Critiquing: There’s No Such Thing as an Atheist Argument

October 12, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

No atheist argument — Morality by consensus — Proving a negative — Burden of proof — Objective morality

---

Introduction

In evaluating the logical coherence of the content titled There’s No Such Thing as an Atheist Argument from #STRask, the discussion involves several philosophical and logical points, particularly regarding the burden of proof, the existence of God, and the nature of morality. Below is a critique focused on these aspects, highlighting logical inconsistencies, fallacies, and unsubstantiated claims.

Claims and Logical Coherence

Existence of Atheist Arguments

The content asserts:

“There’s no such thing as an atheist argument.”

This is problematic as it dismisses the vast body of philosophical arguments presented by atheists. The claim ignores the historical and contemporary discourse where atheists provide arguments against the existence of God, relying on logic, evidence, and philosophical reasoning. This sweeping dismissal is an example of hasty generalization, ignoring a well-documented field of study.

Proving a Negative

The content addresses the challenge of proving a negative by likening it to disproving the existence of the Loch Ness Monster:

“You can’t prove the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t exist because you have to be omniscient to know everything, to know that Loch Ness Monster was not part of the mix there.”

This analogy is used to suggest that atheists must disprove God’s existence to hold their position. However, this shifts the burden of proof unfairly. In logical terms, the person making a claim (e.g., God exists) holds the burden of providing evidence for that claim. Asking atheists to prove a universal negative is a logical fallacy known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance).

Evidence and Belief

The content discusses evidence for God’s existence, stating that atheists must account for observations that seemingly indicate a deity’s presence:

“The atheist has to account for certain things that make it look like there’s a God.”

This is an example of shifting the burden of proof. It assumes that atheists must provide explanations for phenomena traditionally attributed to a deity without addressing whether these attributions are justified. This approach disregards Occam’s Razor, which suggests that the simplest explanation—one that does not multiply entities beyond necessity—is often preferable.

Morality and Society

The content argues against the idea that morality is determined by societal consensus:

“So if another society has a different set of rules, upon what basis do we object?”

The argument posits that without an objective moral standard, one cannot judge other cultures’ moral practices. However, this presumes that moral objectivity is necessary for moral critique, which is not necessarily the case. Ethical frameworks like moral relativism and constructivism argue that moral judgments can be valid within cultural contexts without appealing to an absolute standard. This point also employs a false dilemma, suggesting that the only alternative to objective morality is moral chaos.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Straw Man Argument

The content often misrepresents atheist positions to make them easier to refute. For example:

“The idea of naturalism is a worldview that has many other ideas that are entailed by the idea that there is no God.”

This statement simplifies and distorts atheistic naturalism, ignoring the nuanced positions many atheists hold regarding naturalism and theism. Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument is a straw man fallacy.

Appeal to Common Sense

The content frequently appeals to common sense as a basis for arguments, which can be misleading:

“We are making a claim that fits our universal common experience of how things work.”

Common sense is subjective and culturally influenced. This reliance on common sense over rigorous evidence and logical reasoning can lead to cognitive biases like confirmation bias, where individuals favor information that confirms their preexisting beliefs.

Unsubstantiated Claims

Several claims within the content are presented without sufficient evidence. For example:

“Things coming into existence needs cause causes adequate to that effect.”

This assertion lacks empirical support and relies on philosophical arguments like the cosmological argument without addressing counterpoints from quantum mechanics and other scientific fields. Unsubstantiated claims require rigorous evidence to be credible, particularly when they form the basis of broader arguments.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

The content makes several assertions that require substantiation. Philosophical discourse demands that claims, especially those concerning metaphysical and ethical principles, be supported by evidence and sound reasoning. Without this, arguments remain speculative and fail to meet the standards of logical rigor.

Testing Alleged Promises

To critically assess the content’s claims, one should consider empirical methods to test any alleged promises or phenomena attributed to God. Scientific inquiry involves forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, and analyzing results. Alleged divine interventions or miracles, for instance, should be subjected to such scrutiny. The content does not propose any methods for empirical validation, which undermines its arguments from a critical standpoint.

Belief and Evidence

The degree of belief in any claim should correlate with the strength of the evidence supporting it. This principle is essential in rational discourse. Assertions about the existence of God, moral objectivity, and natural phenomena must be evaluated based on the available evidence. The content often assumes conclusions without adequately mapping these to evidence, leading to a discrepancy between belief and justification.

---

This critique highlights logical fallacies, unsubstantiated claims, and the necessity for rigorous evidence in forming rational beliefs. The arguments presented in the content often fall short of logical coherence, relying on misrepresentations and appeals to common sense rather than empirical evidence and sound reasoning.

---

Thank you for reading this critique. I invite further discussion on these arguments in the comments section.