In this post, we will take a step back and look at the larger picture. We will focus on taking the raw data we have accumulated and, too much like pieces of a puzzle, we will assemble that puzzle.
Before we can assemble the final syllogism, which I hope will hammer home the importance of this argument against atheism, we must present a basic first argument.
The first argument…
Note: Each number (like 1)) refers to a premise of the argument.
1) There are two ways of explaining reality: naturalism or supernaturalism.
For those of you who may be in the dark as to what naturalism is, I will provide a definition. Naturalism, according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the belief that “nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."1 Thus, naturalism is the belief that all that exists is nature, and thus all that is true is nature. There is no room for a supreme, infinite and omnipotent Christian God in nature because nature is a god in and of itself.
Philip E. Johnson, a Christian apologist, points to the unmistakable conclusion of naturalism, “Evolutionary naturalism takes the inherent limitations of science and turns them into a devastating philosophical weapon: because science is our only real way of knowing anything, what science cannot know cannot be real.”
Supernaturalism then is the belief that something exists above nature. The supernatural is something that super(cedes) nature. In other words, supernaturalism asserts that things exist outside of nature.
It should be pointed out that the supernatural does not only refer to God. The supernatural is anything which exists outside of nature, so if ghosts did exist, then they would exist in the supernatural.
Stated logically, A can be explained by C or B.
2) Naturalism can only be true if nature is the only thing that exists.
We already stated this premise in the statement, “Naturalism is the belief that ‘nature is all there is’”.
Stated logically, C is true only if D is true.
3) Things exist outside of nature.
This is what we tried to prove in the last three posts—that religious experiences occur outside of nature. We did so by proving that they are real experiences people feel and that they happen outside of a person’s brain. Thus, we have proven that there is no real difference between a sensory experience and a religious one.
If our line of thought was successful, which I believe that it was, then we have proved that something exists outside of nature. Thus, this premise is upheld.
It should be noted that one could make many different argument to support this premise. One could argue that the underlying object of numbers is outside of nature, i.e. that numbers are not merely constructs of nature. One could argue that miracles have occurred in nature, which proves that something exists outside of nature. One could argue that scientific laws cannot be explained by nature. And any number of other arguments could be made.
Stated logically, D is not true.
4) Thus, naturalism is false.
This follows necessarily from the last two premises. Because naturalism claims that nature is everything and premise two proves that nature is not everything. Thus, naturalism is false.
Stated logically, D is not true, thus C is not true.
5) Since naturalism is false, supernaturalism is true.
This conclusion is more or less logically necessary following the law of non-contradiction. In other words, both naturalism and supernaturalism cannot be true because they contradict. Thus, since naturalism is not true, supernaturalism is true.
An objection might be made that I am committing the either/or fallacy. That is because it assumes there are only two-options naturalism or supernaturalism.
My argument doesn’t commit this fallacy. That’s because the fallacy assumes that there are other options. There are no other options. Either both exist or one exists—there are no other options. (Of course the supernatural could exist alone, but that would also negate atheism.)
Stated logically, A is not C, thus it is B.
The final argument against atheism…
The moment we have all been waiting for…the logical proof that atheism is false. We have taken a long road to get here, most of it necessary, and I thank all of you have stuck with it to this point. The argument is in a simple logical syllogism…
1) If naturalism is false, then atheism is false.
There is no doubt that if my logic up to this point is any good, then some atheists may try to avert my argument by suggesting that they are not naturalists. And we do find some forms of atheism in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jain and other religions, which suggest that no “creator god” exists.
There are several problems with this view. First, most of these religions (with the exception of Jain) do not teach polemically that atheism is true. And there are many who are not atheists in each of these groups. Also, none of these religions are prima facie atheistic. Second, most of these religions do have some kind of esoteric “supernatural” beings. Third, the use of the word “atheist” is different from the one I am talking about. I’m specifically talking about the form of atheism that is unreligious. Fourth, this is semantic and unrelated to the subject at hand.
Again, the atheist really has no choice here unless they wish to abandon the belief that the natural world is “enclosed” within itself.
Stated logically, either A or B.
2) Naturalism is false.
The point of the first argument was to prove this.
Stated logically, not A.
3) Thus, atheism is false.
Following premise 1 this is necessary.
Stated logically, since not A thus B.
We have completed the arguments! Thank you for reading these posts, I hope that they have given you confidence that atheism is demonstrably false.
Philosophically…
My next post will explore the practical theological value of religious experiences…
1. (“Naturalism", in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan, 1996 Supplement, 372–373)
No comments:
Post a Comment