Tag Archives: atheist

Faith: An atheist’s perspective

I’ve wanted to write out my thoughts on this for the longest of times, and honestly it’s gotten more and more difficult to do simply because of all the angles I can approach talking about it. I’ve already done one little post on it a few days ago, in a post about Sunday Sermons but it was pretty narrow in scope. So, let’s talk.

Firstly, why has faith been one of my fundamental barriers for belief in a god? When it comes to belief, I think it’s obvious to point out that we believe based on what we perceive to be good evidence. Where faith comes in this process may vary on interpretation, but there seems to be one commonly problematic version of this that any atheist like myself refuse to have: blind belief. This understanding of faith basically posits that faith is simply belief without evidence. People often point to Hebrews 11:1 as proof that this is what faith is, and for now we’ll just leave that debate on verse translations alone use the verse as a reference: “1  Now faith is the 1aassurance of things 2bhoped for, the3conviction of cthings not seen.” Hebrews 11:1

The debate on blind belief doesn’t exist. I doubt anyone truly thinks THIS is how we should come to believe in anything, and even if it was it’s very clear that most believers have their own evidences justifying belief like everyone else in the world.

William Lane Craig, a popular Christian apologist,  and many others believe faith to essentially be trust, as the video shows. But, what warrants trust? Most parents would probably teach their kids to trust them based on experience and the fact that they care, but hidden within that remarks of “I’ve been right before!” and other variations of the quote point to the real reasoning: evidence. All placing your trust in someone is is declaring that you will depend on them, be it in the truth of their words of the actualization of their actions. When you trust someone, you basically demonstrate the belief that they will be there for you in one way or another. Like any belief, though, trust requires evidence. You just don’t “trust that the sun will rise tomorrow” or that the phone in your pocket will work, but believe that the sun will rise again given the evidence that it’s done so before. Even without science you can reasonably have faith in things like that through trends staying consistent over a long period of time. If a pattern arises it makes sense to believe it will continue.

In application to god, this means that evidence precedes good faith in this particular definition. I personally hold to this notion completely, and my being an atheist comes from the fact that examining the evidence has shown it to be faulty in many ways.

I can’t say where this debate fits- it would seem everyone with a brain would run away from the idea of blind belief. I would guess that it comes from the fact that at some point, the requirements to constantly have this trust and conviction makes it dangerously easy to continue trusting or having faith even when the evidence falls apart in a sort of transition from evidence based faith into blind faith. The bible focuses so heavily on faith it’s easy to take it into levels of blind faith. When evidence isn’t the main focus and faith is called for so intensely, there’s pressure to continue trusting without evidence. With the fear of hell, this sort of faith in god’s existence is practically a cakewalk to understand. Even without such a threat, faith can quickly become used as a sort of heated challenge and test of one’s allegiance, and history alone shows how poorly things can end up when someone’s allegiance is held to a higher level of importance than reasoning itself.


Is our logic circular? – Some thoughts

I wrote this a few days ago in response to many points that I’ve heard made by the presuppositionalist Sye Ten Bruggencate. His tactics of apologetic stem from the idea that god’s existence is necessary for logic and reasoning, and that the foundries of logic can only be accounted for through god.

Along with the coy attempts at confusion via wordplay, Sye tries to twist the idea of the brain in a vat problem of hard solipsism and claim that, in essence, the atheistic worldview cannot account for knowledge. Oi vey.

You can’t use your logic to prove your logic

A rare gem in the apologetic library, arguments for god through the critique of logic and reasoning itself tend to try and catch you off guard with confusing rhetoric. In conversation, the main ideas that try to be conveyed by the proponents of the argument essentially define the concept of god into existence. The arguments commonly starts with the proponent claiming that the nonbeliever couldn’t possibly make sense of logic by claiming that without god, the nonbeliever must resort to using circular reasoning to justify the use of their logic “You can’t use logic to prove your own logic, it’s circular!”

By doing so, the proponent tries to put any bystander into a conundrum by convincing them that there MUST be something outside of logic that validates it: god.

While for the first few times I agreed with that statement in my rebuttal, I’ve grown to use a more rigorous approach. For one, logic and reasoning aren’t actual entities in and of themselves. At best, they are conceptual tools the human uses to work their way through the world they live in. From prediction to communication, reasoning skills are necessary tools to using and understanding everything mentioned. Can a hammer be “true” in the same way a statement is true? Hammers can only be describe by their usefulness, not by it’s truthfulness. As an object, the only things true about a hammer are its properties. As a tool, the function of the object is to be used for a goal, and in this sense logic is definitely a tool. When we “use” logic in the world, we’re using this conceptual tool to make predictions about reality, and by the results we get from reasoning things out we can confirm that it gives us useful results, validating the continual use of said tool.

So yes, we can’t use our logic to prove anything but the usefulness of itself. Though, understanding logic as a tool, why would we?

What does it mean to be useful, by the way? While it ultimately depends on the goal of the tool, the usefulness of logic comes from when the conclusions there in reflect reality and can be used to make predictions and rules for how to act. Fire is hot, so don’t touch fire if you don’t want to feel pain. What goes up must come down. These statements come from understanding things about reality and logically concluding how to act based on those facts and personal desires.

One of the things about the argument worth thinking about is how easy it is be caught without the ability to defend the argument because it touches on a subject that is intrinsic to our nature as thinking creatures. It plays off of the ignorance people have to the functions of our brains and tries to force this ignorance in our faces, claiming that our inability to rebut is because there IS no rebuttal. Secondly, how did the arguer get to this position in the first place? Mind you, the basic claims embedded in the arguments boil down to god being the source of logic and reasoning because without god, there would be no logic or reasoning. It attempts to justify itself by throwing a strawman in your face; the declaration that logic cannot justify itself through logic without mentioning any other justification for using/having logic makes it seem like there couldn’t possibly be another way to rectify the created problem without god. Of course this isn’t so. Just like any other tool, the true justification for continued use in a tool is results and nothing else.

Another fairly crucial red herring in this argument comes from the ubiquity of our own uses of logic. The argument makes the layman pause and wonder exactly how could they verify logic without using logic in the process, insinuating that there must be a way outside of logic to do so. We use logic for everything, in every step of the process of thinking. To illustrate why there is no problem with using logic for everything including justifying the continued use of logic, consider the human eye. Just like logic, our eyes are tools that we use to understand the world around us. But how do we know that our eyes are valid? The same goes for all five senses: the use of these senses have no justification in the same sense that the use of logic has no basis. The information gathered from our senses are taken at face value because there is nothing else to base our actions on outside of the experiences from the perceptions of other people. What we consider “real” is a model of the world we base on the consistencies seen in what we already experience. Hallucinations are things that give one (or more) of our senses information inconsistent to the rest of our body and inconsistent with the sensory inputs of everything else. As such, the best way to figure out when one is hallucinating is whether or not our experiences are consistent to our own internal models of the world and with help of others to compare sensory input from. (Or technology, input from which we also interpret through our senses)

This is all a long winded explanation to establish one thing: the continued use of our senses also being completely unjustified by the standards set by the arguers who insist that the use of logic and reasoning cannot be justified without god. Logic, like our senses, are a part of the tools we use to understand and work with the information that those very senses bring in. In many ways, our logic and senses work together to make a model compiling everything we experience into one holistic one, and we use all six tools to correct mistakes that individual tools can make, as well as other people. “Mistakes” like making a logical prediction of what will happen in the future and getting it wrong, or making a logical statement of fact about the world we’re in. “Wrong” being that the results from the logical quandary were not consistent with the sensory input we received. Though certain people upon understanding this claim that there must be a source from which all can be confirmed outside of all six of these tools, they would be hard pressed to present one outside of positing a deity that in itself remain undemonstrated and usually not demonstrable by its own definition. To the rest of us who understand that we have no choice but to work with the tools we have, how is it that we know our logic is useful? Through comparison to the reality that it pertains to!

As a final point, all of this can be made to rewrite the circular statement posited into one that works without relying on :

Instead of “I can use my logic to validate the validity of my logic” we have “I can use the results from thinking logically to further justify using logic” which is no less different than “I can use the results of this hammer (used for the purpose of pounding in nails) to justify the continued use of this hammer”

I’ll list some of the claims I’m intrinsically making to reach my conclusions so that you guys can see if I’ve made any real mistakes here:

1)I’m claiming that reality is nothing more than the combined input of all our available senses compiled together to make a cohesive whole.

