Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Reason's Ill-Bred Champions

Conversations over at Vox's of late have kept the inherent illogic and despondency of the atheist position on God simmering in my mind. An individual going by the moniker "TCW"--which I am convinced signifies Total Cognitive Whiteout--has revealed the typical atheist mindset in the comments sections with his lies, distortions, naked assertions, and abject terror of factual evidence disfavoring his preconceptions. Every time he begins a new series of scribblings, I'm reminded of Sam Harris, and other leading "Brights" of the atheist elite. I started off responding to and challenging many of his ideas, but it quickly became apparent that he's lacking even the most rudimentary form of intellectual honesty. Written exchanges with this character are as productive and interesting as a conversation with a rotten tree-stump--and a good deal less pleasant.

Without exception, every atheist with whom I've had contact--whether in print or in internet discussions--exhibits one trait above all others: a fundamental shunning of honest debate. How typical that the atheist vocal about God's fantasy qualities is a master in the age-old silver-tongued art of lying. How terribly predictable.

Not only do they bob and weave like a drunken Rocky Balboa during a prize fight with Mr. T, these self-styled Keepers of Reason's flame are some of the most unreasonable people with whom I've interacted.

In the vaunted name of Reason, it seems to me that the aggressive declaration of God's fictional status requires omniscience on the part of he who utters this paradoxical nonsense. Since knowing everything is a characteristic of divinity, our proclaimer has just bestowed himself with godhood--assuming he's correct, of course. He's god, after all; I'll just have to take his word for it. So knowing definitively that God doesn't exist means the smug atheist must be god, thus nullifying his own argument.

A reasonable proposition, right? Not according to the "Brights." The genius class looks down its collective nose at us religionists and laughs at our silly notions of God and life after death. If you cannot drop God in a test tube and give him a whirl in the centrifuge, dissect him in a petri dish, or scrutinize his squirming under an electron microscope, why, then he's not real. Of course, the Christian traditional and biblical understanding that God is the creator--and therefore cannot be encompassed by His creation--is an argument that gives them more frustration and confusion than asking Liz Taylor to name all her husbands in order.

A second major trait of atheists is hubris--good old garden-variety arrogance. Christians are categorized as anti-science. The word "faith" is mentioned only with a sneer. And then in this guise of scientific faithlessness, the atheist propounds some of the most unscientific, faith-filled ideas imaginable. "I believe in a primeval atom, or sub-atom, and one day it went 'Kablooey!', and the whole universe is the result of that explosion," is not a scientific position, but it is one brimming with faith. Atheism is untenable, for me; I don't have enough faith. The basic outlook is that anything conforming to the atheist position is scientific and reasonable; anything out of sync with it is unscientific and unreasonable. As for faith, it is the prerogative of the godless, not the Christian or other religious affiliations. Again with the dishonesty and arrogance, with a nice little double-standard thrown in as a bonus.

Atheism rests on an unproven and unprovable contention--that there is no God. Yet this doesn't trouble the average atheist a whit in embracing the concept. If you promote the idea that God is a myth, you're not expressing a scientific concept. Logic does not lead you to this conclusion. Nor is your outlook "faith-free." Quite the contrary. So if your beliefs are unscientific, illogical, and teeming with blind faith, common courtesy dictates that you not mock others for these same failings. It's in bad taste, if nothing else. But what is "taste," except however the atheist defines it on a given day?

No comments: