt oneself.  Given the same circumstances and conditions most humans will react in  similar ways.  Much of the criticism of religion by atheism is nothing more than posing self righteous virtue at the best, and total moral egotism at its worst.  Their criticism proves nothing other than humanity is ignorant, sinful, hypocritical and poisons everything he touches.

The truth is that atheism as an ideology or as a foundational philosophy for a culture, has demonstrated itself to be totally inadequate to support a virtuous culture any more than religion.  In fact, all atheistic cultures have led to totalitarianism and even Europe as it embraces the secular is moving towards totalitarianism.  One should be careful in tearing down the poor man’s house unless he has something better to offer.

Moreover, the atheistic criticism of Christianity represents a shallow understanding of the message of Jesus.  A casual reading of the New Testament would demonstrate to any rational person that Jesus never intended his teachings to be the foundation of any large society, for his teachings are too demanding for the masses.  Yet, many atheists continue to attack the teachings of Western Christianity as though they were the pristine teachings of Jesus; in this they demonstrate their ignorance or their dishonesty.  In the majority of cases it is ignorance, at least from my experience most atheists are quite ignorant of Christian theology and often depend on a vulgar interpretation of Christianity to justify their criticism.

https://lyleduell.me/2015/12/18/the-making-of-an-fundamentalist-atheist/

Faith Versus Reason

Faith Versus Reason

To have faith is to confess bias.  However, all beliefs are grounded and based on faith, at least initially.  Our very language supports this, “I believe in reason.”  You must have faith in reason before you attempt to use it.  In the end there is a faith element in everything we believe and do, it all begins with faith.  But, in many cases the faith element is tacit, hidden or so small it remains unnoticed.  Sometimes it is referred to by other names such as a hunch, intuition or hypothesis, but however small, it is there.  Faith is the beginning of knowledge.  The affirmation “I believe” is the beginning of all thought.

Some seem to believe the way to true knowledge is by endless questioning and doubting.  However, this is a belief that in itself requires faith.  Should we doubt everything except our doubts?  Now, do not get me wrong, there is a place in our thought process for doubting, but doubting cannot be the beginning, goal or the end.  It must lead to faith, for it is faith that leads to truth and action.  For example, the agnostic is frozen between belief and unbelief by their doubting and in turn doubting their doubts, while the atheist believes their doubts, and is going nowhere.  On the other hand the theist believes their beliefs and should be open to the future of truth[1].  If skeptical-ism is taken to its logical conclusion it could lead to a stalled intellectual progress and a cynical view of truth and learning. If you question everything in the end you must question your truth and when your truth is overthrown by doubting “the truth” is not far behind and you are close to being thrown into the abyss of relativism.

Some might reply. what about science and the scientific method?  Do you not need faith in reason to believe in science and the scientific method?  Does not science have to assume (have faith) that nature has her laws for scientist to do science?  I believe this is called the uninformed of nature.[2] This belief cannot be proven because to prove it you would have to believe in it to attempt to prove it. This seems to point to the fact that all human knowledge must begin with faith on some ground (foundation) which is also to accept it by faith.

[1] If skeptical-ism is taken to extremes it can lead to a stalled intellectual progress and a cynical view of learning. There is a tendency for skeptical-ism to lead to radical relativism which guts the meaning of existence and leaves people cynical.

[2] The scientists claim they test everything by the scientific method. However, the scientific method is based on faith in the uniformity of nature and reason. Some have questioned reasoning but I know of none that have questioned the uniformity of nature, for to do so would be to question the whole enterprise of science.

Faith

Faith

“Without faith it would be impossible to eat stew”

Faith is to believe or not to believe[1] in something on the ground of something other than objective evidence[2]. Many of our most basic beliefs are subjective without us even realizing it. However, once accepted by faith, most believes can be given  some evidence to support them.  A large percentage of our beliefs are actually based on the authority of people whom we trust or have faith in. This trust represents a subjective element in the majority of things that we believe. Our beliefs can also be strangeness or weaken by inference and reason. Outside the religious spear say as in science faith might be like what we call a hunch or a vision. Hunches and visions like faith have various degrees of intensity and clarity. These degrees are as numerous as individual.

 

For example, my neighbor goes to post office ones a week to pick up his mail and I have faith or a hunch that he will do it tomorrow. So, my expectation of seeing him at the post office grows to almost a certitude. I could say I have faith that I will see him at the post office. If he fails to show up I begin to look for a reason. I do not say he does not exist because he doesn’t act according to my expectations.

Like my experience with my neighbor, when the Bible speaks of faith it taking about a belief based on experiencing God. This experiencing of God is referred to by believer as having a person relationship with God or being born again, which is completely non-understandable to unbelievers or even to the religious person that has not experienced God in a meaningful way. In view of this a person might be what we call religious and not have true faith. In this context faith is trust-based on one’s prior experiences.

My point is that if God does not show up as you might expect do not give up on God, rather take a look at your experiences and your interpretation of those experiences on which your faith is based.

[1] I had to add this  expression for my atheists friend who make a big deal out of atheism be a non-believe and not a faith. Faith is simply trusting ones believes and I would hope that atheists have at least a little trust in what they believe in or what they do not believe in.

[2] The idea of the objectivity is somewhat of an inflated idea. Most human knowledge has some aspect of subjective-ism. This is the reason there is no end to questioning and doubting.  It is the miserable lot of the skeptics to be doubting and arguing all the time and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

Cognitive Pathology and Consensus

Cognitive Pathology and Consensus

What is cognitive pathology?  It is the study of the source or origin of a belief, in other words, why people think the way they do.  You have probably experienced someone informing you, that you believe a certain view because of some hidden motives.  For example, someone declares that you are a Republican because you believe in capitalism, or you are Democrat because you believe in big government.

Atheists often use cognitive pathology to explain away the validity of the believer’s faith.  This has been the case from Feuerbach to Bertrand Russell.  Both Feuerbach and Russell seemed to believe like many atheists, that if you could explain the source or cause of peoples belief, that basis would invalidate those beliefs as being rational.  Of course, this kind of thinking is not unique to atheism.  It is a method used by many to attack or dismiss any arguments made against their beliefs on any subject.

I have run across this thinking in politics and science.  For instance, if you are against the theory of manmade global warming, you must be a capitalist or own stock in an oil company, For that reason you cannot face the truth about climate change therefore, I need not to bother myself with answering your arguments.  Another example would be; if you believe in smaller government, you must be a libertarian, therefore, all your criticism of government must be untrue and comes from your prejudices.  This is not to say that climate change is not real nor is it an endorsement of small government, it is simply an example of how people will use cognitive pathology to win an argument, or to avoid any possible argument against their belief system.

The problem with cognitive pathology is that it is often used as a form of reductionism  to reduce human emotions and thoughts down to one source.  This kind of thinking is common in a scientific age that has tried to reduce everything down to cause and effect; believing that everything can be reduced to one cause.  Another problem is that even if you could reduce a person’s belief on an issue to a single cause, that would not itself nullify a person’s belief or prove it to be false.  The belief itself must still be examined for its truthfulness.  Otherwise cognitive pathology becomes nothing more than a personal begging of the question, which I find often to be the case with those that continually use this kind of  circular reasoning.

A similar concept to cognitive pathology is the argument from a consensus.  In this form of argument, the person simply asserts that their position is correct because that’s what the majority believe.  This is usually done without proof as to what the majority actually believes.  Furthermore, proving what the majority believes in, is a massive job, which most people are not willing to undertake.  So, if someone uses the argument of consensus simply ask for proof, if the consensus is not self-evident.

