What is Atheism I

A great introduction to the particulars of Atheism. Very informative given the nature of the presentation by a genuine atheist.

Carrier and the Universe

Dr. Carrier writes (taken from his site here):

(1) • What caused the universe to exist?

Fallacy of loaded question. It is not established that the universe began, and thus had a cause at all.

Our universe began (at the Big Bang) but we have no way of knowing anymore what if anything preceded that event. And as for what caused our one specific universe, we already know the answer to that: the Big Bang did (an event and process that completely eluded all divine Christian revelation for two thousand years, as well as all divine Muslim and Jewish revelation throughout the whole of their existence). As to what caused the Big Bang, we have many viable theories (from Hawking’s The Grand Design to Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing to Vilenkin’s Many Worlds in One, all of which predict and explain numerous strange and often specific features of the universe that no theology has ever been able to deduce from the hypothesis that God did it). As far as figuring out which one is right, cosmological scientists are working on it. They’ve made tremendous progress. Theology has made none.

If we revise the question to ask something more abstract like “Why does the universe exist?” (thus admitting that maybe it has always existed in some form, and thus was never ultimately “caused,” but asking instead “why” it exists instead of something else, or nothing at all), then the answer is the same as why a god is supposed to exist. (He just does? Then the universe just does. He exists necessarily? Then a universe exists necessarily. We can play this game forever.) If we revise the question into something conditional like, “If all existence itself began, then what caused it?,” then the answer is any of dozens of possible things, all of which have a vastly lower specified complexity than a complex intelligent mind and therefore have a far greater prior probability (see The God Impossible)–and by explaining observed evidence better, they also have a far greater posterior probability as well. This follows from the argument from scale, including the mind-boggling scale of this universe’s lethality and inhospitability to life (indeed the universe is far better designed to generate black holes than life).

I discuss all these facts throughout my entries in the Carrier-Wanchick Debate. I have more recently described ten possible causal or explanatory theories of why an orderly universe exists in previous comments on my blog (and we needn’t know which are true to know they are all simpler theories, and often based in more background evidence, than any god hypothesis). I more formally outline why the evidence (the nature of the universe we find ourselves in) is far more likely on any such godless hypothesis than on any rational form of theism in my chapter “Neither Life Nor the Universe Appear Intelligently Designed” in The End of Christianity (pp. 279-304). I’ll quote one key section of that to give you an idea of what I mean:

[T]his universe is 99.99999 percent composed of lethal radiation-filled vacuum, and 99.99999 percent of all the material in the universe comprises stars and black holes on which nothing can ever live, and 99.99999 percent of all other material in the universe (all planets, moons, clouds, asteroids) is barren of life or even outright inhospitable to life. In other words, the universe we observe is extraordinarily inhospitable to life. Even what tiny inconsequential bits of it are at all hospitable are extremely inefficient at producing life—at all, but far more so intelligent life …. One way or another, a universe perfectly designed for life would easily, readily, and abundantly produce and sustain life. Most of the contents of that universe would be conducive to life or benefit life. Yet that’s not what we see. Instead, almost the entire universe is lethal to life—in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life (it would literally be smaller than a single proton). It’s exceedingly difficult to imagine a universe less conducive to life than that—indeed, that’s about as close to being completely incapable of producing life as any random universe can be expected to be, other than of course being completely incapable of producing life. (pp. 295-96)

And yet…

That is exactly what we would have to see if life arose by accident. Because life can arise by accident only in a universe that large and old. The fact that we observe exactly what the theory of accidental origin requires and predicts is evidence that our theory is correct. (p. 290)

Because without a God, life can only exist by chemical accident, such a chemical accident will be exceedingly rare, and exceedingly rare things only commonly happen in vast universes where countless tries are made over vast spans of time. Likewise, a universe not designed for us will not look well suited to us but be almost entirely unsuited to us and we will survive only in a few tiny chance pockets of survivable space in it. Atheism thus predicts, with near 100% certainly, several bizarre features of the universe (it’s vast size and age and lethality to life), whereas we cannot deduce any of those features from any non-gerrymandered God hypothesis (while gerrymandered hypotheses all grossly violate Occam’s Razor).

