March 26, 2012
Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague
As soon as you question the opinions of popular atheist idols, critics attempt to wrongly label this as an ad hominem attack. Ironically, it is the followers of the one who says "Nothing must be held sacred" who are the most agitated when the logic (or lack thereof) of their leader is critiqued. It is quite easy to demonstrate that the top atheist apologists tend to avoid logic like the plague. PZ Myers founded the most popular atheist science blog, Pharyngula, and I'll send a biscuit to the first person who can find a single well-constructed logical argument on the entire Pharyngula blog. Instead, there is a potpourri of religious ridicule, science fluff and a continuous interest in animal sex. It was in PZ's most famous blog post entitled "The Great Desecration" that he declared, "Nothing must be held sacred." after he childishly attempts to scientifically (empirically) demonstrate this notion. The conclusion of Myers' most popular blog post, however, is nothing but a logical fallacy, a bald assertion completely unsupported by true premises and void of any logical principles whatsoever.
William Lane Craig outlined in his book, On Guard, how "the central argument" of Richard Dawkins' most famous book, The God Delusion, has a completely illogical form and conclusion: "Dawkins argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion, "Therefore God almost certainly does not exist," doesn't follow from the previous statements even if we concede that each of them is true." Atheists can hype it up as much as they want to at a Reason Rally, but until they can present their ideas logically and rationally, anyone with an open mind will recognize that their illogical ranting and raving will only serve to underscore the truth of God's existence all the more.
It's not just the leaders that avoid logic, it's the zealous followers as well. An atheist blogger, Chad Orzel, who seems to enjoy a somewhat higher level of intellectual discipline than PZ Myers, pointed out that Myers' blog followers behave like a bunch of "screeching monkeys." When I posted a comment there recently the responses were predictable. The article I posted on stated that the onus is on the theist to present a logical argument. When I challenged anyone to disprove my logical arguments, neither the premises nor the forms of the arguments were addressed. There were just off-hand remarks and insults. One blogger stated "No, existence isn’t a matter of proof, ignoramus." And other comment offered that existence is not an attribute, "It’s like, I have a 2008 toyota pickup truck, it is red and fast and 4×4, and it exists. logical “proof” does not show existence." It seems that these bloggers were referring to St. Anselm's argument for God, an ontological argument for God's existence which posits that the perfection of God's existence is a quality. There are at least three reasons why the Pharyngula bloggers responses were invalid.
Firstly, I didn't offer them any ontological arguments (completely theoretical and abstract). These arguments include empirical observation. Secondly, I'm not positing that God's existence is a quality. Thirdly, there is no logical reason why empirical observation alone should be considered as proof of anything. If the screeching monkeys want to disprove the following argument from my blog, they need to disprove one of the premises, not make excuses for avoiding this. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins have refused to debate William Lane Craig for illogical reasons, just as Pharnygula blog, Debunking Christianity and Austin Cline have offered illogical reasons for not debating me. The general strategy seems to be the following:
'The onus is on theists to prove God, but we will make illogical excuses for not debating, therefore we're right!'
Possible reasons why atheist apologists avoid logic like the plague
1. Logic tests the truth of ideas.
2. Logic dismantles the "empirical data only" fallacy.
3. Logic requires more than atheist one-liners.
4. It's embarrassing that philosophical positivism is considered dead.
5. Logic is equated with the nature of God in John 1.1.
1. Logic tests the truth of ideas. It's easy to mock, ridicule and showboat at a Reason Rally, but it's not so easy to formulate a logical argument that stands up to testing. In an example of logic avoidance, Stephen Law presented a 1.5 hour long video-taped analysis of The God Delusion and did not once address "the central argument" of the book, as defined by Richard Dawkins.
If a person is drawn to truth he or she will be drawn to logic, because the laws of logic help in testing to see whether or not ideas are true. People living in deception will generally avoid the laws of logic. So what does that say about atheism?
P1. The top atheist apologists mainly avoid or misuse logical laws and principles.
P2. Sound logic is required in order to test the truth of foundational precepts and conclusions.
P3. People interested in true and valid logical conclusions are interested in testing their ideas logically.
C. Therefore, top atheist apologists have demonstrated that they are not interested in testing their foundational precepts and conclusions.
2. Logic dismantles the "empirical data only" fallacy. Atheist Scientists tend to insist that only empirical data is valid as evidence. But this is not logically supportable. Logic is the foundation of science, while science has nothing to say about logic whatsoever. Simply put, without the laws of logic no science would be possible, because science is based on logical deduction. Consider that the Law of Non Contradiction is not based on any empirical observation. The law basically states, "Something cannot be true and not true at the same time, in the same way." This is a completely theoretical truth, and a very important one.
P1. The world is more accurately described using the laws of logic.
P2. The laws of logic include observable principles and abstract, theoretical ones.
C. Therefore, the world is more accurately explained using both empirical and theoretical knowledge.
3. Logic requires more than atheist one-liners. PZ Myers' most famous statement, "Nothing must be held sacred" proves nothing. A logical argument requires at a minimum two premises and a conclusion. PZ's grand proclamation is nothing but a bald assertion that is made in a logically invalid form. Again, I'll ask if anyone can point out one single logical argument at PZ's blog.
4. It's embarrassing that philosophical positivism is considered dead. Atheist scientists, such as Myers and Dawkins, tend to avoid debate with theists well versed in logic and philosophy. They tend to downplay the need for philosophy and promote science as the highest form of truth. Though reluctant to actually choose a philosophical disposition, this view is defined as positivism. Most secular philosophers have labelled this philosophical view as a "dead" one and this is quite embarrassing to for atheists to acknowledge. Stephen Hawking is an atheist scientists who has been outspoken in his defense of positivism.
5. Logic is equated with the nature of God. The word logic was coined by Aristotle, who described his conception of God as the "Unmoved Mover" or "Prime Mover" in Book Eight of his Physics. Aristotle's logical God dwells at the circumference of the universe in a mystical, supernatural manner. Logic is a mysterious phenomenon that has both subjective and objective aspects. It is used practically in minds (subjective) but the laws are timeless, universal and unchanging (objective). If logic is the mere product of a biological, evolutionary brain, then why does it have objective qualities? The scriptures offer that "Wisdom cries out in the streets." This could be paraphrased as, 'Logic is seen everywhere in the world.' Though scripture does not use the word logic, the word wisdom is a close alternative, which describes the nature of God. A person can be described as wise or unwise, logical or illogical. Take William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers as examples. Can they be shown to be wise or unwiuse? Yes. This shows that logic may be considered a personal characteristic. Thus, when we look around and see the created hierarchy and order in the cosmos, any open-minded person would logically conclude that this points to a wise creator. Jesus, the Creator, is described in John 1.1 as the Logos or "Logic" of God.
Again, I'll put forth the challenge to Pharyngula to refute a logical argument for God's existence. In order to refute a logical argument a premise must be shown to be untrue or the form must be shown to be invalid.
Argument from a Created, Hierarchical and Interdependent Universe
P1. The material universe is a highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system.
P2. The organization of any new, highly complex, hierarchical, inanimate, interdependent physical system requires the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
P3. Therefore, the organization of the physical universe required the purposeful use of energy and intelligence.
P4. The purposeful use of energy and intelligence in forming the universe is best explained by God's existence.
C. Therefore, it is most probable that God exists.
Though I offer satirical images at times in an effort to highlight the absurdity of atheist positions, my critique of top atheist apologists is based on examining their arguments and ideas based on the objective principles of logic. The avoidance of logic is found in a scriptural context as the avoidance of truth and especially the truth of God. Romans 1.18-32 outlines the active suppression of truth by atheists. Atheist apologists aren't stupid, just blinded. They are in a state of denial.
As I was waiting to enter the library in Southampton NY one morning, I spoke with a lawyer regarding the extremely low state of news journalism and mass media today. This led to the subject of critical thinking wherein the lawyer stated that critical thinking requires academic rigor. I countered that logic and open-mindedness are the most important aspects for critical thinking. I offered that secular education often has the opposite effect, it produces people who are taught to blindly follow influences such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, who eschew logic. Richard Dawkins seems to hold his CV as some sort of evidence that he is an authority on what is true. This is called ethos based rhetoric. Jesus had no college degree but everyone acknowledged that he spoke with authority. Why is this? Because true authority comes not from academia and a piece of paper known as a diploma, but true authority comes from knowing the truth and expressing it logically. Society is failing to a large extent because of misguided secular humanist education. And it's people like PZ Myers who claim that "Nothing must be held sacred" who are hastening the collapse of Western Civilization.
 Templestream, PZ Myers' Animal Sex: A Big Question For PZ, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/pz-meyers-animal-sex-big-question-for.html
 Pharyngula, The Great Desecration, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php
 Craig, William Lane, On Guard, 2010, David Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, p.121, see online, Reasonable Faith Forum, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493
 Uncertain Principles, The Cost of Not Framing, http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/04/the_cost_of_not_framing.php
 Pharyngula, Why I am an atheist – Torsten Pihl, comments March 24, http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/24/why-i-am-an-atheist-torsten-pihl/comment-page-1/#comment-295158
 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ontological Argument, St. Anselm's ontological argument for God, http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/
 Templestream, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html (Myers also claimed 'moral supremacy' as an excuse for not debating, an illogical assertion for a moral relativist. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/08/why-i-will-not-debate-william-lane-craig/ - "If William Lane Craig were to offer a debate in a written format, would you accept?" - No. Why? "appalled at his words" (8 November 2011 at 7:19 pm)
 Templestream, Top 20 Atheist Bloggers Decline Challenge to Reason, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/07/top-20-atheist-bloggers-decline.html
 Templestream, Remember When WL Craig Refuted The God Delusion? http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/remember-when-wl-craig-refuted-god.html
 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Contradiction, Law of noncontradiction (LNC), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/
 New World Encyclopedia, Positivism, "positivism is dead" http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Positivism, see also Hawking quotes: Templestream, Why the God Debate is Valid and Necessary, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-god-debate-is-valid-and-necessary.html
 Templestream, The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/organizing-principle-of-universe.html
 Romans 1.18-32, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-32&version=NASB
Tags: Is atheism illogical?, PZ Myers' most popular atheist blogger, logic and God, atheists avoid logic, professor chaos, logic is the basis of true reason, logic is the basis of science,why relativism is false, origin of universe, what is critical thinking? critical thinking requires logic, secular humanist education is a failure, why public education is a failure, why society is failing, why postmodernism is failing, atheist excuses, PZ Myers' screeching monkeys, collapse of Western Civilization, Dawkins enemies of reason,
(article updates 03/02/13)