Atheists - I would like your best arguement against this passage...?

Question

Therefore the first philosophical order of business in justifying Christianity is to demonstrate the inadequacy of the atheist's worldview. But "atheism" is simply the absence of belief in God and the atheist, like everyone else, needs an entire worldview in order to function. In the West the most common atheistic worldview is called "naturalism," which includes the doctrines of materialism (only matter exists), empiricism (all knowledge is obtained by inductive reasoning from data provided by our senses) and moral subjectivism (morality is not objective and fixed, but is created and modified by individuals or societies).

As D'Souza shows, the atheist's worldview is fundamentally inadequate for two reasons: it is illogical, and it cannot account for the facts of reality, chiefly the facts of the origin of the cosmos, the existence of rationality, and the existence of objective morality. Therefore atheistic naturalism must be rejected, and the way is clear to examine the evidence for God and draw the proper conclusions.

Consider, for example, D'Souza's refutation of Hume's alleged proof that miracles are impossible. Hume's argument in a nutshell is that a miracle would be a violation of scientific law, but scientific laws are more certain than miracle stories, so we should reject these stories. But Hume himself supplies his own refutation: according to Hume induction never gives us certain knowledge, because it's always possible that we will observe a violation of the pattern that has held so far. Therefore scientific laws, which are all based on induction, are not absolutely certain, and miracles are possible.

At a deeper level, this argument demonstrates that atheistic naturalism is self-refuting, and therefore false. Consider the principle that all knowledge is obtained by induction applied to sensory data. Call this the epistemological principle of induction, that is, induction as a general theory of knowledge. But it is clear that induction applied to sensory data can never prove the epistemological principle of induction itself. How could it, when induction only draws probable conclusions of a statistical nature, whereas the epistemological principle of induction makes a statement about all knowledge?

Therefore if the epistemological principle of induction is true, then it must also apply to itself, in which case it is false because it cannot be validated inductively. If it's true, then it's false. And if it's false, then it's also false. Therefore the epistemological principle of induction is simply false. Not all knowledge is obtained inductively from sensory data. Knowledge of God is therefore possible.

Similar arguments can be made against the other principles of naturalism, since they are all based on the belief that man is the Supreme Being and therefore man determines what is true, good and beautiful, based only on data provided by his senses. But sensory data can never validate abstract general principles of logic, mathematics and morality, and so naturalism fails to satisfy its own criteria. Being self-contradictory, it must be rejected.

Source is from Dinesh D'Souza's book, "What's so Great About Christianity?", in which he scientifically disproves atheism completely based on scientific research, ironically.

Note: In case no one read the question...this is a PASSAGE. It did not come from my mind therefore do not treat it as such. Thank you. :)

Answer 1

He only says that scientific theories can not be proven, only disproven. Which is a basic concept of science. Nothing he invented.
Strictly speaking being an agnostic is a more logical choice than being an atheist. It's equally the more logical choice than being a theist.
But I would debate the premise that everybody needs an entire world view to function. I don't see any proof for this and I don't see how religion provides this either.
I would even argue that most people function perfectly well without knowing how their cars, television sets and cell phones work.

Answer 2

1) Naturalism is a methodological assumption of everyone, not just Atheists and scientists. Without naturalism we have no reason to assume the Bible we read ten minutes ago has not been altered, or that we were not 'created' five minutes ago with the inborn memory of reading the Bible ten minutes ago. It is impossible to think without assuming naturalism. Naturalism does not necessarily include physicalism (the current form of materialism). In my case, it does not.

2) Scientific laws are descriptive (epistemological), and based on induction, with no absolute claim being made about ontology. The ontological claims are based purely on observation, not mathematics. Thus, theoretical physics models that predict certain particles and those particles are not observed are caste aside. So induction is only valuable after some level of ontology is established through observation. Besides, there is pure deductive knowledge, etc.

3) Morality is not subjective, but is substantiated by experiences not well known in the West, and ignored by the large majority of Christians (even though there are Christian texts that recognize them). Look up Lawrence Kohlberg's 7th stage of morla development.

4) Logic is based on (necessary) assumption (see "Before Logic" by Masson, and "Is Logic Empirical" by Putnam). Math was not used in science for the first 60 years in the 1500s because it was considered mystical (See "Science and Change, 1500-1700", Hugh Kearney).

Answer 3

"Therefore if the epistemological principle of induction is true, then it must also apply to itself, in which case it is false because it cannot be validated inductively."

It has been proven that in a logical system by Godel that a sufficiently complex system REQUIRES undecidable propositions. Something is not false simply because it cannot be proven. If that were the case God could not exist either, because there is no way to prove the supernatural. It seems his whole argument is based on the following logical flaw: That something is false because it is not PROVEN. He seems to confuse the 2 ideas. Maybe I am misunderstanding what he says,but that is what it seems to me.

Answer 4

I do not believe the atheist's worldview is inadequate (well obviously I don't...) The facts of the origin of the cosmos cannot be ascertained at this moment in time by anyone on either side of the debate. Attributing it to a god who can create something out of nothing merely invites the age-old cliche "Well where did God come from then?" 'Rationality' is just the way things are. 'Objective morality' is a term invented by humans to describe a fairly elementary way of 'just getting along' - i.e. don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself. Even many animals who live in communities have worked out an extremely simple version of that, and animals have no concept of gods.

But I do like your hair.

Answer 5

He "scientifically disproves atheism", does he? I won't bother with that, let's look at just a tiny part of what you've said here.

"As D'Souza shows, the atheist's worldview is fundamentally inadequate for two reasons: it is illogical, and it cannot account for the facts of reality, chiefly the facts of the origin of the cosmos, the existence of rationality, and the existence of objective morality."

I see nothing illogical about expecting proof of a claim before accepting it as fact. Or would you prefer that the justice system adopt a policy of "innocent unless believed guilty"?

Atheism is not responsible for explaining that which is not yet understood. Theists use their god of the gaps to do that, we prefer to just say that the fact that we are atheists does not mean that we know the answer to every question there is.

The origin of the cosmos: It is not established that the cosmos has an origin. It is not, therefore, "fact"

Rationality and objective morality: brain function - otherwise known as a product of our evolution

Do you want me to continue, and pick your entire argument apart point by point, or would you prefer to concede to a more rational mind than your own and admit that logic exists, and you don't know how to use it?

Answer 6

He's using a diversion tactic. Atheists aren't responsible for proving the origins of the cosmos, life, etc. We aren't obligated to believe in anything until sufficient evidence arises.

Also he says, "Not all knowledge is obtained inductively from sensory data. Knowledge of God is therefore possible." Yes, that may be true. But the premise that God exists in the first place is not yet proven, so the whole argument is disassembled.

Answer 7

This is like a politician's view. They like to say everyone else is wrong but they can't prove their own theories or provide facts for their own views. Instead of bashing an atheist's view ask Dinesh to prove that god exists. Calling an atheist illogical is nonsense. Many atheists were once theists who became disillusioned with the whole idea of some spook in heaven who controls our lives. Moreover atheists are well-read and know a lot about religions and god. They are not led by the blind beliefs that envelope the believers. Anyone can write a book and every book has followers.

Answer 8

Belief in God is a matter of faith. The existence of God cannot be proved or not proven by science. Science can only prove that which can be observed and measured. There are extrapolations beyond that, but until they can be measured there is nothing proved. String theory was all the rage 10 years ago. Now there are challenges.

How can we measure The Infinite?

Be strong in your faith and pray for those who do not have the gift.

Answer 9

First, to "Dark Elvis", get over your myths. There were plenty of atheists in foxholes. http://www.atheistfoxholes.org (see below if the link was ruined here).

As for Souza, he's beating up a strawman. . His biggest blunder, among many, is the claim that we have to know the origins of the cosmos. There's no such requirement. We can accept that which we presently do not know as apposed to GDI - God did it.

Answer 10

Er - honestly, what you put here is so stupid and illogical that it's not even worth bothering with, BUT...

since his main premise seems to be that naturalism is somehow self-contradictory and therefore must be rejected, why doesn't he reject the idea of a God that is both all-knowing AND all-powerful? That is the most self-contradictory idea of all, and according to his own criteria, must be rejected.

Too easy. This is like Captain Kirk blowing up N.O.M.A.D.'s head. "You were programmed to destroy impurities! I submit that you are an impurity yourself. You must destroy yourself!"

Ha ha ha.