Impotent Arguments Against Non-Belief, and Cultural Misconceptions Held by the Faithful: Part 2- A Short Inquiry on Intellectual Honesty

Impotent Arguments Against Non-Belief, and Cultural Misconceptions Held by the Faithful: Part 2- A Short Inquiry on Intellectual Honesty

When I hear theists make remarks about there knowledge of god/s, the fanatic certainty with which they convey their statements makes my gorge rise. On its face, a person would typically consider the arrogation of morality by the faithful to be a more dangerous proposition. However I would argue that their claims (prior to addressing morality) about their justified belief in said figures is equally if not more perilous. In essence, I would submit that the maintenance of intellectual honesty and its affections in reality (as Spinoza would say) may presuppose and supersede any of the ethical qualms in terms of concern. This is simply because people are claiming to know or have justified belief in something that is fundamentally unknowable and undetectable by humans, and then championing the idea as an axiomatic truth that necessitates inclusion in a school science curriculum.There has never been any adequate evidence supplied to warrant the belief in a god, and many of the rationalizations used are full of logical fallacies, contradictions, and superfluous assertions.

 As I am sure many of the non-believers are familiar with, there are arguments made with appeals to cosmology, ontology, and teleology. I will try to address some of the claims that have been made in each of these categories, and in doing so attempt to discredit them. Primarily, there is the 'First Cause" argument that suggests the need for an initiator who set everything into motion. Many believers will make appeals to ideas such as the watchmaker fallacy or ill-considered arguments such as the law of cause and effect. The irony being that in the First Cause argument there is much special pleading, arrogance, and ignorance fallacies occurring. Evidently, one risks being subjected to the infinite regression problem; in which, if one implements the law of cause and effect, one must then demand the origin of a god and his/her creator. Much of the time, the response to said issue is the assertion that a god is immaterial, does not have a creator, and as such terminates need for any further inquiry. Since the scientific method and the balance of empiricism and rationalism is the best pathway to truth that humanity currently has, it follows that this is a necessary tool to examine extraordinary claims. The idea of human beings possessing tangible evidence for an entity that is supposedly "immaterial" (a concept that is at best incoherent) is self-contradictory and absurd. The only evidence we have ever had of anything tangible and testable in the history of reality has been material. We as a species have never encountered anything immaterial, and such an event would violate its own premise. Any time someone demonstrates an item, it by definition is manifested in existence. it is no longer undetectable or supernatural. Many believers will deflect questions regarding the special pleading of infinite regression not applying to a deity by saying that it is ridiculous and incomprehensible for material/the universe/reality to arise from non-existence. In essence, the "Something from nothing" trope. My position along with many other non-believers does not include espousing such an idea, and for good reason. Philosophically, as the Pre-Socratic Parmenides addressed quite well, any efforts to test such a hypothesis are impossible. For if someone were to invoke and label something as nothing to constitute the source from which the test would begin, one would necessarily be introducing something. Nothing and non-existence are abstract concepts and as such are not entities that can be manifested or called upon in reality. In short, there is no way to try to substantiate or evaluate this idea. Therefore, the rational position is to assume that we cannot know or ascribe belief to the position that something can or cannot arise from nothing, and as such it is superfluous and fruitless. In addition, this retort by believers is nothing more than an attempt to jeer non-believers and say that our position is just as absurd as their own. As such, they assume that we are on equal footing, which they do not realize is a grave insult to themselves. The non-believer's position on this matter usually involves the following (most of the time): we do not know the origins of our cosmos for certain. The Big Bang model has proven to be a substantiated and credible theory about the inception of our universe and its expansion thenceforth. As far as I am aware, everything since the occurrence of the Big Bang has been widely considered to be the beginning of the natural realm. This is a sufficient and consistent account, and scientists have yet to derive a hypothesis about any further questions of abiogenesis that qualify as a theory. Ensuing questions include inquiries about what occurred before the Big Bang, or what caused this anomaly to occur. The first concern is definitely better answered by a scientist, and I would assume they would answer with an assertion of non-knowledge. I would attempt to answer this philosophically as best as my meager efforts could muster. The idea of asking what preceded the Big Bang may in fact be an ill-formed and unintelligible question. Seeing as the Big Bang brought about the existence of the natural realm, the implementation of the concept of time to measure reality occurred contemporaneously. It may be nonsensical to include a concept in your question that is necessarily imbued with an aspect of time, when the notion of time only began with the Big Bang. Words such as before, preceding, earlier and others all convey aspects of how we measure time - these may not be so easily applicable or sufficient to press further than their limits. Nonetheless, I do not claim that is an adequate or even consistent response to the question; merely the result of ruminating and some research on the topic. 

The complimentary question to this previous example invokes an entity or force that propelled the Big Bang to take place. This hypothesis has never shown any adequate evidence to be considered testable, and is completely unnecessary. Seeing as the infinite regression motif would inevitably recur here, it does not provide any more insight into the origins of existence. This hypothesis holds no explanatory power and is essentially the attempt to explain a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery. In addition, it violates Occam's Razor in the notion that the Big Bang is already a sufficient theory to explain existence. Of course we will continue to inquire and seek out answers to satisfy our curiosity and thirst for knowledge, but they will need to be adequate and corroborated ideas that can be measured and can actually provide new information. Finally, with regards to the cause and effect argument, it is paramount to state that it is inconsequential and inconsistent to compare artificially made products with the natural world. In essence, poor attempts at trying to draw comparisons between a building necessarily having a builder, or a car necessarily having someone there to assemble its components, cannot be intelligibly contrasted with nature. It once again incites more insoluble questions than answers, and is not required. 

Other arguments that suggest the fine-tuning of reality are inept and ill-considered. Our universe is not here to work perfectly just to satisfy our desires and needs, and that is demonstrable through the chaotic characteristics of the cosmos. We inhabit a planet that can support life some of the time on some portions of its surface. It is a blatant display of arrogance to suggest that everything is here bearing us in mind, or to suit our necessities. Everyday explosion, implosion, collision and entropy govern the universe. This is demonstrable by means of our technology and surveillance of small pockets of reality. An example of such an instrument would be the results provided from Edwin Hubble's telescope. We happened to have been fortunate enough to not be struck with any astronomical calamity in recent history, but that in no way guarantees or suggests our invincibility or even protection by some magical supervisor and conductor. In paraphrasing Neil De Grasse Tyson, this type of thinking is a result of a species whose lifespan is foolishly glorified and really does not even denote a speck of time on the universal calendar. Pattern seeking in this regard has duped a large number of our brothers and sisters into thinking that everything is designed with us as a central and integral component. Egocentric behavior, entitlement, and special privilege are just a few of the incorrect and harmful conclusions that can be drawn from such a mentality. If religious history is any indicator, there is more than enough proof to validate such an assertion. Something that I fortunately cannot say for anything supernatural proposed by the faithful.

Maintenance of intellectual honesty is a must. So as always, check your purpose - mammals.