My Reply

            Dr. Carrier is quite mistaken to say, “Our universe began (at the Big Bang) but we have no way of knowing anymore what if anything preceded that event” since he would have to know the limits of knowledge to make such a claim. In which case, Dr. Carrier would be inconsistent claiming to know what cannot be known.

Dr. Carrier tells us,

“As to what caused the Big Bang, we have many viable theories (from Hawking’s The Grand Design to Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing to Vilenkin’s Many Worlds in One, all of which predict and explain numerous strange and often specific features of the universe that no theology has ever been able to deduce from the hypothesis that God did it). As far as figuring out which one is right, cosmological scientists are working on it. They’ve made tremendous progress. Theology has made none.”

         It is strange how Dr. Carrier doesn’t explain in what ways these alternative theories can evade the absolute beginning of the universe. Perhaps it is because they, in fact, cannot. All of the models, he mentions, still conclude the absolute beginning of the universe. Dr. Carrier talks of the universe just existing inexplicably, which amounts to an arbitrary claim. He also discusses the possibility of the universe having necessary existence.This is obviously false since we can rationally imagine there being no universe. The universe did not have to exist. 

           Moreover, the theology and tone, Dr. Carrier wishes to criticize as “the hypothesis that God did it” is a naive understanding of Christian theology and philosophy. It is naive as if one characterized the metaphysical naturalism of Dr. Carrier as "the hypothesis that nature did it." But is God to be treated as merely a hypothesis? As Christians we understand all things are created and sustained by God’s direct providence.  So in this sense all things can be explain by God; but that taken by itself, especially for Christian scientists, can be somewhat trivial. This is why science focuses on God’s indirect providence with God’s direct providence as its foundation. That is to say science graphs the interactions and relations between secondary causes with the necessary assumption of God as the primary cause. Sound Christian theology and philosophy does not start with God as merely a hypothesis, but as a necessary prerequisite for even hypothesizing. There is a significant difference between the two. The former starts with God as a hypothesis to make experiments and predictions to confirm or falsify God. The latter starts with God as a presupposition necessary to even account for hypothesizes, experiments, predictions, confirmations, or falsifications. I sense, here, Dr. Carrier would say both views amount merely to the arbitrary claim, namely “God did it.” But Christians’ are certainly not making an arbitrary claim. Quite the contrary, Christians are arguing the very fact that arbitrariness is a key intellectual sin is due to God being the starting-point. God, who himself is rational, created us to reflect His nature. Since we are made in His image to be rational, we (have a reason to) object to arbitrariness. The very charge of arbitrariness, Dr. Carrier wishes to pin on Christianity, exposes the fact he is made in the image of God. Is the Christian claim arbitrary though? It must be a resounding no! Christianity as a worldview is coherent and self-justifying. The problem is naturalists preclude Christianity from being true simply on the basis of their faith in metaphysical naturalism. Still it is worth asking, why is an arbitrary answer insufficient for Dr. Carrier? Why isn’t an arbitrary answer preferred over a rational one? I bet he’d answer along the lines that a person ought to have reasons for what she believes. A person has the epistemic responsibility to acquire reasons to form beliefs. If he would say these things no appeal to natural selection can explain where these rational obligations and responsibilities come from.  

        Dr. Carrier uses probability theory to say certain theories make it more probable that the universe would arise from nothing by nothing in the way it exists presently. Yet he neglects to mention the highly unreliable nature of probability theory given the background information needed to accurately represent and calculate any given thing. 

He talks a lot about order which cannot be rightly accounted for given the requirement of chance to explain the universe from metaphysical naturalism. 

Why Dr. Carrier quibbles about sticking to Ockam’s razor is nonsense from naturalism.

