As an academic sending papers out for publication, it is interesting how atheism is held to a lower standard than theism. That is, if theists used the same poor arguments some atheists use, their papers would be immediately rejected. For example, if a theist were guilty of using the genetic fallacy to attack atheism, the paper would be rightly rejected. A theist might try to argue, say, that atheism had its origin among moral libertines (which is a questionable assumption); therefore, it must be false. This is a terrible argument since it is illegitimate to argue from the alleged origin of a belief to the truth or falsity of that belief. Even if it were true that atheism originated among moral libertines, it would not follow that atheism is false. If a theist is to successfully attack atheism, the theist must first of all defend the rational nature of belief in God. Thomists would go further and use the Cosmological Argument to attempt to prove God’s existence, and rationalist theists might make use of the Ontological Argument. The theist can also answer critics of theism on such points as the problem of evil and suffering. Such debate is difficult and takes a great deal of intellectual effort on both sides.
To be fair, most atheist philosophers believe that a naive genetic argument against the existence of God, such as Sigmund Freud’s “religion as wish fulfillment” hypothesis, which states that religious people want to create a powerful father-figure, is not cogent. They admit that Freud commits the genetic fallacy. But the same atheists might appeal to religious wars or damage done to society by certain theistic religions as evidence against God’s existence. Theists, on the contrary, could appeal to the positive moral influence of theistic religions. Neither argument works to prove or disprove God’s existence. But some atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens, continue to make such a poor argument, which is basically a repetition of Bertrand Russell‘s argument in his book Why I am Not a Christian. I have seen college and university students fooled by the wonderful writing and rhetoric of both Russell and Hitchens–and then they are unwilling to see the vacuity of Russell’s and Hitchens’ arguments. If a theist were to make a similar argument, I have no doubt that Russell would have, and Hitchens would, call the theist to task. There is a double standard here–and a double standard that is intellectually dishonest.
No matter how sophisticated a genetic fallacy is, it remains a fallacy. An analytic philosopher can dress a bad argument up in enough Ps and Qs to write ten logic textbooks, but if the argument is fundamentally unsound, all the alphabet soup in the world will not turn a bad argument into a good one. When an atheist analytic philosopher rejects a theist for calling him on what he is actually doing, the atheist is being intellectually dishonest. The atheist may even question the competence of the theistic philosopher or accuse the theist of misrepresenting him. Now it is possible for a theist, an atheist, an agnostic, or any other philosopher to misrepresent an opponent’s argument or set up a straw man to attack. But I become angry when atheists try to hide their bad arguments in a sea of rhetoric and symbolic logic, and then accuse theists of being ignorant and misrepresenting them.
It is easy to become cynical toward my own field of philosophy. More and more I see philosophers, including myself, holding cherished positions first and then trying to back them up through philosophical argument. Perhaps these great world-view issues are so emotionally powerful that one cannot avoid prior nonrational commitments that are later putatively supported by arguments. I do not want to go the postmodern route–I do believe in “Truth” with a capital “T,” but the more intellectual cheating I see in the field, not only among atheists, but among some theists and philosophers of every stripe, the more I see faith commitments as guiding people’s lives, even the lives of philosophers, whether theist, agnostic, atheist, pantheistic, panentheistic, Platonic, or Aristotelian. But if someone is intellectually cheating and is caught, he should have the intellectual balls to admit it (and this does not exclude myself).
Gratiaetnatura's Blog 
May 02, 2011 @ 03:09:44
I agree that there is a Double Standard, but this is largely unnoticed because even Theists have accepted the Narrative under which Modern Atheism flies. That is, that Atheism is about Logic and Reason, as opposed to Religion which is rooted in Faith which is the opposite of Reason. The Infamous Science VS Religion debate comes up just as often, and its just taken for Granted that Atheists are Logical people who aren’t Religious because they need evidence that makes logical sense.
I question this, and am often called a fool who redefines word for my own ends, and who doesn’t understand the issue.
Today’s Atheism grew out of the Enlightenment, and most of today’s Atheists are Humanists. While its popular to say that Atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief in a god, and the only think Atheists have in common with each other is a common lack of belief in a god, the Truth is, most of them say pretty much the same things, hold the same moral and ethical views, and share the same basic perspective on the world.
They live under the Auspices of a collectively shared Philosophical worldview that defines the Nature of our Existence, its Origins, and its meaning, as well as telling them who and what they are an dhow to live. One can find this Philosophy outlined in the First Three Humanist Manifestos. They are united by more than just a common Lacks of Belief in a god, but by a common Belief System.
I’d also say that this belief system is itself really a Religion in its own Right, and would go further and say it doesn’t merely Lack belief in a god, but rejects belief in gods.
While we are use to thinking of this in terms of contracting Atheists and Religious people, the Truth is, I think, that Atheists are also Religious. I am not saying, as I’m often accused, that Atheism is itself a Religion, but rather than Atheists go beyond Mere Atheism and must still address the Fundamental Questions of life by constructing a coherent belief system about the world they live in, which is in the end what Religion is; A Set of beliefs about the nature, Cause, and ultimate meaning of the Universe.
So, to sun up this part, I don’t think Atheists lack Religion, and I don’t think they merely lack belief in a god. As much as they say both are self evidently True, and would think I just can’t understand them for denying this, I just can’t any longer take seriously these claims after seeing how many of them function. Any argument for Gods existence is immediately rejected and they seek an immediate counterargument. The possibility God’s existence can’t be entertained for even a moment, unless its to show how awful and evil God is in the Bible.
The entire modern Atheism we see has a clearly definable structure of beliefs, and an easy to see Historical development that begins at the Enlightenment, and develops throughout the 19th Century.
It’s less that they have no Religion, and more than they have a Religious Narrative that tells them they aren’t Religious and are simply seeing the world as is, and that Religion prevents Rational thought or Free Thought.
With indulgence, I’ll continue this momentarily.
May 02, 2011 @ 03:47:51
Continuing from the above,
The Enlightenment values reason above all else, but the Philosophers of the Enlightenment conflated reason with their own conclusions, and this tendency persisted and was amplifies by their adherents.
The result was, to question the Ideas and Conclusions of the Enlightenments Philosophers, or rather then synthesis of conclusions created out of a tapestry of their conclusions as understood by a mass revolutionary Movement, was to question reason itself.
As the enlightenment’s ideals began to develop in the 19th Century into Modern Humanism, new layers were added to this Story, such as the now Ubiquitous draper-White Conflict Thesis that says Religion and Science are at Eternal odds, or the idea that Religious Authorities always stand in the way of Progress out of a selfish desire for control over others, pitting the Wiley Free Thinker in the Role of the Liberator who breaks our Bondage, and Frees our Minds to think for themselves and Society from Slavery to Superstition.
This narrative is no different from a Christian Narrative of Liberation from Sin, only inverted. This should be no surprise as Modern Atheism mainly only attacks Christianity, because its really a reaction to Christianity, and thus developed out of Christianity.
While today’s Atheists will say they think all Religion is equally False, and that Reason, not Religion, should be the basis of our lives, they really don’t mean this at all. Christianity is quiet clearly their principal target, and they obviously see Christianity as far worse than other Religions. There is also the veneration of Pre-Christian Pagan Cultures and today many Atheists have rather close affection with Neo-Paganism. This is because the Enlightenment saw Ancient Greece as the Centre of Reason and Philosophy , and the Story of the Rise of Christianity was inevitably seen as the destruction of Classical reason in the name of Superstition and the beginning of the Dark Ages, and this story is integral to the Enlightenment’s need to bring back the Torch of Prometheus the Church had extinguished.
The whole story focused on Christianity, not Religion in general, being Evil, and all of the Atheists Arguments today really are base din that same Story and the same complaints made at the time of the Enlightenment because they really are just defending that Story, and a Philosophical Perspective on the world that its based upon and designed to Justify. In other words, they are Arguing for a Specific Interpretation of History and the way the world works, or, to put it yet another way, they are arguing for their own Religion to be embraced.
In many ways this Narrative has been Embraced, even by Christians. The idea that Christians have to be held accountable for Great Evils such as the Crusades or Inquisition, for example, even though no one bothers to learn the actual facts of those “Great Evils” and everyone simply know they are Great Evils and somehow Christianity was to blame, is a good example of this.
As a Culture, we have simply accepted that Christianity has grown by Bloodshed and Violence, that it Conquered by force several areas, and converted People at the point of a Sword. We accept that the History of Christianity has been long and Brutal.
Few bother to get the facts of that History to see if its True, or if the Facts surrounding the events, way of life of the people in the Times described, or general circumstances mitigate anything, or even justify it, its just accepted these acts were wrong. Even many Christians simply go along with this but claim hat those were abuses of the Faith and not what its all about, accepting the whole story without Question.
Another aspect of the Story though is that Reason and Logic are linked to Atheism. As I said earlier, the Enlightenment began by Praising Human Reason and exalting it above all else. The result is that an Image of Atheism developed over time as the Natural Consequence of being Logical and Rational. Atheists simply look at the world as it is, and need evidence for their beliefs. While Religion is then case as its opposite, based on Faith.
Faith is then defined as Belief without Evidence, and Atheists simply reject believing anything without Evidence because they prefer Logic and Science to Mystical Mumbo Jumbo that has no support.
We just sort of accept this. We accept that Atheists are Logical and Rational. We accept that they prefer a worldview base don Science rather than Religion, just as we accept that Science and Religion as Rivals and opposite to one another.
Once you accept this Narrative, its easy to see why the Double Standard is not Noticed. People are taught to be Critical of Religion and Religious Claims, and we are subconsciously programmed to see Religion as in the end at best unsupported and at worst obviously wrong. We are then Conditioned to accept Atheism as Rational. This belief is like wearing Blinders, that prevent us from critically analysing Atheistic Claims as we do Religious Ones. To us, Religion is something and Atheism is a lack of hat Something and simply stating the Facts.
Because we don’t look at Atheists as being Religious and go along with the idea that they lack Religion, and because we have conflated Reason and Science with Atheism and the Enlightenment Philosophy modern Atheists hold to, we just assume their Arguments are Rational and Logical by Default.
We ignore that they have a belief system, a Religion if you will, and act as if they are just looking at the world in a Neutral and objective way. We ignore that this belief system they hold to actually Biases them in terms of supporting it, because we think of Atheism as not a belief system but a lack of one, and Atheists as Scientific, Logical creatures looking for Evidence for claims and simply giving Observations. We even ignore that they all share common beliefs and pretend that they are united only by a common lack unbelief in a god.
Because Religious People are obliged to defend their Religion, and must therefore offer support for the Narratives they believe in, we are critical of what a Religious Person says. The Religious Person is simply arguing for his Faith and therefore may overlook or ignore evidence contrary to his Vision or Spin things in Favour of his beliefs. He can’t be trusted to be Objective as he has a Vested Interest.
However, the Atheists we see as not having a Religion at all, and therefore Being completely Objective and Neutral, and as being Driven by Pure Reason and a desire for Truth.
In a way it’s the same as the Myth of the Purely Altruistic Scientist who will readily abandon even the most Cherished Theories like Relativity or Evolution if only evidence existed to support a better Theory. The Truth is that Scientists are often guilty of the Human Failing that they will adhere to pre-existing beliefs in face of contrary Evidence and the Scientific Beliefs they hold to often underscore how they understand Life in General. As Max Plank Observed, Science usually doesn’t advance with all the Scientists looking at evidence and concluding a new Theory better than an old and abandoning the old, it advanced by the Old generation dying and the New one embracing the New Idea.
While being an Atheist is not the same as being a Scientist, Atheism is so longed to Reason and Logic and Science in Popular Imagination, and the Atheist presents himself as Driven by Reason alone, that its easy to see how people just blindly accept the Atheists argument as Logical and well throughout simply by virtue of the Atheist being a Logical and Rational Mind by Virtue of their Atheism, even though this is not the Truth of the Matter.
Mar 24, 2012 @ 12:39:30
You presented a well thought out response,I must say. I only wish I had said it first because it’s essentially what alot of Christians / theists have been trying to say regarding atheists and the new age atheist attitude.
As a Christian,it’s very difficult to be taken seriously simply because I’m a Christian. I find this not only angering but a bit insulting. I always give atheist / agnostics the benefit of the doubt because truthfully some good points are made from time to time,so I’ve never dumbed down or was insulting to somebody strictly on the basis that they were atheist.
One thing I have found that is more than a little troubleing is the number of individuals that are God-haters. Most atheists I have come in contact with ( not all ) care not one iota about finding “evidence” for God. It would seem by the admission of those involved that the motivation for their atheistic beliefs ( I consider atheism a belief ) is no evidence for God. As a Christian,I’m considered a “slave” or a “sheep”. I don’t worship God because of my love and gratitude for Him because my intentions are strictly of a selfish nature.
I don’t believe atheists are driven by logic and reason. I believe they are driven by the desire to “think” God away. It seems if we just “think” enough that somehow the trancendent being of God will become an idea that can be explained away by giving Him insulting names like “pie in the sky” and keep repeating”there’s no proof”.
If you think about it atheists have a belief that need not be defended as most people buy into the idea there is nothing to defend. The whole idea that it’s a “lack of belief” is utter nonsense. You can’t be suspended in “lack of belief” because once you’ve been exposed to an idea or belief or concept your brain will draw a conclusion. Therefore,atheists must say “I don’t believe in God” which is (as much as they hate it) a belief !!
Btw,the U.S. Government considers atheism a belief under the “Secular Humanism” balloon.
Mar 24, 2012 @ 21:12:07
With Thanks.
I think a lot of modern Atheism’s appeal though is less trying to think God away and more trying to simply posit “Reason against Christianity”. As I see the modern Philosophical Atheism as simply itself a Religious Mythology, albeit one that understands itself as the opposite of Religion, I have to also examine it twofold. How it functions in the Mind of the adherent, and its Historical development.
Most of today’s Philosophical Atheism goes back to the Enlightenment, in a Time when in Europe Religion was synonymous with Christianity. Most of the ideas it is based upon, in fact perhaps all, came out of that Time period. They were further developed in the 19th Century Freethought movement. This is why most modern Atheists tend to be left wing politically, because the original thinkers that inspired their belief system were. It is also why the bulk of their arguments are criticisms of the Bible, Christianity, and Christian Theology or Morals. The French Revolutionaries tried to impose their own views as a replacement Religion ( and actually called it that) that would destroy Christianity and replace it. They sought to win the hearts and Minds to their new beliefs and to do so they had to offer more than just an understanding of their beliefs, but had to make their beliefs seem like something someone would want t embrace. They understood that trying to appeal to intellect alone would not work, at least instinctively, even though they praised reason as Supreme. They needed an Emotional hook, and thus fashioned an elaborate narrative that became a sort of Mythology ( meant here in the academic sense, meaning explanatory story that transcends its Historical setting to convey a Universal truth, not “made up story’ as it is often sued as) that was designed to completely appeal to the Human person and get them attached to the new faith.
But they also chose to demonise Christianity, because it would be a faster rout to get people to hate Christianity than to love the new Philosophy. The hope was the same as today’s Atheists, to get them to see it as a dichotomy, with only two choices. Christianity or Reason. By mocking how absurd Christianity was, and talking about how awful its history was and how oppressive it is to its adherents, and contrasting this with the glories of freethinking and Reason, they hoped to secure a following.
It only marginally worked in the 18th Century, but the 19th Century forethought movement expanded upon the ideas (though didn’t rally come up with new basic ones) and while the Enlightenments ideas had fallen out of favour they managed to produce a sort of revival of the ideas. Marx came along, for instance, and understood all of Hisotry as a Class struggle punctuated by Revolutions. Darwin came along and gave a way life mayhave come about that allowed for an Atheist to be more intellectually satisfied. ( No I am not downing Darwin. I am not a Creationist myself, but it is True that before Darwin Atheists had a hard time making their beliefs seem Rational. Where did life come from?) With Philosophers like Neitche coming along ( Though to be fair Neitche was hardly a Humanist) and writers like H. G. Wells, the Freethought movement grew in popularity and the mythology became more properly defined into a cohesive narrative.
It was now linked to Progress, an idea that grew out of the Industrial Revolution. Now all of Human History can be seen as a slow crawl from primitive Savages, to tribal villages, to ancient despotic Kings, to Parliamentary limits on Kings, to a Republic, and in the future a Final, inevitable Utopia run on a Pure Democracy that has been Scientifically and Centrally planned in which all are Equal and all needs are met.
This is also the general Time when the Draper-White thesis that says Science and Religion are at odds, which is perhaps one of the few foundational tenets that did not come from the 18th Century, and was vital in developing an identity for the movement. Soon, the adherents of this Philosophy began to associate their political, social, and moral Views with “Science”. Building off of Rousseau and Adam Smith and John Locke, other thinkers from the 18th Century, this movement became comprehensive.
Socially though, to spread it needs to defame Christianity. Its become inherent in its culture, as well as the Culture of Neo-Paganism which also grew from the same roots though instead of the late 19th Century Freehinkers they grew from the late 19th Century Romantics. Most of the people who are part of the New Atheist movement don’t know its History, and have no Logical Reason to actually bash Christianity. It is done simply because it is expected, and because more Time was spent on attacking the Bible or the Christian Faith in the past than it was today. The Narratives now that Religion (Read Christianity mainly) holds back the progress of mankind, by opposing Science, Reason, and social Justice and by forcing us to live under oppressive morals created by Bronze Ages primitive Savages, and we know so much more than them.
The allure of the New Atheism is the empowerment it gives one. It is predicated on a sense of rebellion and the power to overcome the enemy. The Enemy is God and the worship of God. They understand Religion (Mainly Christianity again) as this vile force that produces most of he social problems we see, that needs to be fully and finally resisted. They Imagine themselves caught up in a sot of glorious war, in which they fight for the side of Light and peace and happiness against the Enemies of Reason.
So, in a way they need Christianity, and other Religions, because their whole Identity is Conflict Driven. They need to hate Christianity, need to hate Religion, and even need to hate God in order to give them an enely to strive against. The inevitable future world in which Religion has died, Science has prevailed, and all have their needs met and live in Harmony is simply an inspiring myth, not something that they want in Reality. They are too dependant on the Conflict, and the Conflict itself defines them. It is the Struggle against Religion that makes them feel powerful for having broken the chains of oppression and seeing the Truth. It is the conflict that enables them to draw their swords against the enemy and Fight. It is their assurance in their own superiority that drives them forward, for they need to feel that superiority. To feel superior, you must have someone who is inferior to you around. To feel justified in a conflict, you must have a guilty party that serves as the aggressor you fight.
They aren’t even working toward the “Inevitable end goal” because they understand on some level that they need this conflict.
It doesn’t matter to them if God exists or not. Many of them have actually admitted that even if God exists, thy would be forced by moral convictions to not worship him because he is a bloodthirsty, rotten Tyrant.
The whole thing is about rejecting Christianity, and “Religion” in general, and rests on them being in rebellion and defiance, and requires conflict.
Jul 03, 2012 @ 10:59:17
Now see, you are the ONLY person I have heard from that has explained the conflict between Christianity and atheism so well that I actually have a better understanding of the issue. I have never thought about it in the way you describe. Of course, now that I see it written (typed) down I say. ” how come that didn’t just occur to me?”
Thank you for clarifying something that has peturbed me for so long.
May 02, 2011 @ 05:33:39
Thank you for a well-thought-out critique of modern and contemporary philosophical atheism. I agree that atheism functions as a religion, especially for those people, such as the late Paul Edwards, who supported and signed the Humanist Manifesto. Atheism is a faith since one must jump beyond the evidence to assert that there is no God. And while a person may claim to be an agnostic, I agree with William James that from a practical point of view there is little or no difference between agnosticism and atheism. You’re quite correct to point out that atheists are not truly neutral and “rational” in the sense of standing outside all traditions. Alasdair MacIntyre had noted the ubiquity of tradition and that no one can escape it–Enlightenment rationalism is a tradition. I appreciate your analysis; we have been reading some of the same sources.
