This morning my son and I went out to enjoy the morning air before the heat and humidity choke the joy out of the day. Immediately, I noticed that our two bushes in the front yard had brand new creeper vines climbing over them, attempting to piggyback off of their structure so that the vines could get their own share of sunlight. Of course, being the brilliant botanist that I am, I went in at the roots and tore out these blasted vines from the ground up. If I were to leave these vines, the bush would have eventually turned brown, dried up, and died while a healthy creeper vine sits on top of it, wrapping it up tightly.I'm used to Christian writers taking analogies like this and comparing this vine to sin that can choke God out of our lives (I'm pretty sure Jesus told a story like that as well), but I had a different take on the vine. When I saw this vine, I saw a parasite. This parasite was unnatural to the bush and did not belong. It fed off of the bush, it needed the bush, and yet it fights to maintain its own independent existence, almost screaming to the rest of the plant world, "I don't need this bush!"
I related the bush and vine to the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG), and specifically I see Christianity as the bush and atheism as the vine that doesn't belong and is fighting to declare its independence. All the while, however, the only thing holding up atheism or even making the atheist's inconsistent worldview possible is the fact that enjoys luxurious benefits which are borrowed from the Christian's consistent worldview.
For example, given the naturalistic worldview, there ought not to be invisible, universal, non-physical, invariant laws. And yet, the atheist demands that our worldview be consistent with the laws of logic. They hold themselves as well as their religious opponents to the standards of laws which their own worldview cannot account for. Usually, when they misunderstand the TAG (they think we're saying that they're not logical, which isn't true. We're arguing that given their worldview, they shouldn't believe in logic), they protest, "You think I'm not being logical, but you're wrong. My whole worldview is logical; yours is the illogical worldview, because you believe in the giant spaghetti monster!" The charge is never responded to by the atheist with, "No, I'm not following universal, invariant, non-physical, binding laws! How dare you charge me with being non-naturalistic!" But if they understood the challenge being presented by the TAG that is exactly the response they would give if logical rigour and consistency were really of interest to them.I'm aware that this claim about detractors being parasitic is not new. When Richard Dawkins wrote The God Delusion, his claim was that superstitions such as theism are a genetic disease. Lets assume for the sake of discussion that Dawkins is right and that theism really is simply a dreadful disease that needs to be purged from the natural world. If that happens in a consistent way, then with theism should go the transcendental theistic elements of reality which atheists enjoy so much. This includes the laws of logic (which are not consistent with a purely physical universe), morality (which becomes a mere convention, given naturalism), and induction (which the atheist cannot justify the use of, given Hume's critique). What we start to see when we look at this picture is that if theism were to hypothetically go, we wouldn't be losing the vine, we would be losing the supporting branches that the parasitic vine sits on. We would lose the very preconditions which would make science, knowledge, or thought even possible.
ReplyDelete"It fed off of the bush, it needed the bush, and yet it fights to maintain its own independent existence, almost screaming to the rest of the plant world, "I don't need this bush!""
DE HA: you just said it needed the bush. How can it need the bush and say it doesn't at the same time? And how are parasites independent? They're the opposite of independent.
"All the while, however, the only thing holding up atheism or even making the atheist's inconsistent worldview possible is the fact that enjoys luxurious benefits which are borrowed from the Christian's consistent worldview."
Theists keep accusing us of that and I STILL don't know how the hell that works.
"For example, given the naturalistic worldview, there ought not to be invisible, universal, non-physical, invariant laws."
DE HA: That's a straw-man.
"They hold themselves as well as their religious opponents to the standards of laws which their own worldview cannot account for."
DE HA; Saying "the atheist worldview cannot account for logic" is like saying "Why would there be nonsense in Wonderland?" Or "there's no need for violence in Outworld" or "What purpose is there for sex slavery on Gor?" Outworld is BASED on violence, not the other way around. The confusion only comes when you get the starting point and the conclusion exactly backwards.
"Usually, when they misunderstand the TAG (they think we're saying that they're not logical, which isn't true. We're arguing that given their worldview, they shouldn't believe in logic),"
DE HA: And Gor, assuming John Norman's labido came into being AFTER the 20th book, should have a lot less slave girls in it.
"But if they understood the challenge being presented by the TAG that is exactly the response they would give if logical rigour and consistency were really of interest to them."
DE HA: then use a less confusing and convoluted argument. Might I suggest one that does not centre on a straw-man so blatantly wrong that it contradicts fact. That is, you KNOW damn well we're obsessed with Science, Skepticism and logic. Any logical assumptions anyone could possibly make about how we think should take that into account, since you know it, I know it, we all know it, it is fact. Atheists like logic. Instead, you chose the illogical rout of making up a straw-man of Atheism that CONTRADICTS the facts you know damn well about our behaviour, and then act like WE'RE the ones being "inconsistent".
"This includes the laws of logic (which are not consistent with a purely physical universe),"
DE HA: This isn't Wonderland. Everyone from Neuton to Hawking have explained the universe through mathomatics. Nothing makes any sense without logic and logic makes perfect sense without magic pixies. Think about the way balls move and interact with each other on a billiards table. No wizards required, it's all physics.
"morality (which becomes a mere convention, given naturalism),"
DE HA: Humanism. Also: Richard Dawkin's theories on the evolution of Altruism.
"and induction (which the atheist cannot justify the use of, given Hume's critique)."
DE HA: Seriously? You're claiming that THINKING makes no sense under Atheism now? That's not just claiming there's no sex slaves on Gor, that's claiming there's no WRITING on Gor. That's like... Ok, technically there's no videogames in Outworld. But your claim that Induction makes no sense to Atheists completely denies how we deconverted in the first place, or how everything we believe, which drew us to the conclusion that Religion is bullshit, was discovered. You're denying Science in general.