For a different take on some of the same issues discussed here check out my posts here and here. 

Open Air Atheist

I had a discussion with Open Air Atheist on my Youtube channel. Here is my reply to him.

Please explain logically how objective values are contradictory? You maintain my question “…is like asking [you] to explain why a square circle is logically contradictory.” And then conclude, “It simply is the case that both of these concepts are by definition distinct from one another.”  No one disputes circles and squares are distinct. Your main point is misplaced. If the concept of objective moral values is logically contradictory, as you claim, then a conceptual analysis is due on your part to demonstrate it. But what you level against objective moral values is no simple task. You must show logically there is no possible world in which objective moral values can exist. But as I see it, by the use of possible world semantics, a conceptual analysis of ‘objective moral values’ can be shown as logically coherent.   

First, lets fill in the content of the words “objective moral values.”  By objective moral values, we mean moral values/facts that are universally binding on all people regardless of whether or not people acknowledge them. For example, an act of rape is morally wrong no matter if anyone believes it or not. 

Why is God essentially rational? I think this kind of question is wrongheaded. It is like the question, who made God? The question is fallacious or worse utter nonsense. I kindly take it to be the former than the latter. It is a category mistake on the part of the questioner. What the question is fundamentally asking is why God, a being who is necessarily rational, is not contingently rational. But clearly such a question confuses the categories of being, namely the necessary and contingent.    

Define your use of the term "created"? Do you mean A can cause something to come from nothing? If so, then if something can come from nothing, then we don't need God (whatever that is if indeed an is).

I maintain that God, who is omnipotent (i.e. consistently by nature all powerful), brought the universe, and humans into existence from no thing. It is the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. And my view conforms to biogenesis. Thus something only comes from something. But if you deny the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo you are left with affirming the absurd conclusion that something comes from nothing by nothing. In the words of William lane Craig, “ such a view is worse than magic.” 

What is God? "God is a person?" Obviously you don't mean that in the usual sense. A person has qualia and physical correlates. If you say no! Then its like saying God is a person which is not a person, or at least not like any person you have experienced which tells me nothing!

What is qualia? Please define qualia. There are plenty of definitions for God. But since you asked me, I would subscribe to the Westminster or London Baptist Confession of Faith’s definition. Now if you wish to tell me the word ‘God’ has no referent; and in effect, all Christians are deluded when they talk about God, such a tactic gets us nowhere in discussion. Moreover, by leveling such a claim, you are taking upon the burden to prove all Christians are deluded when they speak of God and the word itself is meaningless. But there are countless books that would demonstrate the term ‘God’ is meaningful.[1] Moreover, your questions show you are out of step with the Christian renaissance in contemporary analytic philosophy. God is absolute personality, the one in the many, Tri-personal: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is absolute in lordship, authority, presence, knowledge, power and goodness.

Because value judgments are by nature intrinsically subjective. They are personal like, dislikes, expectations (first person experiences) etc.

So is it your subjective value judgment that all value judgments are subjective? This is clearly self-refuting.  I do not deny the subjective component to values but nor do I deny the normative component to values either. And the latter component was the main focus of my discussion with you.

Define your usage of the term "reality" without committing a fallacy of definition.

What is the fallacy of definition? If you are claiming it is a tautology I'd refer you to Quine's paper Two Dogmas of Empiricism.  It is obvious this question is simply a tactic to get away from debating. All one has to do to reveal this fact is ask, "is it true to reality you do not know what ‘reality’ means?" By reality I mean the actual state of affairs.  

 I know what I mean when I use the term "know," but I'm asking you to define your usage of the term. 

Again, another obvious question simply to get away from debating. But I will answer. The term “know” refers to knowledge, which is traditionally understood as justified true belief. But after Alvin Plantinga came along, it might properly be changed to warranted true belief.

 "Why care about truth?" The reason I project value onto truth etc, is because it suits my goals.

Goals to what ends? So truth is merely instrumental? It is instrumental to what? If there is no ultimate end to the means, then one is left in an infinite regress.    

---

[1] JP Moreland and Kai Nielsen. Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists and Atheists (Prometheus, Amherst, 1993)p.p.57-59,156-158.

Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman Jr. The Unchanging Faith in a Changing World (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1997)p.p.72-76.

Smith, George H. Atheism: The Case Against God. 2003. PDF. p.22.

Adler, Mortimer J. How to Think about God: A Guide to a 20^th-Century Pagan.(Macmillan, New York, 1980)p.p.78-93.

William Lane Craig. Defining God  

  

Presuppositionalism Refuted, Really?

Sye Ten Bruggencate

Atheist responses to the same questions asked by Sye.

Dan Courtney

James Stillwell (OAA)

A clear critique of these videos can be seen in James Anderson's replies to my questions here:

Atheism Deceptively Fideism

Presuppositions, Epistemology and Atheism

Skepticism

I have noticed atheists have now resorted to skepticism as a basis for a counter-argument against presuppositional apologetics.

This video makes a lot of claims that seem to follow the ideas from Michael Martin's article TANG. The latter article has been addressed by both Michael Butler and John Frame so I will not further discuss it here. I wish to only address those points that seem to be a counter-argument. First, then we go to epistemology. The video builds an argument on a false analogy between God and a king. This is obvious when one looks to perfect being theology. By definition God is the greatest conceivable being; He is the most perfect being (hence the name perfect being theology). If this is the case, then there is no substantial parallel between God and the king in the video. However if we grant the false analogy further problems arise. First, the analogy illustrates a misunderstanding of the Presuppositional argument. Since the unbeliever seeks to reverse the the argument back on the believer. As one's modus ponens is another person's modus tollens. Here the problem is made explicit. The believer affirms that God is the necessary starting point to make sense of human experience and thought. Sye Ten Bruggencate argues this affirmation by pressing the unbeliever to admit knowledge is impossible in terms of the non-christian worldview. The alleged counter-argument is that the christian too is left in the same kind of skepticism. Since the believer can not ground his belief that God is not deceiving him. What is the problem of this argument? First, it acknowledges Christianity as the necessary presupposition of thought and human experience in attempt to show it is self-refuting. But it does not demonstrate Christianity is in fact self-refuting. Vincent Cheung explains this problem well:

    

"They suggest that according to my view, I could be deceived in affirming my view. First, this is just outright stupid, since the Bible says that God can send evil spirits to convince people of error. So no matter how it happens, God is the one who decrees that someone would be deceived. Second, they demonstrate that they really have no idea how to perform this fatal maneuver, since it again backfires against them. If I am deceived in the way that the objection suggests (that is, by my own explanation of how one comes to believe falsehood), then it actually proves my position. If I am deceived in the way that I say one is deceived, then I am in fact not deceived. To illustrate, if God sends a demon to "deceive" someone into thinking that God does not send demons to deceive, then God does send demons to deceive. Likewise, if God causes me to believe the "falsehood" that it is God who causes one to believe falsehood, then God does cause one to believe falsehood, and I am in fact not deceived. In other words, my position cannot be demonstrated as self-refuting in the manner attempted by the objection."[1]

Secondly, the counter-argument assumes there is truth. Since one cannot have doubt, deception, or falsehood without a standard of certainty, honesty, and truth. And this standard must be justified by the unbeliever. However, if the unbeliever rightly understood the presuppositional argument, then he would  know even deception is impossible without starting first with the God of Scripture. Moreover, the video asserts starting with God does not justify knowledge, logic, and regularity as simply as naturalism. This assertion is plainly false since the video advocates fideism. This has been dealt with here and here. One must presuppose the reliability of sensation and justify it by scripture which is circular reasoning (not a problem), but it results in two circles sensation is justified by scripture and scripture is justified by sensation. This demonstrates reason presupposes faith and that human experience and everything that is meaningful--sensation, induction, intuition, logic, free-will (free agency) morals,-- hinges on the truthfulness of the Christian worldview. Furthermore, contemporary religious epistemology is not even consulted for the premises of the unbeliever's arguments which leaves the arguments susceptible to refutation in light of this neglected data.   

The video asserts logic and the regularity of nature operates given the essences of their respective natures. Matter operates consistent with matter and this is how regularity can be justified. The problem with such a view is simply it begs the question. How does one know all matter operates the same? Have you tested every atom? If not, then the unbeliever is assuming without justification that from particulars one can get universals. It gets even more precise, if the unbeliever is an empiricist, then since he cannot observe the empirical connection between causes and effects, he is left in skepticism.    




[1] www.vincentcheung.com/2006/03/01/the-fatal-maneuver/    

The Essence of Feuerbach

Ludwig Feuerbach in his book The Essence of Christianity, argues that religion is a projection of man’s own nature. Throughout the development of Feuerbach’s diagnosis of religion he attacks Historic Christianity. Feuerbach makes many assertions about religion and Christianity in particular. Overall, Feuerbach’s criticisms and explanation of religion are left unsubstantiated.   

           

Feuerbach’s diagnosis of religion can be considered an inversion of Hegel’s Philosophy of the Absolute. Instead of Hegel’s Absolute (God) becoming aware of itself through people; Feuerbach avows that people become aware of themselves in the concept of God.  As Van A. Harvey remarks, “Instead of saying that the Absolute Spirit (God) achieves self-knowledge by objectifying itself in the finite world, he [Feuerbach] argued that the finite spirit comes to self-knowledge by externalizing or objectivizing itself in the idea of God.”[1] Feuerbach considers the significant difference between animals and man is that man can be conscious of himself and species. Man has species-consciousness. Feuerbach maintains that man with his species-consciousness, projects human attributes and qualities to form God. However, the basis of Feuerbach’s projection theory rests on the genetic fallacy. As Karl Ameriks explains, “Even if it were true (or it somehow be shown to be at least likely) that projections like those alleged to occur on Feuerbach’s psychological theory have been the causes of all our actual attachments to religious belief, it still would not follow that the statements expressed in such beliefs could have absolutely no truth or possible justification.”[2] The conclusion from Ameriks remark is tremendously helpful, in that it, points out that Feuerbach’s projection theory does not invalidate the truthfulness of religious beliefs. Really, all Feuerbach has succeeded in doing is making an assertion about how we come to believe in God, but an assertion does not prove anything. For example, if I said that Feuerbach and all atheists are really projecting the non-existence of God to be relieved from morally accountability, this assertion, though it could be true, does not prove anything. All Feuerbach has shown is man’s desire to be God.

           

Feuerbach asserts that man, with his consciousness, can conceptualize his species. Now, Feuerbach may be right that man can conceptualize his species, but this becomes problematic for Feuerbach. For, if man is aware of the concept of species or humanity, it disproves materialism. Concepts like “humanity” and “equality” are not physical entities (material) in space. Therefore, it would be wrong for anyone to argue that concepts are material. Indeed, if concepts are immaterial, Feuerbach cannot rightly claim they are human without denying his materialism. But Feuerbach claims that man has what he calls the divine perfections of reason, will, and love. Clearly, Feuerbach’s perfections are concepts. This illustrates that Feuerbach’s belief betrays his materialism. He treats concepts like love, reason and humanity as something that transcends material chemicals in the brain. However, if Feuerbach were consistent with his materialism, it would make no sense for him to speak of concepts like humanity, love, and goodness, if all concepts were, merely material chemicals in the brain.

Feurbach argues that religion debases humanity.  Feuerbach declares that he wants man to realize that God is a projection of the human nature. Religion then, for Feuerbach spoils the prospect of man becoming conscious of his supposed divine nature, thus resulting in unhappiness. As Feuerbach states, “to know God and not know oneself to be God, to know blessedness and not know oneself to enjoy it, is a state of disunity and unhappiness.”[3] It is quite obvious that Feuerbach desires man to be God, but he fails to justify his assertion. Feuerbach seems to be doing a little projecting of his own, or some wishful thinking. Oddly enough, what Feuerbach seems to be saying is that if we do not believe his projection theory it leaves us unhappy. Feuerbach regards Christianity as debasing humanity because it teaches that man is radically corrupt.[4] Surprisingly, Feuerbach’s arguments he gives to prove that man is not corrupt, do not deal with the Christian conception of human corruption. All Feuerbach argues against is a false interpretation of Christian doctrine. Biblical Christianity does not teach that man is so corrupt that he is incapable of doing good as Feuerbach‘s arguments assume. Rather Christianity teaches that man is so permeated by sin that man spiritually can do nothing good in relationship to God without divine grace.[5] Feuerbach has only proven that he does not like the idea of man being corrupt. Although he may not like the idea, his opinion is irrelevant.

Feuerbach believes that whenever humans describe something in terms of human attributes they make it human. As Feuerbach states, “If thy predicates are anthropomorphisms, the subject of them is an anthropomorphism too. If love, goodness, personality, are human attributes, so also is the subject which tho presupposest, the existence of God, the belief that there is a God, an anthropomorphism--a presupposition purely human.” [6] Feuerbach cannot seriously expect us to believe that whenever we compare or describe things in terms of human qualities it makes them human. When Feuerbach compares humans with animals, and concludes that man has species-consciousness; Feuerbach does not consider his comparisons as making animals human. Either Feuerbach is being inconsistent or he has set up a double standard. Furthermore, the idea that a human comparison makes everything human is like saying an animal becomes human when we give it a name. If it were absurd to think that we make animals human when we compare them to ourselves, it would follow then that it is even more absurd to think that God becomes human when we compare ourselves to Him.

Feuerbach suggests that Christians believe God is good because goodness itself is a divine attribute apart from God. However, this assertion misconstrues Christianity. Christianity teaches that God by His character and nature, gives meaning to all things. This implies that our concept of goodness is dependent upon God. Goodness would be defined by God’s character. Apart from God, we would be left in subjectivism without any true meaning of goodness.  Fundamentally, Christianity teaches that we come to know God by His verbal revelation (the Bible) and creation (nature). Therefore, the Bible and nature provides the basis for Christians to subscribe attributes to God. If Feuerbach thinks that goodness is a divine attribute apart from God, then he must account for why it is meaningful to speak of goodness objectively, and how it is good in and of itself. To put it another way, he must explain how something is good, and how goodness is good for its own sake apart from God.        

Underneath Feuerbach‘s criticisms, we can examine closely the logical implications of his assumptions. Feuerbach, from the preface of his book candidly confesses his presupposition of materialism.[7] From start to finish, Feuerbach assumes materialism. This assumption should be considered an unargued Philosophical bias towards Christianity. However, if we focus on Feuerbach’s materialism, we will see that it undermines his assertions, and arguments against Christianity. For materialism views thoughts, and choices as nothing more than determined chemical processes in the brain. Thus for Feuerbach to argue consistently, he would have to admit that his beliefs about humanity and religion are beliefs based not truth or evidence, but rather on chemicals in his brain. Therefore, it would make no sense for Feuerbach to argue assuming materialism, if the chemicals in his brain cause him to believe man created God, and the chemicals in Christian‘s brains’ cause them to believe God created man.