  • Therefore, we use logic to predict the very things we perceive and pull information from our senses to form logical conclusions

2)I’m claiming that logic is a conceptual tool

  • Therefore, logic can’t be “true” in the sense that we refer to statements being true. Conclusions reached by thinking logically can be true but requires further reflection with reality (our senses) to be true- Can a hammer be “true” ?

3)By 2 I’m also claiming that logic being a tool means that questions of validity should be treated as questions of usefulness (Again, can a hammer be “valid”?)

4)Given the nature of what we call reality (my prescribed definition, that is) and how we get information about reality and truth, via 1, if we are but brains in a vat being fed information artificially, no one, not even a christian, could know this. Even the idea that the claimed manifestation of god could come from knowledge that some brain in a vat could be fed.

-Some ridiculously fleshed out thoughts from a bard, clacking away. And the keys go tick.

The Christian ‘Victory’

(Video link above)


In many ways, I feel for the speaker in this youtube video. Here he stood, in a position where he’s being directly told not to mention god or his beliefs in his high school graduation speech. As a staunch believer, he defies these oppressive credences and proclaims his faith in triumph.

It’s a situation I don’t doubt has happened before. Was the administration right to deny this person the right to talk about religion in his speech? In some ways, yes. We don’t know where he goes to school, but I assume this was a public school. Addressing things as if that were the case, there doesn’t really need to be mention of religious views in the senior speech. He’s in a setting where you can’t just say that the majority believes what you believe, and in respect staying silent about things so close to the hearts of many is wise.

Of course, it was a little silly to try and censor any speech that even mentions the word god, though no one can say how stringent the rules were in reality. For all we know it might’ve been that the student in question was planning on saying as much about god or more in his speech than what he did say in actuality.

As a former believer, I understand how much of an opportunity to be the ideal christian seemed to be presented when it came down to the wire and he had to decide whether or not he was going to defy the administrations wishes. But how he ended up handling it was the very thing that even a very lenient speech editor couldn’t let slip by, as lightly religious as it still was. The speech starts off essentially talking about how there will be times when people will be told to do things against their own conscience and beliefs, and that his speech was a perfect example as he had three drafts rejected for the mention of god in them. But, as he points out, we should be acting in ways that we believe is morally good and not for others. Ending with a verse, he blessed the audience in the name of the god of the christian bible.

I wouldn’t have had much of a problem with the speech, though in the end it is still too religious in a moment where you just can’t assume the religion of your audience. The problem I do have is how it’s already becoming the staple example of fighting against religious oppression when the “oppression” was a general policy probably meant to respect the beliefs of everyone. Even in my old high school, where the percentage of christians in the school almost definitely match the amount of muslim and sheik beliefs, no mention of religion is ever made simply because outside of the passing reference, is it really a necessary part of the speech? Also, is the christian religion being oppressed? It’s like the time when an atheist fought to eliminate mandated prayer became the day “prayer was taken out of our schools” as if nobody was allowed to pray anymore. I definitely sympathize with the level of backlash christians have gotten for the rise in gay politics, if only because I can see how sincere most of the responses can be, as sincere a simply bigoted response can be at times. But this is nothing short of an illusion of oppression in many instances. Outside of peer pressure, at least. And even as a atheist I can say that while sex isn’t wrong, pressuring to have it is terrible. But again, outside of this, christian theology is probaly one of the most priveleged parts of the nation in a broad stroke.

At the end of the day, this wasn’t the huge levels of preaching I expected it to be, though it is honestly enough for any editor to say that it should be changed. One of the recurring points I lean on is the idea that this would be a different scenario if the speaker was a muslim or anything else. School graduation speeches are a place to tell parents and students about moving on and growing up, about setting goals and achieving them. Sure, a passing mention on religious beliefs are fine, but it’s hardly a victory against oppression to feel the need to break policy made not to oppress but to allow for respect.

-A nonbelieving bard with the completely “insane” ability to sit through speeches containing some religious perspective