Introduction
Disclaimer and Clarifications
When I say that “Atheism is Absurd,” I’m not just spelling out an insult against atheists. Rather, I am spelling out a very specific argument: 1. atheism is genuinely self-contradictory, and 2. atheism inexorably leads to the philosophical position known as absurdism. Hence, when I say that “Atheism is absurd,” I quite literally mean “Atheism leads to absurdism.”
With that out of the way, I also want to clarify another thing: I am not saying that ALL forms of atheism necessarily leads to absurdism. Buddhism, for instance, comprises a view of the world that isn’t necessarily absurdist, and yet is not necessarily theistic either. Hence, when I say that “Atheism is absurd,” (“Atheism leads to absurdism”), I am specifically targeting the contemporary, Western variant of atheism which often presupposes a reductionistic, materialistic account of reality. Therefore, it’s not so much “atheism,” that leads to the position of absurdism, as it is “reductionistic materialism” which is responsible for this. It just so happens that although not all atheists are “reductionistic materialists,” all “reductionistic materialists” are atheists, and the title “reductionistic materialism leads to absurdism,” isn’t as catchy as “atheism leads to absurdism,” which itself is not as catchy as “atheism is absurd.” Hence, from here on out, when I refer to “atheism,” know that it is a shorthand for “reductionistic materialism.”
With that out of the way, I also need to clarify another thing: this post is not meant to advocate or endorse theism by way of contrast. Just because atheism leads to absurdism, doesn’t mean that theism is necessarily any better. My post is simply a self-contained critique of modern atheism, it is not a polemic intended to advocate for theism as an alternative.
Now you may be wondering, why do I chose to fixate on atheism and/or why do I choose to use “atheism” as a shorthand for the problems which are more directly associated with reductionistic materialism.
The answer is simple: nowadays, “atheism” more often than not, has itself become a shorthand for a certain secularized, materialistic, reductionistic view of the world. Pure and simple, “atheism,” has increasingly become a shorthand for scientism, the naïve dogma that science alone can discover truths about the world. In short, “atheism” (at least in the West), no longer merely signals a lack of belief in God, but also signals the possession of a very particular set of beliefs about the nature of reality, namely that reality is entirely made-up of material entities and nothing else, and that anything else that might appear to be non-material (like human consciousness) is just the result of complicated material processes.
My Claim & Argument
Central claim: atheism, by which I mean reductionistic materialism, cannot adequately account for the intelligibility/rationality of the world.
My argument: a purely reductionist, materialistic account of the world has to provide an account of the phenomenon we observe in the world. Among the phenomenon we observe in the world is the existence of the human species, which is endowed with the capacity for reason/rational thinking. A purely reductionist, materialistic account of the world, therefore, has to account for the existence of the human species, as well as the existence of their reason/rational thinking capacities.
The reductionist, materialist account of the human species is provided in the form of the scientific theory of evolution through natural selection. This theory is, of course, correct (my post is not here to challenge what should hopefully be an obvious fact).
That said, using the theory of evolution (through natural selection) as a tool to explain the emergence of reason carries with it some absurd (self-contradictory) implications. In order to illustrate my point consider the following:
- Evolution (through natural selection) selects for traits that enhance the survivability of genes (traits which are themselves rooted in these very genes whose survivability is being enhanced).
- Put simply, some traits are more advantageous than others in regards to enhancing the survival and reproduction of an organism, and therefore become more represented in the gene pool of the species of that organism over millions of years, until eventually the entire species becomes a distinct species.
- Reason is an exhibited trait of the human species, the capacity for which is rooted in the genetic code of the human species.
- If Reason is a product of evolution, then Reason is a trait that was selected for insofar as it helped the survivability of the species.
- If this is so, then the purpose/function of Reason is survivability.
- Survivability is not necessarily congruent with Truth, i.e., what helps with survivability is not always veridical.
- Reason, therefore, is not necessarily congruent with Truth, i.e., Reason is not necessarily veridical.
- Reason would only be naturally selected insofar as it optimized our survival, not necessarily insofar as it was conducive to discovering the Truth.
- Along these lines of reasoning, we could expect a gap between Truth and Reason.
With this conclusion reached there are only two logical alternatives: 1. either there is a gap between Truth and Reason, or 2. there isn’t gap between Truth and Reason.
If there is a gap: Assuming this position constitutes a self-contradiction, (i.e. an absurdity). Why? Because the assertion that there is a gap between Truth and Reason, is itself presumably True (if it is to be a meaningful statement in any significant sense) and was itself arrived at through Reason. So even when the logic of this position states that there is a gap between Reason and Truth, Reason still can give us Truth. This is an instance of reductio ad absurdum (a self-contradiction), therefore the assumption that there is a gap between Truth and Reason is self-defeating. Since atheism (reductionist, materialism) was the very worldview which led us to this self-defeating assumption, then this worldview must itself be self-contradictory and/or absurd.
Alternatively, the atheist (reductionist materialist) can reject the assumption that evolution leads to a gap between Truth and Reason, and can instead embrace the opposite position–that evolution leads to the unity between Truth and Reason. This leads us to the second alternative:
If there isn’t a gap: Assuming this position is not self-contradictory, but it does undermine the metaphysical commitment to reductionist materialism. Why? If there isn’t a gap between Reason and Truth, and Reason is just a function of Survivability, then that implies that there also is not a gap between other functions of Survivability and Truth. Let me restate that: Reason is one function of survivability, but not the only one. Another function of survivability is Perception (sensory data like visual info, auditory info, olfactory info, tactile info, etc.). If there is no gap between any function of survivability and Truth, then there should be no gap between Perception (a function of survivability) and Truth. This means that whatever we are able to experience with any one of our senses, must always be veridical. In other words, there is no conscious perception that is not itself a disclosure of Truth. Truth = what really exists; what really exists = Reality. If conscious perception is always veridical, then conscious perception = Truth = Reality, or put simply conscious perception = Reality. The equation, conscious perception = Reality basically outlines the position held by subjective idealism (to review the connection between subjective idealism and objective idealism, and my particular version of idealism [which is a fusion of the two] check “The Groundwork for Idealism Part VII,” linked here). Therefore, reductionistic materialism collapses under the weight of its own logic into a position of metaphysical idealism.
Ultimately, atheism (reductionistic materialism) always defeats itself. Either it is an absurdity, or it simply defaults to Idealism, in which case it is no longer an example of atheism (in the narrow way that I have been using). Therefore, atheism is always an absurdity, unless it completely divorces itself from the naïve materialism of scientism and embraces an idealistic metaphysics.
Objections
“Not all Functions of Survivability Are Veridical”
The first objection I anticipate being waged against my arguments, is one directed against the premise that “there is no gap between any function of survivability and Truth.”
For instance, the objection could read: “just because Reason is a function of survivability, and there is no gap between Reason and Truth, doesn’t mean that there is no gap between other functions of survivability and Truth.”
If we take this objection seriously, however, we will realize it suffers from some problems. Firstly, why, exactly, should some functions of survivability exhibit a gap between themselves and Truth while others do not? What accounts for this seemingly arbitrary variability? This postulated variability is something the presenter of the objection would have to give an account for.
As it stands, the presumption of truth seems to side with the simplest and most straightforward explanation, which is to assume that all functions of survivability are veridical (i.e., to assume the rule that all functions of survivability are veridical is a far more parsimonious explanation of events than an explanation that involves inflating the number of hypothetical exceptions to this rule, each of which would have to be accounted for).
Leave a Reply