“I’m an atheist because I think of the universe as a natural, material system… I’m perfectly sincere and definite
in my belief that there is no God
”
—Philosopher Crispin Sartwell
When your first sentences is in error there may not be much hope for the rest of the article and this one notes that while “Religious beliefs are remarkably various…sometimes it can seem that there is only one way to be an atheist: asserting, on the basis of reasoned argument, that belief in God is irrational.”
The article in view is Crispin Sartwell’s “Irrational Atheism – Not believing in God isn’t always based on reasoned arguments—and that’s okay,” The Atlantic, October 11, 2014 AD; God help us, he teaches philosophy at Dickinson College.
There are two main problems here actually 1) it is well known to anyone who touched upon this topic that there are sects or denominations of Atheism (see here) and 2) it is presupposed that Atheists conclude that “belief in God is irrational” “on the basis of reasoned argument” when there are very many reasons for coming to some such conclusion; I chronicled some of these within this video:
It is also asserted that “The aging ‘new atheists’…pit reason against faith, science against superstition, and declare for reason and science” when it is just as true that they pit faith in Atheism (faitheism) against faith in God, arguments from authority against superstition, and declare emotive reactions and pseudo-scientific scientism.
The article’s second paragraph is even worse and yet, extremely important and elucidative of the issue:
It pictures the universe as a natural system, a system not guided by intelligent design and not traversed by spirits; a universe that can be explained by science, because it consists of material objects operating according to physical laws. In this sense, atheism embodies a whole picture of the world, offering explanations about its most general organization to the character of individual events.
It would be a non-sequitur to conclude that the natural or material is all that exists just because the universe is a natural system. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of and misuse of science to observe that the universe is a natural system and merely assert that ergo it is not guided by intelligent design and not traversed by spirits to which, and this is the key, science has no access. Science is an intelligently designed tool that performs the function of only exploring the material realm and it can thus not be employed towards the desired end that there is no non-physical existence.
Consider concluding that there is no such thing as the cell as a result of exploring the heavens with a telescope. Conversely, consider concluding that there are no celestial bodies as a result of exploring biological specimens with a microscope. In this way, you get the picture of the folly of using the wrong tool for the wrong job and thus, coming to wrong conclusions. When an Atheist claims that “belief in God is irrational” because there is no scientific evidence for God, you know that they know not of what they speak.
The very premise upon which science was based, its method and fields, is that a rational being (the God of the Bible) created a rational creation which functions upon a rational interaction of cause and effect and populated it with rational beings who could therefore rationally discern the material creation.
Now, the article goes on to make a very, very important point which is:
Ironically, this is similar to the totalizing worldview of religion—neither can be shown to be true or false by science, or indeed by any rational technique. Whether theistic or atheistic, they are all matters of faith, stances taken up by tiny creatures in an infinitely rich environment.
Let us dichotomized the claim that “neither can be shown to be true or false” 1) “by science, or indeed” 2) “by any rational technique.” 1) is accurate as I just elucidated however, 2) is an assertion and nothing more. Rational merely refers to being “based on or in accordance with reason or logic” and since reason or logic are not restricted to the observable material realm, they have greater reach.
Romans 1 notes:
…that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things…changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
One of the most tragic statements in the article is Crispin Sartwell’s declaration that “I’m an atheist because I think of the universe as a natural, material system.” By now, you realize what an utter non-sequitur it is to claim that the material realm is a material realm therefore, there is no non-material realm.
Sartwell goes on to state “I think of it, on the basis of my own extremely limited experience, as an infinitely replete but morally indifferent thing” whatever that means. He then notes that “It isn’t bent on saving me, or damning me” which is all but irrelevant and something that no one has ever claimed. He also states that “It just is” which is, actually, the ultimate Atheist answer to any and every question that humanity has ever considered transcendently meaningful.
He follows upon this by becoming emotive rather than rational, “I find comfort in that, as well as pain; wonder as well as loathing. That’s my experience, and my atheism is a reflection of that experience. But it’s not an argument; it’s an interpretation.”
He then states “I have taken a leap of atheist faith. There is more than one way to skin a god. And there are many ways to be an atheist” and from the above considered disaster of attempted reason, he goes on to encourage Atheist to embrace “Irrational Atheism” as “Not believing in God isn’t always based on reasoned arguments—and that’s okay.” Atheism is, primarily, an anti-Christian support group which, statistically, consists of young, White, males, see here.
Atheists, particularly the “New Atheists” realized that they did not need to do much in the way of science or logic but merely had to appeal to youngsters who are already naturally rebellious. For example, they go to colleges where 1) youngsters have just gotten far enough away from mommy’s apron strings to feel a sense of freedom, 2) they are rebelling against daddy’s authority, 3) their hormones are raging and they are in a coed environment, 4) they take classes from liberal Pagans who view students as a captive audience whom they impress with their arguments from authority and along come the Atheists to encourage them to rebel against the ultimate daddy figure, God, and tell them that there are no absolute morality and that their ultimate purpose is to reproduce their DNA: you do the math—actually, you do not have to because Atheist already have.
Thus, merely by labeling oneself an “Atheist” one can instantly assume and assert that they are smarter than the room; they need do no more than childishly make fun of people whilst elbowing their buddies in the ribs.
In the next section, we will consider Crispin Sartwell’s encouragement to embrace “Irrational Atheism” and with that, Atheists further become caricatures of themselves.