Jun 04, 2012 @ 03:27:49
‘Atheism is a faith since one must jump beyond the evidence to assert that there is no God.’
Is the point of this comment to imply that faith, however it is defined, is not necessarily a good thing? If so, I agree. The ‘evidence’ that god (or ‘God’) does NOT exist, is the very lack of such evidence that would confirm His/Her/Its existence. Yes, I know that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’, but one would think, after over 30,000 years or so of searching for God, that we (that is, humanity) would have found SOMETHING by now!
‘…from a practical point of view there is little or no difference between agnosticism and atheism.’
No, this is just absolutely wrong. Agnosticism, as you must know, is the reservation of judgement regarding the issue of God’s existence, whereas atheism is an outright denial. One can live one’s life based upon ethics developed as a consequence of one’s absence of belief (atheism), but the same cannot be said for agnosticism; it just can’t be done.
Jun 04, 2012 @ 13:51:18
I believe that faith is inevitable, even in atheism–it takes as much faith to believe that there is no God as to believe there is a God. I am interested in what system of ethics you believe follows from an atheist point of view. Utilitarianism? A deontological system? Natural law? Evolutionary ethics?
Jun 05, 2012 @ 04:48:11
I would respond with a system of ethics that takes into account the inherently provisional nature of knowledge, and the context within which such a system will have to operate (i.e. society). It must also be flexible, in order to remain relevant to changed circumstances; for example, ‘The Ten Commandments’ are archaic and outmoded if only because no one these days ‘covets their neighbours ass’ anymore, because most people (especially city-slickers) don’t have donkeys in their backyard – they have cars instead. This commandment was formulated for itinerant desert-dwellers only, not civilised people. The systems you list there (utilitarianism, evolutionary ethics) are far too ideologically-based to be either just or effective, and so I would not recommend any of them (especially ‘evolutionary ethics’, an oxymoron if ever there was one). Basically, a system of ethics would have as it’s foundation the conviction that it is in no one’s interests to disregard the rights of the individual to pursue the path in life that they choose, as long as that path does not in any way, shape or form, infringe upon the rights of others (thus, the usual offenses – theft, murder, assault – would remain illegal, due to the very nature of those offenses, but the ‘crime’ of suicide would NOT be).
As for faith, yes, you are right, but far too many people who claim to have ‘faith’ in a religious text of dubious origins (ex. the Koran) tend to take that ‘faith’ to idiotic extremes, and in doing so they make the world a miserable place for the rest of us (i.e. the sane ones). One does not need to be a religious adherent in order to believe in a guiding intelligence behind creation; I just wish more people would understand that simple truth.
Post Script: I couldn’t ‘respond’ to your response to my comment, which is why I have put it here instead, but it is actually a response to your response to my comment about your response to Zarove.
Jun 05, 2012 @ 04:49:36
It DID work; sorry, disregard my postscript.
May 03, 2011 @ 03:08:28
You are welcome.
I still think the primary reason Atheists are given a Free Pass in Academia for what is ultimately poor Argumentation is because we just assume they are Logical and Rational because they say Atheism is all about Logic and Reason. Its Something like the Emperors New Clothes.
A Story oddly used by the New Atheism to describe belief in God.
Jan 19, 2012 @ 18:59:14
Great post. It brings to mind how a phalanx of philosophically sophmoric youtube atheists continually strawman William Lane Craig’s arguments and commit a host of logical fallacies. I’m starting to wonder if atheism is damaging to their reasoning abilities. By the way, I linked this post to my blog http://physicalismisdead.blogspot.com if you are interested 🙂
Jul 03, 2012 @ 12:01:56
Oh man YouTube has some characters all right . My introduction to atheism on a wider level was through YouTube and this caused plme to initially believe some things about atheists that aren’t true but I’ve discovered that Jesus holds the key to unlocking my presuppositions. I ask Him daily to show me the right way to deal with those that do not believe He exists.
Apr 02, 2012 @ 00:02:58
Reblogged this on Tnmusicman's Blog and commented: