Why Atheism Cannot Be Correct

[Asmodean Prime]

I thought it would be interesting to hear the opinions of dwellers on these forums concerning this essay. This piece of text was sent to me by a friend (who is strongly Catholic) as he thought I'd find it interesting seeing as I am an atheist. It's quite a long read, but I'd appreciate any comments on it.


WHY ATHEISM CANNOT BE CORRECT

Alan Roebuck’s latest essay for VFR takes the form of an open letter to an atheistic think tank called the Center for Inquiry, proceeded by an introduction.
Introduction to the ideas in the letter
Liberalism must be opposed fundamentally, because if you accept, even tacitly, your opponent’s premises, you will eventually be forced to accept his conclusions. And the philosophical foundation of liberalism is atheism, because atheism makes man the supreme being, and means that there are no absolutes.
But nowadays, most apologists for atheism do not call themselves atheists. They say, “Atheism requires proving a universal negative, which is impossible. So I’m not an atheist. I just think there’s no reason to believe in a God, so I don’t. Call me a naturalist [or infidel, or freethinker, or agnostic.]” (But note that it is not impossible to prove a universal negative; mathematicians do it all the time.)
More importantly, the atheistic apologist says, “Since my position does not posit the existence of anything, it is the default position. The burden of proof falls on the theist to prove a God exists, and if the proof fails, I am justified in my unbelief.” The atheist then finds what he regards as flaws in each theistic proof, and believes his position is justified.
Professional atheistic organizations have apparently deliberately chosen this approach within the last 20 years or so. They presumably do this because they think it makes their job easier, and because the word “atheism” still sounds bad to the public they want to influence.
Superficially, their position seems strong. When we examine the world with our senses, we do not encounter any entity that could be called God. Since God is extra-ordinary, so it seems, belief in God requires extra-ordinary evidence before the rational man will believe.
But atheism has many weaknesses. Its main weakness is that man cannot live by the proposition “no God exists.” Man, being man, needs general principles to guide him, the most important of which are principles that tell him what is real and what is not (metaphysics), what knowledge is and how it is attained (epistemology), and what is morally right and wrong (ethics).
Therefore, atheism requires additional beliefs in order to be a livable creed. In order to avoid blatant irrationality, atheists must be metaphysical naturalists, meaning they believe that only physical objects and their properties really exist. Epistemologically, atheists are empiricists, believing that all knowledge comes to us from our five senses. And in the realm of ethics, atheists believe either that morality is relative to the group (the less popular position, because it discredits atheism by implying, for example that murder would not be wrong if society in general held it to be not wrong), or else that moral principles evolve along with the human race.
In this essay, I do not take the approach of proving God exists. Within the atheistic worldview, that is impossible. Instead, I argue that naturalism, empiricism and the ethical theories of atheism are false, indeed illogical. This also implies that, contrary to their assumption, atheism cannot be the “default position,” because irrationality cannot be the default position. (Since this is an essay rather than a book, I do not try to be comprehensive in my critique) This is presuppositional apologetics in action: demonstrating the absurdity of their presuppositions, showing that their worldview fails.
Here is my letter to the Center for Inquiry, an atheistic (they say, scientific) think tank and public policy organization that recently issued a “Declaration in Defense of Science and Secularism.”
Dear Center for Inquiry:
I have read the statements of principle on your website, and there are some things I can agree with. Postmodern relativistic irrationalism needs to be strongly rebuked by being demonstrated to be false. Furthermore, you are right to decry the widespread ignorance of and even hostility to science.
But the statements on your website, and your basic position of naturalism (the doctrine that nothing exists but physical entities and their properties), make some fundamental intellectual errors. These errors doom your enterprise, and explain much of the public’s hostility to a scientific establishment that declares itself, erroneously, to be the acme of truth and clear thinking.
Although you have not stated it directly, you have clearly implied (and many naturalists have openly stated) that you believe science to be the highest form of knowledge, by which you presumably mean the most certain and the most precise. You have also taken the position that nothing can be considered knowledge, that is, justified true belief, unless it has been verified or at least supported by science. But these beliefs are actually irrational, because your view of science is self-refuting, and therefore necessarily false. Here’s why:
The validity of science clearly requires the validity of many forms of knowledge that are non-scientific, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, the knowledge that our senses are basically reliable in providing us with knowledge of an objectively existing reality, and certain moral knowledge, e.g., that you ought to report your data and results honestly. But none of these forms of knowledge are proved by using the scientific method. For example, the truths of mathematics are in no way proved by observation, hypothesis formation, and experimentation. The fundamental facts of mathematics are known by intuition, that is, the faculty of the mind that is capable of grasping truths immediately, without engaging in a process of reasoning. What might at first glance appear to be “experimental verification” of mathematical truths is simply the placing of mathematical facts before the student, so that he can see them clearly and thus understand and agree with them. Similar comments pertain to the laws of logic, the reliability of the senses, and (as explained more below) morality.
Therefore, you are making the absurd claim that science is more certain than the knowledge it is based on, which would make science more certain than itself! In reality, the reverse is true: mathematics and logic, for example, are preconditions of science, and therefore more certain and precise than science. Science is obviously not the highest form of knowledge.
Since it is clear that many non-scientific forms of knowledge are more certain and clear than science, you will have to abandon your claim about science. Furthermore, since there are at least some non-scientific truths that can be known, you will have to withdraw your claim that nothing can be known unless it has been justified scientifically.
You are also equivocating on the word “scientifically.” Naturalists will say that a necessary part of the definition of scientific inquiry is the assumption of naturalism. But reality is not determined by definitions: if you have good extra-scientific evidence for naturalism, then you are justified in your definition of science, but if not, you are not justified. In any case, we have to see that evidence; you cannot just say “naturalism is true.” Now, John Q. Public does not know that naturalism is a necessary part of science. He thinks you scientists just dispassionately examine the evidence, and go wherever it leads. If then you do not tell him that you do not prove naturalism, but just assume it, then you are for all intents and purposes lying to John Q. Public.
And this assumption of naturalism, coupled with your beliefs about the superiority of science as a way of knowing, produces another example of irrationality: If science is the highest form of knowledge, then naturalism, which cannot be proved scientifically, is less certain than science, in which case making naturalism a part of science will weaken science, not strengthen it.
Also, you have said: “Many modern thinkers have argued that we should examine our beliefs and theories carefully and assent only to those for which there are adequate grounds.” Although this sounds reasonable at first sight, it is, if interpreted in the most natural way, irrational: if “adequate grounds” means a proof, in the sense of giving other propositions that imply the proposition being proved, and if every proposition requires adequate grounds, then we have an endless process: “What are the adequate grounds for A? B and C. And what are the adequate grounds for B and C? D and E. And what are the adequate grounds for D and E?” Et cetera. This produces either circular reasoning, or else an infinite regression, both of which leave all knowledge without any justification.
The conclusion is inescapable: if we are to know anything, there must be at least some truths that we know without proof. These truths would have to be known either by intuition, by our direct experience of the proposition, or by our trusting the words of a trustworthy authority. All of us use these means of knowing every day. For example, we know “if A is taller than B, and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C” by intuition: when we contemplate this proposition, and when we understand what it means, it becomes self-evident. We know what we had for breakfast by direct experience; no proof is needed. And most of the specific facts we know (such as the results of the last election, the gross national product of Bolivia in 2004, or the mass of Jupiter), we know because we believe what an authority tells us. In principle, we could verify some of these facts for ourselves, but life is too short for us to verify for ourselves any but a tiny handful of the propositions that we have to believe in order to do the business of living. And even so, the verifications of these truths ultimately come down to either intuition or direct experience.
(In fact, knowing something by intuition can be seen as a specific type of knowledge by “direct experience”: you see it with your mind, and you grasp it directly, without engaging in a process of reasoning.)
So what exactly do you mean by “adequate grounds” for a belief or a theory? How do you know what type of grounds are “adequate”? Presumably, for you, “adequate” means “naturalistic.” But then we must ask, “What naturalistic grounds are there for the belief that only naturalistic grounds are adequate?” It is clear that any justification of the principle that only naturalistic grounds are adequate has to transcend naturalism, because the brute facts of the natural world do not have any justification, if a transcendental realm does not actually exist. If naturalism is true, the world is just a brute fact, without any cause or meaning, other than a meaning we make up for ourselves, which would be a subjective meaning, not an objective one. So in your worldview, you must either accept naturalism without any grounds, thus violating your principle of giving adequate grounds, or else you must refer to a non-naturalistic justification, in which case you violate your naturalism. In either case, your position is untenable.
This shows that naturalism itself is self-refuting: if it is true, there can be no reason to believe it. Any possible justification of naturalism would have to have a super-naturalistic origin, thus nullifying naturalism.
Therefore people are allowed to seek non-naturalistic grounds for their beliefs and theories, and they are allowed to believe some things without giving proof.
We have shown that if science is to be valid, then there must be at least some forms of knowledge that are “higher,” that is, more certain and more precise, than science. Furthermore, we have shown that all knowledge is based on propositions that are true, but are not proved, that is, they are either received directly by the mind, or are believed because the authority who provides them is trustworthy.
But how can this be, if naturalism is true? Naturalism (as a metaphysic) means by definition that nothing exists except physical entities and their properties. And epistemological naturalism means that all knowledge is obtained from the senses. But, for example, the laws of mathematics (which according to the foregoing analysis must be more certain than science and also known without proof) are clearly not physical entities, or their properties. And they are not proved by sense perception, because what we perceive with our senses is never exact, as mathematical entities are. The Pythagorean Theorem, for example, is never validated by any physically existing triangle; it is a statement about a universal class: all right triangles. How then can the Pythagorean Theorem exist, if naturalism is true? To understand this dilemma, consider the following thought experiment:
Even according to naturalism, it is possible that the human race is the only species in the entire universe that is intelligent enough to grasp mathematics. So according to naturalism, when we go extinct, and if no other intelligent species has evolved to take our place, then the Pythagorean Theorem will pass out of existence. But how can a non-physical entity “pass out of existence?” Does the fact that a treasure is buried at such-and such a location cease to exist when the last pirate to know its whereabouts dies? It is intuitively clear that the Pythagorean Theorem never passes out of existence, even if no mind exists to think it.
Naturalism fails to account for the existence of mathematics, which really exists. This is another proof that naturalism is false.
Finally, your worldview cannot account for morality. Real morality consists in saying “you ought to do this” or “you ought not to do that,” but these “oughts” are not the type of entity that can evolve, via Darwinism or otherwise. Darwinism at most can explain why people behave as they do (I don’t think it can even explain that), but it can never prove that they ought to behave as they do. Without this “ought-ness,” this “incumbency,” morality becomes meaningless as a guide to life, and any assertion that you ought to do X is meaningless in your worldview. At most, you can only say “If you want Y, then you ought to do X,” but this still leaves unanswered the question “Why should I want Y?”
For example, naturalistic ethics (in its currently popular form) declares that we ought to do what we can to alleviate poverty, but it can give no reason why we ought to care about poor people whom we don’t know and who have no impact on our lives. At most, your worldview says “If you want the entire human race to flourish, then you ought to care about improving the lives of the poor,” but you cannot prove that one ought to want the entire human race to flourish. What would you say to all the misanthropes of the world? You ultimately have no argument why they ought to care, so if it is necessary for them to act as if they care, you will have to use force.
Some naturalists try to dodge this problem by admitting that morality can be objective, and that we can know it by intuition, not by testing it scientifically. But where then do these “oughts” come from? In the naturalistic worldview, they simply exist without any origin or reference to anything beyond themselves. But such morality is not really morality, because if a moral precept does not originate from a legitimate authority (which would have to be a person), there’s no reason why we have to obey it, in which case it is not really morality. To understand this point more clearly, consider the following thought experiment:
Imagine an archaeological dig that has uncovered an ancient city, and suppose the archaeologists have uncovered a tablet saying “No chariots allowed on this street, by order of the king!” Question: is it still true, in the year 2007, that chariots are not allowed on the street? Clearly no, because the authority who issued that rule, and backed it up, no longer exists. It is no longer the case that chariots are not allowed on that street. If there is no personal authority to back it up (to “ground it”), a moral rule is null and void. If morality is to exist objectively, there must be an authority who grounds it.
The scientific method cannot ground, that is, prove the objective truth of, morality, because morality (the sum total of all valid “oughts”) does not consist of physical objects or properties thereof. Therefore, a “scientific” morality cannot be an improvement over the “spiritualist-paranormal” ethics you decry. On the other hand, the biblical view of ethics makes sense: if a legitimate authority says you ought to do it, it is objectively true that you ought to do it. This view of ethics at least has a chance of being valid, whereas your view fails radically.
Furthermore, if our intuition tells us that some acts are objectively wrong, and are not just declared so by a consensus of society, then we must identify the cause of objective morality. This cause, whatever it is, must be non-naturalistic, which is more evidence that naturalism is false.
In conclusion, if you want to be rational, you will have to abandon your claims about science, and admit that non-scientific knowledge can be just as valid as, if not more valid than, science. You will also have to admit that all our knowledge is based ultimately on believing propositions that are not proved but are grasped directly, or are believed because of the trustworthiness of the authority, and not because of “adequate [naturalistic] grounds.” Finally, you will also have to admit that with a purely naturalistic worldview, you cannot create a society that understands and respects morality, because you cannot explain the evident existence of objective moral principles.
In short, naturalism cannot account for the most basic facts of reality.
Therefore, if you want to be rational, you will have to be some sort of “supernaturalist” or, as it is usually called, theist. Non-natural entities can exist, so you should examine the evidence to see which form of theism is the most likely to be true.
Of course, the real issue here is atheism. You believe there is no God, and so you want a comprehensive system of thought and social organization premised on atheism. Fair enough, but it isn’t going to be as intellectually easy to create as you seem to think. You will have to declare, arbitrarily, certain ways of thinking to be invalid, namely those ways of thinking that cannot be proved by reference to only naturalism. But then John Q. Public will rightly suspect that you are trying to pull the wool over his eyes, and he’s not going to take it.
Alan Roebuck

[Tom62]

Wow, that's a lot of blah.. blah.. blah.. After reading four sentences I fell asleep.

[McQ]

I'm a lazy atheist, so I didn't read past the first three sentences. I would have liked this in more of a graphic novel form. Lotsa cool drawings and stuff.  Guns and boobs.

:wink:

Seriously, it was too damn long and too full of shite. I would like to know who the writer is, beyond the name, and what the Center for Inquiry did or said in response. I'm sure they've seen and heard all of this before.

[donkeyhoty]

Liberalism must be opposed fundamentally, because if you accept, even tacitly, your opponent’s premises, you will eventually be forced to accept his conclusions.

Um, no.  Does the author of this article even know what liberalism is?  And, what sort of liberalism are they refering to?  Also, how is universal education, freedom of thought, and a limited, transparent government a bad thing?

The conclusion is inescapable: if we are to know anything, there must be at least some truths that we know without proof. These truths would have to be known either by intuition, by our direct experience of the proposition, or by our trusting the words of a trustworthy authority. All of us use these means of knowing every day. For example, we know “if A is taller than B, and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C” by intuition: when we contemplate this proposition, and when we understand what it means, it becomes self-evident. We know what we had for breakfast by direct experience; no proof is needed

We know A is taller than C because of math(something that this article holds to be more important than science, but knows nothing about).  Direct experience is proof.

The whole argument is psedoscience of the variety theists tend to pontificate.  There is no semblance of a solid argument contained within the article. You cannot prove the existence of god by saying "there must be something higher than science.  How else could we figure anything out if some higher entity didn't create and imbue us with all this stuff?  I mean, look at the intelligence in the design of mathematics"  

Wake me when a theist comes up with something better than thinly veiled "intelligent design".

Why, if there is an intelligent design, are the arguments for it so poor?

[Will]

I thought it would be interesting to hear the opinions of dwellers on these forums concerning this essay. This piece of text was sent to me by a friend (who is strongly Catholic) as he thought I'd find it interesting seeing as I am an atheist. It's quite a long read, but I'd appreciate any comments on it.

Thanks for posting. I've freed the next hour for this:

WHY ATHEISM CANNOT BE CORRECT
/snip
Liberalism must be opposed fundamentally, because if you accept, even tacitly, your opponent’s premises, you will eventually be forced to accept his conclusions. And the philosophical foundation of liberalism is atheism, because atheism makes man the supreme being, and means that there are no absolutes.

Degradation is the word given in opposition to advancement. Stagnation is the opposite of movement, whether it be forward or reverse. Liberalism is a part of a two sided scale, the front side being liberal and the back side being conservative. On the liberal side of the scale, we have people who constantly pull society forward, always trying to reach above and beyond. On the conservative end, we have people afraid or unwilling to go with progress and who pull back against the liberals. As an 'equilibriust', and a student of anthropology, I find that in a society that is too liberal, things move forward too fast...so fast that mistakes are made. It is in that way that conservatism becomes useful. Move too fast and you won't have time to consider the repercussions of every decision. A society that is too conservative, however, stagnates. As it is the natural state for all life to evolve over a slow period of time through processes of mutation and natural selection, so also society must develop, and therein lies the problem with the very beginning of this essay(?). When one opposes liberalism at a fundamental level, one opposes progress and one opposes the natural course that society must take. I imagine that the writer of this would prefer birds with one wing instead of two. As with all evolution, what is new today will eventually become old. Likewise, notions that are liberal today will eventually become conservative. Take, for example, the idea of transfusion. When the idea of sharing blood for medical purposes was originally introduced, conservatives overwhelmingly condemned it as wrong. That is no longer the case but in very specific cases today. I doubt we would see Rush Limbaugh telling people not to give blood today. As such, liberal notions today such as homosexual marriage being accepted by the state or universal health care will undoubtedly become less liberal over time. The author of this seems to not realize that he is a product of societal development occuring for hundreds of thousands of years. That's liberalism eventually coming out on top consistently throughout human existence.

But nowadays, most apologists for atheism do not call themselves atheists. They say, “Atheism requires proving a universal negative, which is impossible. So I’m not an atheist. I just think there’s no reason to believe in a God, so I don’t. Call me a naturalist [or infidel, or freethinker, or agnostic.]” (But note that it is not impossible to prove a universal negative; mathematicians do it all the time.)

No mathematic equation exists in the affirmative or negative as far as the existence of a supernatural supreme being, so that point is moot to say the best, and is argument from fallacy to be quite honest. The truth is that no evidence exists to prove god one way or the other, so the idea of applied mathematics being used in the proving of god is preposterous.

More importantly, the atheistic apologist says, “Since my position does not posit the existence of anything, it is the default position. The burden of proof falls on the theist to prove a God exists, and if the proof fails, I am justified in my unbelief.” The atheist then finds what he regards as flaws in each theistic proof, and believes his position is justified.
Professional atheistic organizations have apparently deliberately chosen this approach within the last 20 years or so. They presumably do this because they think it makes their job easier, and because the word “atheism” still sounds bad to the public they want to influence.

I wonder why 'atheist' is a bad word? Could it be that the books - Torah, Bible Qu'ran, etc. - that theists cling to are clear about atheists being evil and despicable and even servants of the anti-god characters, such as satan? Could it be that we are demonized - no pun intended - by theism in general? I'll answer my own rhetorical question: yes. An atheist does not find flaws in theistic proof so much as he points out the simple and obvious fact that no proof exists. This is a very simple position, and is difficult to challenge by even the greatest of theistic minds because of it's unshakable footing on logic.

Superficially, their position seems strong. When we examine the world with our senses, we do not encounter any entity that could be called God. Since God is extra-ordinary, so it seems, belief in God requires extra-ordinary evidence before the rational man will believe.

That's a big 10-4.

But atheism has many weaknesses. Its main weakness is that man cannot live by the proposition “no God exists.” Man, being man, needs general principles to guide him, the most important of which are principles that tell him what is real and what is not (metaphysics), what knowledge is and how it is attained (epistemology), and what is morally right and wrong (ethics).

And here we see the first big mistake made by theists in this argument: the god-morality connection. This is often where discussions break down because theists believe that morality has always existed just as god has always existed. The reality, of course, is that religion is relatively new compared to morality, which can be successfully traced back to before our ancestors were hunter-gatherers. This fundamental difference in how the world developed is often a source of misunderstanding. Fortunately, this argument falls under the same mistakes as most other made by theists against atheists or agnostics: science disagrees. We have evidence to suggest that morality developed as the family unit developed in early packs. Things like the golden rule, treating others as you would be treated, would be important because you would likely see the person you treated well or badly again. Reciprocation was necessity for survival and as it was a survival trait, it continued. That was the dawn of ethics.

Modern ethics work a little differently, and I will admit that some 'faith' has to be applied to my personal feeling that being altruistic helps my society as a whole...but my beliefs do not require a mystical force to give meaning to my behavior or philosophy. It is in that difference that lies the real distinction between theists and atheists.

Therefore, atheism requires additional beliefs in order to be a livable creed. In order to avoid blatant irrationality, atheists must be metaphysical naturalists, meaning they believe that only physical objects and their properties really exist. Epistemologically, atheists are empiricists, believing that all knowledge comes to us from our five senses. And in the realm of ethics, atheists believe either that morality is relative to the group (the less popular position, because it discredits atheism by implying, for example that murder would not be wrong if society in general held it to be not wrong), or else that moral principles evolve along with the human race.
In this essay, I do not take the approach of proving God exists. Within the atheistic worldview, that is impossible. Instead, I argue that naturalism, empiricism and the ethical theories of atheism are false, indeed illogical. This also implies that, contrary to their assumption, atheism cannot be the “default position,” because irrationality cannot be the default position. (Since this is an essay rather than a book, I do not try to be comprehensive in my critique) This is presuppositional apologetics in action: demonstrating the absurdity of their presuppositions, showing that their worldview fails.

What the author will probably avoid is that there are indeed degrees of 'illogical'. While I may not be able to explain why I stop to help a woman change her flat tire (an ugly woman, so we can rule out sex), it would be less logical for me to blame the teachings of a supernatural ruler to explain my behavior. What's worse, when some theists have no explanation for poor behavior or decision making, they will often try to excuse their behavior with the teachings of a supernatural ruler, and it's in that where we find the danger of theism: illogical thoughts or actions excused by supernatural reason.

Here is my letter to the Center for Inquiry, an atheistic (they say, scientific) think tank and public policy organization that recently issued a “Declaration in Defense of Science and Secularism.”

THAT WAS JUST THE INTRODUCTION?! Yeesh....

Dear Center for Inquiry:
I have read the statements of principle on your website, and there are some things I can agree with. Postmodern relativistic irrationalism needs to be strongly rebuked by being demonstrated to be false. Furthermore, you are right to decry the widespread ignorance of and even hostility to science.

But the statements on your website, and your basic position of naturalism (the doctrine that nothing exists but physical entities and their properties), make some fundamental intellectual errors. These errors doom your enterprise, and explain much of the public’s hostility to a scientific establishment that declares itself, erroneously, to be the acme of truth and clear thinking.

*que Montey Python and the Holy Grail* "Get on with it!!!"

Although you have not stated it directly, you have clearly implied (and many naturalists have openly stated) that you believe science to be the highest form of knowledge, by which you presumably mean the most certain and the most precise. You have also taken the position that nothing can be considered knowledge, that is, justified true belief, unless it has been verified or at least supported by science. But these beliefs are actually irrational, because your view of science is self-refuting, and therefore necessarily false. Here’s why:
The validity of science clearly requires the validity of many forms of knowledge that are non-scientific, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, the knowledge that our senses are basically reliable in providing us with knowledge of an objectively existing reality, and certain moral knowledge, e.g., that you ought to report your data and results honestly. But none of these forms of knowledge are proved by using the scientific method. For example, the truths of mathematics are in no way proved by observation, hypothesis formation, and experimentation. The fundamental facts of mathematics are known by intuition, that is, the faculty of the mind that is capable of grasping truths immediately, without engaging in a process of reasoning. What might at first glance appear to be “experimental verification” of mathematical truths is simply the placing of mathematical facts before the student, so that he can see them clearly and thus understand and agree with them. Similar comments pertain to the laws of logic, the reliability of the senses, and (as explained more below) morality.

Logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
Mathematics: the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.
(from dictionary.com, for reference)

Logic is by definition a science, but I'd like to delve into this a bit before moving on. The scientific method was developed based on logic. Our perceived (through our five senses and minds) understanding of our environment is where everything starts. It is in that environment that we find information from which to draw logical conclusions based on the scientific method, which is itself logical. To draw a distinction between science and logic is absolutely and clearly incorrect. They are fundamentally intertwined.

Mathematics is a science in that it is a system of formulated knowledge, but it is not a natural science until applied. The thing is, it is applied all the time. As soon as it's applied, when a mechanic builds an engine, an air traffic controller calculates trajectory, or an astronomer calculates distances between stars, it becomes a natural science.

Therefore, you are making the absurd claim that science is more certain than the knowledge it is based on, which would make science more certain than itself! In reality, the reverse is true: mathematics and logic, for example, are preconditions of science, and therefore more certain and precise than science. Science is obviously not the highest form of knowledge.

The author should be careful throwing the word 'absurd' around, especially considering that it's clear that he believes in a divine being. 'Preconditions' is misused in this paragraph. In actuality, logic and mathematics are tools used in conjunction with and as a part of the scientific method, again together. Science is the application of mathematics and logic, and therefore is just as reliable as mathematics and logic. This actually goes back to the ideas about liberalism in the beginning. You can't just take one step (logic and mathematics), you have to continue moving forward and developing (scientific method).

Does anyone else think that this is the only point this guy is trying to make, and that he's really long winded? At least I try to be funny when I talk or write a lot.

/snip conclusion based on incorrect information
You are also equivocating on the word “scientifically.” Naturalists will say that a necessary part of the definition of scientific inquiry is the assumption of naturalism. But reality is not determined by definitions: if you have good extra-scientific evidence for naturalism, then you are justified in your definition of science, but if not, you are not justified. In any case, we have to see that evidence; you cannot just say “naturalism is true.” Now, John Q. Public does not know that naturalism is a necessary part of science. He thinks you scientists just dispassionately examine the evidence, and go wherever it leads. If then you do not tell him that you do not prove naturalism, but just assume it, then you are for all intents and purposes lying to John Q. Public.
And this assumption of naturalism, coupled with your beliefs about the superiority of science as a way of knowing, produces another example of irrationality: If science is the highest form of knowledge, then naturalism, which cannot be proved scientifically, is less certain than science, in which case making naturalism a part of science will weaken science, not strengthen it.

What the heck is 'extra-scientific proof'? Like a miracle? I think naturalists would avoid using miracles to explain naturalism.

Also, you have said: “Many modern thinkers have argued that we should examine our beliefs and theories carefully and assent only to those for which there are adequate grounds.” Although this sounds reasonable at first sight, it is, if interpreted in the most natural way, irrational: if “adequate grounds” means a proof, in the sense of giving other propositions that imply the proposition being proved, and if every proposition requires adequate grounds, then we have an endless process: “What are the adequate grounds for A? B and C. And what are the adequate grounds for B and C? D and E. And what are the adequate grounds for D and E?” Et cetera. This produces either circular reasoning, or else an infinite regression, both of which leave all knowledge without any justification.

If logic and mathematics are right, then, as a product of the two, science is right. If they are not right, then we're both wasting our breath, but the idea of god is still more preposterous than science.

The conclusion is inescapable: if we are to know anything, there must be at least some truths that we know without proof. These truths would have to be known either by intuition, by our direct experience of the proposition, or by our trusting the words of a trustworthy authority. All of us use these means of knowing every day. For example, we know “if A is taller than B, and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C” by intuition: when we contemplate this proposition, and when we understand what it means, it becomes self-evident. We know what we had for breakfast by direct experience; no proof is needed. And most of the specific facts we know (such as the results of the last election, the gross national product of Bolivia in 2004, or the mass of Jupiter), we know because we believe what an authority tells us. In principle, we could verify some of these facts for ourselves, but life is too short for us to verify for ourselves any but a tiny handful of the propositions that we have to believe in order to do the business of living. And even so, the verifications of these truths ultimately come down to either intuition or direct experience.

The conclusion is that twisting reason is no way to formulate an argument. As donkeyhoty (clever name) said, the proof of A being taller than C is in mathematics, which is fancier than scientific method, apparently.

Alan Roebuck, learn to summarize. It'll make correcting you less time consuming. Unless you don't think time is as real as science or logic. Heh.

[bearvshark]

Why does atheism require any additional beliefs?  It doesn't, it is the default position.  Or rather, agnosticism maybe but either way we are atheistic to something.  It takes more effort to believe in a God, since you have to swallow lots of crazy additional beliefs like Jesus being born of a virgin or whatever (pick your myth).  The attempt at tap dancing around logic is extremely difficult(I know, I used to be a Christian).  But hey, whatever.

D

[Will]

Salvy, you're always welcome to return to defend or debate your postulations and those of Alan.

[skeptigirl]

Sure are a lot of Christian spammers out there looking for atheists to preach to.

Just posting some canned speech like that, let me guess, it has resulted in 0 atheists changing their belief.

So let me sum this one up: "In short, naturalism cannot account for the most basic facts of reality. "

It appears you don't understand the scientific process, salvy41.

[Squid]

It looks like Alan Roebuck utilizes "pull it outta my ass" philosophy.  What a bunch of crap.  A first year philosophy undergrad could dismantle this tripe.

[Piemaster]

Could somebody give me Cliff Notes, I really can't be bothered to read all of that.

[tacoma_kyle]

A rant from a intelectually lacking bone-head of god.

[skeptigirl]

Could somebody give me Cliff Notes, I really can't be bothered to read all of that.

Same old twisted logic and poor understanding of science, the end.

[Sophus]

Science, logic, and facts are not what is needed to disprove gods. Otherwise yes, agnosticism is the only answer. However the only tools needed to disprove every last god are the very holy texts that they were created with.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Wow, that's a lot of blah.. blah.. blah.. After reading four sentences I fell asleep.

Yeah ... I think seek to blind us with BS  

Kyu

[Asmodean]

I'm not getting into this one, am I?

*must... resist...*