The Atheist Double Bind
By John L. Waters
July 07, 2005
© Copyright 2005 by John L. Waters. All Rights Reserved
Dear Reader:
I've visited "The Secular Web" at infidels.org and I've studied Mathew 's question-and-answer article entitled "An Introduction to Atheism."
Infidels.org has a large website supported by many like-minded persons. To satisfy your curiosity, check out these distinguished sponsors.
We can safely assume that all these sponsors agree with what Mathew writes. If not, they wouldn't be sponsors of infidels.org.
In his article, "An Introduction to Atheism," Mathew states,
===================================================
""Then what if I managed to logically prove that God exists?"
Firstly, before you begin your proof, you must come up with a clear and precise definition of exactly what you mean by "God". A logical proof requires a clear definition of that which you are trying to prove."
====================================================
I say okay. That makes sense.
But then Mathew goes on to say,
""Okay, so if I define what I mean by 'God', and then logically prove he exists, will that be enough for you?"
Then, Mathew says,
"Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a watertight logical proof of the existence of God. In spite of this, however, people often feel that they can logically prove that God exists."
"Unfortunately, reality is not decided by logic. Even if you could rigorously prove that God exists, it wouldn't actually get you very far. It could be that your logical rules do not always preserve truth -- that your system of logic is flawed. It could be that your premises are wrong. It could even be that reality is not logically consistent. In the end, the only way to find out what is really going on is to observe it. Logic can merely give you an idea where or how to look; and most logical arguments about God don't even perform that task."
"Logic is a useful tool for analyzing data and inferring what is going on; but if logic and reality disagree, reality wins."
====================================================
Well, now. Why put so much emphasis on defining terms and doing careful logic IF you’re just going to dump it all in the end for some totally vague idea of what "reality" is? Not even Albert Einstein could define "reality," at least not in terms of quantum theory. Einstein never could accept quantum mechanics. If Einstein couldn't define reality, why do you think YOU or Mathew can define reality? Why should WE accept YOUR idea of reality? Why not ask this question to all the infidel.org sponsors?
Now just suppose I make some new definition of God, and prove logically that this new definition of God exists in reality, Mathew and his followers will still wiggle out because they can say they themselves haven't truly WITNESSED or OBSERVED this God. In other words, even if my new definition of God makes perfect sense logically, and no one finds any fault with my terms and my reasoning, someone like Mathew can still argue that "In reality...and blah blah blah....."
So whose idea of "reality" are you going to believe? Doesn't "reality" just depend on your point of view or your personal reference frame? Doesn't "reality" just depend on which culture you were born and raised in, which church you went to, and which school you attended and who your present spouse is? Tell me what "reality" is independent of what is being observed and who is making the observation?
Well, many professionals working in modern science argue that all of us are part of the same reality…the "universe," that is to say, the "natural world." Many skeptics wouldn't endorse the preceding paragraph.
With this in mind, then, let these skeptics submit to science and let science stimulate the GOD CENTER in their brains. Or heck. Just given them some potent ENTHEOGEN. Science then will become the Second Christ that brings vision to eyes that have long been blind.
Summing this up: According to infidels.org and Mathew their spokesperson, if you and I can't agree on a definition of God, we can't use logic to prove that God exists. Furthermore, even if we agree on a definition of God, we also have to agree on the other ideas we use in our proof. We have to agree on the definition of all the terms we use in our proof. We also have to agree to be logical in our proof. If we both are logical, then we are not irrational or insane. Consequently all of us perfectly rational and totally sane people don’t experience God directly, because nowadays according to the DSM-IV, to hallucinate and sense what most other people don't sense (which is what happens when one experiences God) is definitely to be delusional, psychotic, and insane. On the other hand, infidels.org spokesperson Mathew admits that no matter how UNINSANE we are, that is to say rational, our logical arguments by themselves can't settle this issue. Mathew says this almost word-for-word in his own article! We also observe that his backers support this claim because it satisfies them. So heck. We have to experience God directly, because reality- or our direct experience- is the only way the infidel.org atheists will accept that God exists. That's one heckuva double bind, folks.
The skeptics are caught between the Rock of Ages and a hard place.
------------
About the author: John L. Waters is an amateur psychologist and independent researcher on self-healing, integration, and
problem-solving. John has created thousands of drawings, paintings, instrumental music and songs, prose works, and poetry, and he has used his research to help persons solve a difficult problem. For
more information, read
John's letters of recommendation:
about John's self-healing and integration:
about the mystical energy or yogic force and related topics:
about John's independent research:
about John's seeking an agent or a publisher: