3 reasons why atheism is dumb
The world can be divided into two camps: the naturalists (physicalists) and the supernaturalists (metaphysicalists).
Naturalists have a worldview that based on a belief the world is entirely natural and everything in existence is comprised of matter and that the laws science (naturally) explain everything. This worldview is typically atheistic since there is no room for a supernatural God.
Supernaturalists have a worldview that is based on the belief that there is a spiritual dimension to reality that is not comprised of matter and that whilst the laws of science adequately explain the natural world, there is room for a God in a supernatural world. (The supernaturalists believe that both the natural AND a supernatural world exist.)
The first point to make here is quite unequivocal and undeniable: Both views (physicalist and metaphysicalist) are fundamentally based on beliefs. Even the most meticulous, analytical scientist can be no more certain than a cave-dwelling mystic about their version of reality.
Everything you know flows from what you believe.
The second point to be made is that these only one of these worldviews can be correct. There is a third worldview that claims that the entire world as we know is a supernatural illusion — a ‘matrix’ of some sort — but they are few and far between and not taken seriously by any of the thinkers of the world. It is important that theists recognise that atheists are fond of creating a false dichotomy that positions the theist as somehow anti-science and consequently stupid and/or disconnected from reality.
Theists recognise the value of science, benefit from it and even practice it as a career too. The difference is merely that theists don’t accept that science explains the whole truth that is available to us, but rather that it has been conceived for and is best suited to explain the physical/natural domain.
In fact, theists are more open-minded than the atheists because we are open to the idea that something beyond the natural domain may exist.
The difference in the views of the theist and atheist is therefore one where reality (the world as we know it) is either exclusively natural (atheist) or it is natural and supernatural (theist). That is the true dichotomy to be considered when judging the rational and intellectual merits of the respective positions.
Which perspective is right? Which is true? Be prepared to be overwhelmed with irony and prepare yourself to gasp in shock and horror out how fundamentally flawed one of these worldviews is.
In a post-modern, secular culture, scientists don’t (and can’t) actually pursue the truth since it does not exist. On the other hand, the metaphysicalist pursues a truth that cannot be proven with the tools available in a material world.
Consequentially, the two worldviews diverge from the onset and there is no common ground to even base an argument on.
Of course, both parties believe they are right.
The secular, materialist worldview that holds there is no God, no supernatural possibilities and no spiritual realm and that the scientific view of the world is ‘right’ simultaneously denies the existence of right and wrong. Let me re-phrase that simply: Materialists simultaneously believe there is no right and wrong, and that theists are wrong. (THIS IS STUPID.)
Once they realise the complete epistemological absurdity of their reasoning, they might adapt their claim to be more along the lines of their arguments being a better explanation of reality than the explanations of the theist. That is, they may concede that they may not be right, but there is no evidence to the contrary.
There remain a number of logical flaws in that position.
Firstly the absence of evidence (for God) is not evidence of absence (of God.) Just because there is no evidence to find someone guilty of murder it does not mean he or she is innocent. You spill a glass of water and then mop it up and refill the glass. The cloth you used to wipe the water is flushed away. There is no evidence of the spill. The spill never happened, right? (THIS IS STUPID.)
Secondly, if your belief system is that the only thing that exists is a material world and that therefore evidence should comply with the laws of that material world, then you are precluding the possibility of evidence that might prove you wrong. (THIS IS CLOSED-MINDED.)
The naturalistic worldview (metaphysically) claims as its foundational truth that the only acceptable evidence is physical evidence — or at least something is construed as evidence if it is found to be consistent with the ‘laws of nature’.
Science is in fact circular; it is conceived to explain the material world, and the fact that it only explains the material world is not proof that an ‘immaterial’ world does not exist. (It is proof that does what it is conceived to do.) A thermometer that ‘proves’ that an object is hot or cold, cannot prove that an object is black or white.
It is obviously true that the laws of nature will reveal the physical evidence. That is what science is conceived to be and that is why there are many scientists — from the greats like Pascal, Galileo, Newton and Einstein to the modern day leaders like Polkinghorne and Collins — who are believers. Militant atheists are fond of claiming theists are stupid and referring to themselves as ‘the Brights’. (THIS IS ARROGANT.)
We all want to understand the world we live in and the physical world is part of that world we live in. Some believe it is all there is and some believe it is not all there is. Just don’t be stupid enough to demand that natural evidence for supernatural phenomena must be produced before it can be accepted.
Science and religion are perfectly compatible. Science simply concerns itself with a smaller (natural) domain and true scientists recognise what science is and that cannot prove or deny the spiritual. Science and religion are not at war, and whilst the aim of science is that it wants to explain everything; the philosophically mature scientists understand that ‘everything’ really only means ‘every natural thing’.
Thirdly, the very ‘rule’ atheists made up about what constitutes acceptable evidence embeds a flawed, logical circularity in methodology (as above) but it also has been arrived at in contravention of its own claim. There is no physical evidence (or scientific experiment) to back up the claim that the only type of acceptable evidence is material evidence. (And they will never be able to contrive such an experiment without the circularity of thinking mentioned earlier.) So ironically they are making a metaphysical claim (only one type of evidence is acceptable) to deny the existence of the metaphysical view. (THIS IS STUPID.)
Not only are you are demanding a type of evidence that is consistent with your view of the world that you arrived at without evidence, you illogically demand that philosophical opponents produce (physical) evidence that is contradictory with their (metaphysical) claims. (THIS IS STUPID.)
This flaw in ‘scientism’ does not prove that the theist is somehow right. But it does prove that, unless we are solipsistically nothing more than a brain-in-a-jar, lost in a weird and wonderful matrix; we have to make a metaphysical truth claim (with no material/ physical evidence) as a point of departure for our view of the world.
The question is which metaphysical claim is true? Earlier I noted that only one of these claims can be true.
Since these truth claim cannot be verified by science, neither can be proven right or wrong, except for, as explained by, Ravi Zacharias that “the three tests for truth must be applied to any worldview: logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance.”
When I consider the atheistic worldview and compare that to the theistic worldview then the only intelligent conclusion is that the theistic worldview (there is a God) is the only intelligent, logical position that meets the criteria of a valid worldview.
There are at least three undeniable, logical flaws in the very premises that underpin the scientism of atheists. These flaws are foundational to the naturalist position. And these views are based on a belief.
- Scientism cannot be proven by its own standards of ‘truth’.
- Scientism is self-limiting, restricting itself to the material domain and precluding any other possible explanations that don’t fit the view.
- Science is premised on a metaphysical claim whilst simultaneously denying the validity of metaphysical claims.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that there are other, probably psychological, reasons for denying the validity of metaphysical claims that lead to allowing for the possibility of the existence of God.
Why do people keep denying this possibility of their own position is logically untenable? That is the real mystery.
The true dichotomy is not Science (naturalism) vs Religion (supernaturalism).
It is rather Science (naturalism) ONLY vs Science (naturalism) AND Religion (supernaturalism).
Next time, before you ‘like’ another post by ‘I fucking love science’, please know that I don’t wonder if God really exists. Instead I feel sorry for you having such a weak grasp on what rational thinking really is.
Next time, when you are sucked into another internet meme and comment facetiously about how dumb the Christians are, know that I don’t feel dumb. I feel sorry for you showing that your real understanding of science does not even penetrate the level of pseudo-science.
People of faith are free to rejoice in the marvels of science knowing that it glorifies God, whereas poor atheists not only fail to understand what science really means, they also deny themselves the opportunity to experience the richness of a life that includes the idea of God.
