Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks. What would comprise their specific belief system, I wonder? There is an old cognitive science meme that says: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. Accordingly, we may be able to learn from each other’s arguments here, as I hope we can question and answer each other’s concerns with a high degree of transparency and impart our knowledge accordingly. As such, much can be said about that so-called sense of understanding in the way of subjectivity or subjective truth if you will, which we all hold so dearly to us; our own truth, our own way of Being. Our own sense of self. And, a truth that far exceeds verbal formulation.
But with respect to one’s belief system, logic and language, what about any sense of objective truth, and its significance relating to our thought processes vis-à-vis the concept of God? And similarly, what could philosophy tell us about any kind of synthesis between those so-called subjective and objective truths in understanding some sense of universal truth? Although a universal truth or, a priori truths (mathematics/ontological argument) may also include a belief system that logically conceives of a God, how should we understand the actual concept of a God?
In that sense, should an anthropic concept of a cosmological God somehow make him or it, a perfectly 'objective yet sentient mathematician’ as one might consider a kind of ontological ‘universal truth’ to be? In cosmology or otherwise, why or how can there be self-aware conscious Beings in a material universe whose existence doesn't require say, musical or mathematical genius to survive in the jungle? Why have Will and all of the other metaphysical features of consciousness and self-awareness when emergent instinct is all one needs? For the materialist, that would seemingly not square with quantity causation, because we are talking about a thing’s quality (qualia). Further, what about one’s empirical experiences that we assign to such a concept of a God? Similar kinds of questions may serve as a backdrop to debating one’s belief system and one’s own logical inferences from (human) nature and other phenomena.
And so, in pursuit of some sense of logic or pragmatism, although the concept of a God may simply be a paradigm/axiomatic, or even an archetype as often used for a causational criterion (super-turtle) in the various domains of philosophy, why should one invoke the concept of God to begin with? One could easily argue that it is no different than making a cosmological/metaphysical judgement such as: all events must have a cause. Is that judgement purely of a logical nature? What kind of truth is that and why should we believe that? Why should we Will to believe that or even care to believe that? Are those kinds of synthetic propositions critical to science and physics to advance a theory? In other words, can logic itself help us define any causal relationship, or any other notion or concept of a God? Or is it human Will causing this problem? Perhaps a better proposition/judgement is: all events must not have a cause? Please feel free to address any of those concerns.
With all that being said, I would like to argue against the Atheist belief system and prove that their belief system is not of a purely logical nature (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Instead, I will use this same sense of finitude or logic (obvious paradox), in uncovering the truth about A-theism as being superfluous...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, psychological, existential, or even metaphysical phenomena as found in our conscious existence. One irony that I hope to discover or uncover is, that which seems irrelevant to the Atheist may in fact be very relevant in its own rite.
To this end, let us be reminded of the infamous quote that is central to my argument from Einstein, that suggested sentience as perhaps relevant to the human condition and one’s dis-belief in a God.:
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
In trying to understand that definition/ judgement, value or (dis)belief system, I ask myself how should logic itself, provide for such insight, such conclusion, and such an Einsteinian grudge against a type of religious feeling associated with one’s disbelief in God? Because as common sense would guide us, if an A-theist posits the concept of a God’s non-existence using pure reason or logic, by advancing such a proposition (or theory, much like that of the Theist), he puts himself in an awkward, ironic situation of defending same. It seems then, by default that one is put in an untenable position of arguing an antecedent. (And oddly enough, perhaps not too dissimilar to the Taoist unity of opposites; something v. no-thing.)
Accordingly, notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, let’s safely assume that the Atheist ‘s disbelief is based on the logical impossibility surrounding the Omnipotence paradox. Hence, philosophical question one for the Atheist to respond:
1. If you consider part of your disbelief (your belief system) on the illogical concept of an Omnipotent God, in what sense did logic allow you to arrive at that conclusion (of disbelief)? If you do not consider part (or all) of your disbelief on that, why not? And is that not typical for most A-theists who reject the logic associated with Omnipotence, as their primary basis of disbelief?
My exceptions to those questions relate to use of certain synthetic propositions (as alluded to earlier) which are analogous to the supposition ‘all events must have a cause’. And that both philosophically and cognitively, there is little difference to the judgement/proposition known as the logically necessary Omnipotent paradox. Meaning, something beyond pure reason causes a person, to deny (or affirm) the existence (logical necessity/possible) of both a causational God and in this instance, a logically necessary yet impossible Omnipotent God. And that same reason of course would apply to either Theist/Atheist.
More important to the notion of logical impossibility and synthetic judgements, if logically, it is unreconcilable to any given concept of God, that paradox, uncertainty and incompleteness exists in the universe, and logically impossible explanations (contradictions) exist relative to the explanations of our own conscious existence and cognition as we understand it, then it essentially becomes blind leading the blind. In that context, what follows is human belief systems in general, are flawed. (In this context, that may comprise a partial justification for Agnosticism.) However, as I think maybe one can see, the broader issue obviously relates to temporal-ness and finitude, not to mention the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe (Metaphysics and the nature of reality) itself.
To state my case differently there, and perhaps more lucid, I submit that the blind person who cannot see red, can still believe red exists (what does it mean to believe). But in the postmodern era, the Atheist blind person who denies red, does so for irrelevant or superfluous emotional reasons that seem to suggest acrimony and arbitrariness at worst, ignorance and subjectiveness at best. With that, to the Atheist I say: What beliefs did Helen Keller deny? And if red is your strawman, so is your Atheism.
― Albert Einstein