I have run across a number of atheists who use consensus arguments to try to support their unbelief.  They say something like this, “the majority of scientists do not believe in God.”  To begin with, this is a pretty large blanket affirmation to make without any hard evidence to confirm it; and without the evidence it is nothing but  dishonest propaganda.  In fact, if you Google the question, you’ll find a lot of polling data on the subject and in my study of different polls, it looked pretty close that those  who believe in a higher power edged out the unbelievers by a couple of points[1].  One of problems with polling of this type is that it usually does not consider the difference between the types of scientists that are being interviewed.  What is called the ‘soft’ sciences like psychology, psychiatry and sociology, would to encompass a much larger number of unbelievers because much of their studies are based on a methodology other than the scientific method, which for many put them outside of a true science.

Cognitive pathology and consensus arguments are the preferred tool of the pseudo-educated class and status quo class to cover up their bias and to discredit the arguments of their opponents without answering the argument.[2]  Using these two techniques, they can dismiss arguments with little or no thought, much less a good argument.  Some use them to support an ego that has run amok.  Sometimes, I myself have practiced it, though hopefully noting it in the context of my writing, that in the end it proves nothing other than a person has the analytical skills to dissect the motives of others; and let me hasten to point out that in the majority of cases humans have more than one motive for doing or believing something.

The closest explanation, to explaining the source of faith and unbelief is William James book “The Will to Believe”[3].  In his book, James who was a psychiatrist and a philosopher postulates the theory that people basically believe what they want to believe about God.  James believed that a man’s will was their source of faith or unbelief as much as reason.  However, it is seldom reason alone that dictates whether a person believes in God or not.  He also points out that conditioning and temperament can make a person dead to a particular belief.[4]  By the expression “dead to a belief” he means that a person will not even consider looking at it or engage his reasoning to examine it.

[1] 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 a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.  Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, conducted in May and June 2009

[2] This is done in political debate by inferring that one’s opponent is racist or homophobic.  This infers that their statements or arguments come from a racial or gender bias.

[3] “The Will to Believe: and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy”

[4] James believed that temperament and disposition are some of the major factors in what people believe about things and especially metaphysical things.  You can read about this in his book on pragmatism.

The Assumptions of Atheism

The Assumptions of Atheism

The atheism faith is based upon two assumptions that cannot be proven.  And yes, it is a faith because it is an ideal that exists in the human mind and is supported by other human beliefs.  The ideal that it is a non-belief is nothing but atheistic sophistry.  Calling atheism a non-belief is like calling it a non-idea.  It’s just more nonsense.

Let’s look at 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 in 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 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 isn’t a God.  The atheist always has to leave a small possibility that their might be a god, which possibly in itself negates the very idea of atheism.  However, out of their fear of the camel getting his nose into the tent many pretend to deny the possibility altogether.

The second assumption, which I have found in most atheists, is the belief that they are smarter than those who 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, a 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[1].  There is also evidence that at higher levels of IQ there is about equal numbers of people who believe in a Higher power.  Some believe that the American philosopher and psychiatrist William James was the most intelligent man in recent times, and of course he was a believer.  He had an estimated IQ of twice that of Einstein.  Christopher Michael Langan is considered by many to be the most intelligent human being alive today, he has a confirmable IQ of somewhere between 195 and 210.[2]  Christopher Michael Langan does believe in a God.  Of course, this neither proves nor disproves the existence of a God, but it does prove that the atheists second assumption, that they are smarter than believers, is completely and utterly wrong.

[1]“The stats say that the split is about 50-50 of those who believe in God and those who do not. A survey taken by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in May and June of this year and reported by David Masci in the Los Angeles Times, found that 51% do believe in God and 41% do not.  These numbers haven’t changed much over the last 100 years either,  despite the numerous discoveries in evolution and biochemistry over the years.”  Suzanne Kennedy; bitesizebio.com 12/21/09

[2] Depending on the source or reference either in news articles, blogs, interviews, Scientific Journals or magazines over the years, Christopher Michael Langan is quoted as having a confirmable IQ of anywhere between 195-205.  He has developed a “theory of the relationship between mind and reality” which he calls the “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe” (CTMU)