           

If we forced Feuerbach to reason logically from his presuppositions, we would find he refutes himself.  Feuerbach argues with the laws of logic, which nullifies his basic assumption of materialism. Counter to what Feuerbach may think the laws of logic he uses are not material. The laws of logic cannot be observed, tasted, touched, or smelled. Yet Feuerbach adamantly attacks Christianity while, he himself cannot even make sense of the laws of logic from his materialism. In fact, Feuerbach has claimed that we cannot even use negation as a means of knowing anything, which entails that we cannot use the laws of logic. For instance, we could not use the law of contradiction for it negates something being contradictory. Or the law of identity that negates something being what it is not. Still, the Christian worldview, which he criticizes, can account for these laws. Unlike Feuerbach’s materialism that destroys the very possibility of accounting for logic. The Christian worldview cannot only make sense of the laws, but provides the basis for being logical.  Christianity teaches that God has communicated some of his attributes to man. One of them being rationality, which reflects His character. This means we were created to be logical creatures with the purpose to glorify God. But given Feuerbach’s materialism we are forced to ask, “where did the laws of logic originate from?” And why should we be rational instead of irrational? As far as I can tell, Feuerbach’s materialism implies irrationality, because it does not provide a basis for the laws of logic.

Feuerbach’s empiricism makes it impossible to prove anything. Feuerbach assumes that we cannot have knowledge about something unless it can be perceived by the senses. But Feuerbach cannot observe concepts like humanity, and consciousness. He cannot observe the chemicals in his brain. Nor can he observe the laws of logic. Thus if Feuerbach were consistent with his empiricism he could not prove anything.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Bibliography

Primary Sources

A. Harvey, Van.  Feuerbach and the interpretation of religion. (UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 27.

Ameriks, Karl,” “From Feuerbach, Marx, and Kierkegaard” in  The Cambridge Companion to German Idealism. ed. Karl Ameriks. (UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 261.

Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Essence of Christianity, Trans. George Eliot. (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1957)

Secondary Sources

Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996) 247.




Clark, Gordon, Thales to Dewey, (Vol. 3. 4^th ed. New Mexico: The Trinity Foundation, 2000) 368-370













---

[1] A. Harvey, Van.  Feuerbach and the interpretation of religion. UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995, 27.

[2] Ameriks, Karl,” “From Feuerbach, Marx, and Kierkegaard” in  The Cambridge Companion to German Idealism, ed. Karl Ameriks. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 261.

[3] Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Essence of Christianity, Trans. George Eliot. New York: Harper,1957. p.18

[4] Ibid., p.p.28-29

[5] Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996. 247.

[6] Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Essence of Christianity, Trans. George Eliot. New York: Harper,1957. p.16

[7] Ibid., p.xxxiv

Defining 'God'

Some Atheists take up positivism and AJ Ayer's verification principle when it suits them to block dialogue between Christians and Atheists. They argue any statement must be empirically verifiable in order for it to be meaningful. A word must have an analytic definition attached to it in order for it to be meaningful. Often these atheists will ask Christians to define attributes of God, like incorporeality, and scrutinize them as meaningless since they violate the verification principle. What is the problem with this? First, it confuses ontology with semantics. A word may be meaningless (the semantic element) to a person (the epistemic element) but it doesn't negate the fact the word has an ontological referent. Second, a word can be stipulated or understood by its use. But even if an atheist doesn't grant this we can still think of words as variables, like in Algebra, that are place holders with stipulated meaning. Third, to say all words or statements must conform to a principle of empirical verification is self-refuting. Since the above principle itself cannot be empirically verified. Nor can the words, like 'must' 'all' or 'words,' be empirically verified. But some have sought to reform verificationism by saying only positive definitions are meaningful. But on what basis? Apparently by the self-refuting verificationist principle. Words like 'non-contradictory', 'incoherent','invariable', 'immutable', and 'immaterial' are said to be meaningless because they do not refer to positive definitions. But on such an account it makes things like falsification in science meaningless. Since falsity is not positively definable. Thus this resurgence to revisions of positivism fall prey to the same problems of positivism and therefore should be rejected.

Some helpful links:

William Lane Craig Here

Greg Bahnsen Here

Christian Skeptic critique of George Smith Here

Anthony Flood Here