Writing in the early years of the 21st century, one could say that what might be termed "neo-atheism" currently has western society by the throat - or so it seems to many.  But does it really - does it make any sense that it should?

 

Atheism – especially materialistic atheism (which describes nearly all atheism and which is what virtually all modern atheists subscribe to, knowingly or not) – is, in fact, illogical, and worse – it is incoherent.  That is, it is naturally incoherent which is obvious when it’s placed against the backdrop of real life and real experience – even the real lives and experiences of atheists.  For, if they examined their worldviews intently and took them to their logical conclusions they would see that even they do not at all live and believe according to what their philosophies demand.

 

Materialism

 

Materialism is a philosophy that states, simply, that matter is all that exists – period.  There is no God because we cannot see Him.  There are no human souls because we cannot detect them physically by any means we’re aware of.  The philosophy of materialism is the cornerstone of the atheist’s worldview, and a couple large issues can be pointed out about that fact at the outset:

 

i)              Materialism is assumed to be true by nearly all atheists – this is clear from the way they argue.  I am not just talking about the run-of-the-mill Dawkins and Hitchens fan but Dawkins and Hitchens themselves.  Anyone who argues a philosophical position by essentially assuming what they’re trying to prove is chasing their tale.

ii)            Materialism is commonly mistaken for science by these people, who use the two words almost interchangeably (or rather never use “materialism” when they mean “materialism”, because science is something no one can deny).  But materialism and true science have nothing in common – science, by the definition that actually virtually everyone accepts, is the study of the natural world.  Science itself says nothing at all about things outside the natural world – it doesn’t say that the physical world is all there is, which is what materialism postulates.  In reality, atheists use the word “science” to shield materialism, because they are well-aware that materialism is not nearly such an easy sell.

 

Of course materialism goes very naturally hand-in-hand with atheism: atheism is a direct corollary of materialism.  (Although a non-materialistic atheistic worldview is entirely possible, it’s not much accepted.  I think one reason is that “giving” on materialism makes the existence of God that much easier – likely – and generally atheists don’t like that.)

 

Lest anyone (who is not widely educated on these topics) suspect I am misrepresenting the naturalists’ position, here's a quote from famous Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin  (emphasis is mine):

 

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." 

 

Note just what he is saying here - atheists are rarely so candid!  He is stating directly that:

 

1) His materialistic philosophy drives his science: he imposes it upon his science, and does not allow the possibility of any conclusion that contradicts this philosophy.

2) The above results not infrequently in constructs that are not just untenable or "against common sense" but downright "patently absurd".

3) It is not at all anything scientific that drives him to materialism: it is his a priori belief/preference.

 

And we should trust such a person to come up with the correct answers to the great truths of life - why?

 

Let this quote - which I suspect Dr. Lewontin wishes he'd never put in print - be a lesson to all the disciples of the New Atheists who think they're really guided by science and impartial with regard to evidence.  Now, Lewontin implies above that science and materialism are one and the same but that is not at all the case, and that is provable by this simple fact: one can engage in science, using the scientific method, while not accepting materialism. 

 

[Surely, if that's not possible, science never would have gotten started anyhow, for it was in the Christian West that it did.  And there are probably reasons for that.  Christianity brought belief in a rational universe created by a rational God.  Creator & created are separate; the latter is not endowed with its own mind, as the pagans tended to imagine the earth, stars, etc.  The universe would thus behave rationally and consistently, it was assumed, and could be described mathematically.  That is science.  In comparison, other cultures, with their beliefs in irrational "gods" that behaved like humans, and heavenly bodies with their own minds and thus no consistent, deterministic behavior, produced "stillbirths" of science (Dr. Stanley Jaki).]

 

So what was I talking about when I wrote that materialistic atheism is illogical, and directly contrary to human experience and behavior (including that of atheists)?  Three areas, mainly: abstract concepts/knowledge, free will, and morality.

 

Abstract Concepts & True Knowledge

 

Really, the phrase “abstract concept” is redundant: a concept is abstract by nature.  But let’s stick with it.

 

What’s the problem with abstractions and materialism?  It’s just that if materialism were true, they don’t exist.  That’s right: if matter is all there is, what is the mathematical constant pi?  What is integrity, or justice, or “right and wrong” – or the laws of logic?  These things cannot exist as true, independent concepts, but only as approximations within the brains of individuals thinking about them – a pattern of neurons firing here or there.  In fact, according to the philosophy of naturalism, nothing that can’t be weighed or measured really exists at all.  Atheists claim these things really only exist in the mind (brain) of one who thinks of them, and no two patterns of firing neurons are bound to be the same – much less all of them – so universality is lost, and thus universal, immutable abstract concepts truly cannot exist by themselves.

 

You might want to read that again: it’s very deep, and very important.  Much more so than it might strike many initially.

 

It gets worse: if naturalism (materialism) is in fact true, knowledge itself doesn’t really exist!  How so?  Isn’t knowledge just information?  Don’t even computers have “knowledge”?  Not really.  What most people mean when they refer to “knowledge” is information gained via rational, deductive thought process.  And if materialism is true, human beings are really only capable of the illusion of rational thought processes.

 

I know I really have the skeptics scoffing now – bear with me.  Materialism insists that our mind are our brains, and nothing more – that is, that “mind” is an “emergent property” of the brain, to use their lingo.  (This “emergence” of the mind is offered with an “it must be so” rather than any evidence.)  If that is true – so they tell us – our thoughts are simply patterns of neurons firing, for the brain is a collection of neurons and nothing more, of course.  And what is logic?  It is a rational progression of states, from A to B to C, and so on, driven by the laws of logic and the facts of the subject.  For instance: All trees have bark, an Elm is a tree, and thus an Elm has bark.  How is this progression of thought bound by the laws of logic tied together by the brain in the naturalist worldview?  It simply isn’t – it simply can’t be.  We have various patterns of neurons firing, but how are they related to each other – how do they encapsulate “logic”?  Obviously, they are not and they don’t.  We have three different states or patterns of neurons firing (or perhaps doing something else as well physically that neurons can do) and that is all.

 

And so is the very foundation of knowledge and logic itself undermined by atheistic materialism.  What assurance does the atheist has that his own thought processes are rational and valid?  None whatsoever.

 

It gets worse still (for the atheist).  According to the neo-Darwinian model, our brains evolved naturally under the pressures of natural selection.  They evolved with a single end-goal: to survive; to replicate the species.  According to the neo-Darwinian worldview combined with materialism, there is no reason to expect the brain to be able to know truth from fiction in any area not directly related to survival.  Did being chased by tigers or learning to eat bone marrow to survive winter equip man with a brain equipped to decipher the meaning of life and the purpose of the universe?  Not likely. 

 

(Note: I am not insinuating that evolution of some kind and to some degree did not necessarily occur: the point is that in the naturalistic version of evolution there is obviously nothing but the physical.  A theistic evolutionist could postulate that at some point by special creation man was endowed with rationality – a true Mind.)

 

And there is even more bad news.  Since our brains, which obviously are physical things that operate on the laws of physics and chemistry (chemistry builds on physics), are our minds, and since materialism, by definition, accepts the physical only – matter and the laws of matter explain everything - and thus our minds are completely deterministic.  Your mind is nothing more than the firing of neurons – always, in every case, causally reduced to physics – and there is no mechanism whatever by which “you” direct your own thoughts.  Your brain is simply a huge, three-dimensional billiards table, with electromagnetism and other physical forces moving the balls.  Such is what the materialists tell us.  (But what they really mean is “everyone’s mind but mine” is deterministic, because if they believed such of themselves they’d know not to trust their own thoughts as true.)

 

The atheist – that is, the consistent atheist – should not really believe that 2 + 2 = 4.  In fact, he, if he is indeed consistent, cannot believe that anything is certainly true (much less atheism).  We see already how foolhardy is the modern neo-atheist evangelist.  “You’re a fool to believe in God”, he tells us.  “God is a fairy tale, ‘science’ explains all of reality, and if God did exist He’s a jerk for allowing people to suffer anyway.” 

 

What the atheist should be saying, at best, is something like “I don’t think I do or want to believe in God, but according to my own worldview, I cannot trust my own thoughts.  My brain evolved to keep me alive as its goal.  I have no idea if the notion of ‘God’ that my neurons firing gives me means anything, for concepts don’t really exist independent of anyone’s brain, and anyway other peoples’ beliefs are simply a result of their neurons firing according to the laws of chemistry.  Thus, it would be the height of foolishness for me to try to convince anyone of anything, much less things concerning God.  I think I’ll go play Warcraft.”

 

Free Will

 

You can probably guess at this point that the worldview of atheistic naturalism leaves no room for free will.  As noted above, in a materialist model the mind is the brain (is directly “emergent” from the brain) and hence is deterministic.  By definition, such a mind (brain) does not control “itself” but is, again, a slave to the laws of physics, and nothing more.  (You could state the materialist position as “you are your brain” rather than the situation we know to be true – we use our brains.)

 

This begs the question of why that brat pack of famous neo-atheists spends so much time moralizing and condemning religion and religious people for what it/they teach and do.  Richard Dawkins has called bringing up a child with Christian principles “child abuse”.  It seems he ought to be directing his indignation towards the laws of physics and chemistry (or their Author – which I guess would be chance).  But Richard Dawkins doesn’t like to think about things like this (as is made evident when he’s asked about them in an interview).

 

Morality

 

The indignant atheist above should realize, in addition to the fact that people cannot really control their thoughts, much less their actions, that he cannot possibly have any standard of morality other than his own opinion anyway – and why should anybody else abide by that?

 

Of course, atheists frequently try to wiggle out of this (although some live with it).  Right after they tell you that morality is simply a system of norms that varies with culture, they’ll try to insist – such as when you inquire as to whether Nazi death camps were really wrong or just wrong according to someone’s culture – that some standard of morality really does exist.  What is it?  “People know what it is.”  Well, that’s a dodge if there ever was one.  Of course, as soon as the atheist even begins to think about a universal standard of morality, he is thinking about God – and so he runs away.  Such a man has been described as a man made of water in an infinite ocean of water trying to pull himself up on a ladder made of water.

 

Thus: Atheism is Incoherent

 

It is indeed: it is plainly incoherent and this is why even its most ardent supporters actually think and behave as if it’s not true.  They know that free will and true morality exist: that’s why they try to convince other people of what they believe, and why they often do a lot of moralizing as well.

 

They know that abstract concepts exist, and that human beings can follow the laws of logic: if not, all of their thoughts would be simply useless.  They know, intrinsically, that that isn’t the case.

 

Atheism doesn’t explain human beings and human life: it fails, completely and miserably.

 

Most people - I would say all truly honest people - recognize that true free will does exist.  It is self-evident and very easily demonstrable to oneself, regardless of whether or not it is quantifiable or formally provable to 'others'.  And no matter what they say when pressed, everyone, including atheists, do think & behave as if free will exists in their day-to-day lives.  I have never yet run into an atheist who could look me in the eye and tell me that, no, he truly believes he does not actually have the ability to make moral choices (or any choices).  It flies in the face of what we all know intuitively, and furthermore all of society is structured upon the tenet that people have at least some responsibility for their actions.

 

[In addition to flying in the fact of experience and innate knowledge, the denial of free will is, of course, an insidious evil.  If there is no moral free will then, obviously, people cannot be blamed for their actions, nor is there really any point in trying to instill any type of morality.  What does one say about such foolishness as the Nuremberg trials and the effort to stamp out slavery in the 19th century?  First of all, it makes no sense at all to ever punish anyone for anything since in actuality they have no control over their behavior.  Secondly, if our choices and morality are, ultimately, a direct by-product of our physiology, and our free will a sad illusion, how does one explain the moral firebrands that go against the tide and make real progress in ending some evil, such as Wilberforce with respect to slavery?  Misfiring neurons?  What a sad and pathetic worldview.]

 

The atheist, when confronted with these consequences to their worldview that most go to great lengths to avoid, will assert that societal influences shape how people behave and thus it is possible to achieve "good" behavior through manipulation (one’s definition of "good" being necessarily completely arbitrary).  But it doesn't make sense - if people are to be influenced then those doing the deciding of whom to influence about what and how are making the moral choices!  This is just more evidence of the atheist simply not accepting the consequences of their belief system.  No matter what they will say when pressed, atheists always behave as if free will does exist - because the alternative is so preposterous and so obviously, intuitively wrong to thinking people.  

 

Conclusion

 

Materialism does, as Dr. Lewontin put it, lead to conclusions that are “patently absurd”.  They are so absurd that most atheists never full contemplate them and none of them live by them (none of the ones I’ve ever met, read, or heard of, at least).

 

The Judeo-Christian worldview – or even a general theistic worldview – on the other hand, explains everything we know about the mind and human experience perfectly and naturally.  If our minds are not restricted to being strictly physical entities they can logically contemplate non-physical concepts.  If we are rational beings made in the image of a rational Creator our (obvious) ability to reason and to recognize and acknowledge logical truth follows naturally.  Similarly, freed from the constraints of a purely physical mind, our innately recognized free will is easily explained as well.  The theistic worldview fits the evidence.

 

Atheists want to be rational about everything except rationality itself – they want to bind them and us (actually really just us) to a philosophical system with no foundation that essentially denies the existence of humanity itself.  But that water man will never get out of the ocean on his water ladder, and it takes a mind independent of the physical world to truly understand it.  (Thus does the original (“Copenhagen”) model of quantum mechanics – on of the most important grand theories of modern science – demand the existence of non-physical minds!  The theory doesn’t work without them.)

 

I once debated an atheist of some note who retorted that obviously man can reason rationally with a materialist mind because common experience and history show us that.  It was very surprising to me at the time that he could not see his very short circle of reasoning: thinking & behaving rationally is compatible with a materialist model of the mind because men do obviously think and behave rationally.  As I told him, the fact that men do think & behave rationally – and exhibit free will and respect a true standard of morality which are innately known to exist – is incontrovertible evidence that our minds are not simply a direct result of the firing of neurons.  Rather, our minds direct those neurons.

 

Freedom is a prerequisite of both knowledge and free will.  The materialist’s mind is not free in any sense, but bound to the deterministic order of the laws of physics (which, according to him, exist randomly and spontaneously).  Of course he will not live, think, and act as if this is really the case, for he would have to cease to be human to do so.