Why Atheism is Illogical
Why Atheism is Illogical
Lately, I was reading Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, a fan fiction in which Harry grew up around scientists and learned, well, the methods of rationality.
Now, in the first chapter, Harry receives his Hogwarts letter. His adoptive father absolutely refuses to believe in the existence of magic but Harry isn’t so sure. He says that a good scientist doesn’t make assumptions and then tries to fit the evidence but observes the evidence and then draws conclusions from it. Just because he has never seen proof of magic does not mean magic doesn’t exist; lack of proof is not proof of lack.
However, 39 chapters in, the subject of the afterlife comes up and Harry states unequivocally that the afterlife does not, cannot, exist. “Because that's what Death really is,” Harry says, “the annihilation of a soul!"
Really. And where’s your evidence for that, dear boy? [i]
Here’s the thing: [ii] believing in the non-existence of God is illogical, simply because 1) there can be no proof that God doesn’t exist, and 2) since God created everything, God created reason and logic, which means logic is a created thing, which means God is not bound by it. God is not bound by space or time or mathematics or human reasoning. And since God is not bound by logic, it is illogical to use logic to try to prove or disprove the existence of God. Being an atheist is therefore illogical. What of Christian?
A paradigm shift is basically a total change in viewpoint based on new knowledge. This shift in viewpoint allows people to use the same logic and come to a different conclusion. For example: Columbus believed the world was much smaller than it was and so, using perfectly sound logic, he sailed to America and thought he was in India. Before him, people thought the world was flat - and so it stood to reason that if you sailed far enough, you’d reach the edge. When I was in middle school, there was a boy who constantly tormented me and I hated him for mocking me. Near the end of the time I knew him - epiphany, paradigm shift! - I realized he had a crush on me. Suddenly, I saw all his actions in a new light.
This is what Christians claim happens to them when they convert. Thanks to the Holy Spirit, they experience a complete paradigm shift and see things in a new light. In this new light, since God obviously exists, it is the most logical thing in the world to believe in Him. In this light, Christians can see many new proofs of God.
Let us return to the non-Christian, then. There are, as illustrated above, many examples of paradigm shifts. It must therefore, logically, be allowed that it’s at least possible that Christians experience a paradigm shift which gives them proof of the existence of God. It would therefore be compoundedly illogical to reject God because you don’t have the evidence and can’t see the evidence that other people claim exists.
So one is left with two choices: agnosticism and Christianity. Because Christianity is compellingly changes every aspect of life with its paradigm shift, and because an agnostic does not know whether it’s true or not, any logical person must, in every major decision, consider both sides and give them equal weight - 50/50, say. This leads to a basic cost-benefit analysis.
Situation: I can steal $10 from someone and no other human being will every find out.
Secular: I’m $10 richer.
Christian: I’ve just disobeyed God and pretty much sold my soul for $10.
Situation: I can have sex with someone outside of marriage.
Secular: I experience a brief period of intense physical pleasure.
Christian: I’ve just disobeyed God and sold out my soul for a few minutes of pleasure.
Situation: I can give $10 to a totally responsible charity for which I can’t get a tax rebate.
Secular: I’m out $10.
Christian: I’ve obeyed God and furthered His kingdom and responded to His love by loving my neighbor.
Yes - that’s right. Heads, you get ten dollars; tails, you lose your immortal soul. That’s the choice, agnostics. Isn’t it great?
But surely, goes the answer, I can’t make myself believe in God.
Mmm. Interesting question. Knowledge vs. belief. If knowledge is when you cerebrally accept something then belief is the causer of action. For example: I know that if I ski down this slope too quickly, it could be dangerous. If I ski down too quickly anyway, I clearly don’t really believe I’m going to get hurt. If I do slow down, I clearly do believe it. Belief - like love [iii] -- is invariably active. If you really believe something, you will act on it.
The inverse of this is, of course, that action itself is a form of belief. If an agnostic doesn’t really know whether God exists but invariably acts as if He does, then he clearly does believe - or, at least, believes there is a real chance.
It’s something to consider, anyway.
[i] I mean, just because there has been more written about God than on any other subject . . . just because thousands and thousands over the course of millennia have been witness to his miracles . . . just because literally millions of people, many of them intelligent and skeptical and logical, are absolutely convinced . . . just because there is more “proof” for the existence of God than for the existence of say, Plato . . .
But that’s not the point of this essay. In fact, I wrote an earlier essay (on lj) demonstrating why looking for these kinds of proof is logically and theologically unsound.
[ii] And if you’re interested in reading more, consider the first chapter of Kierkegaard’s (agnostic penname Johannas Climacus) Philosophical Fragments.
[iii] I’ll post my dissertation soon, in which I discuss this.