Don't know about you guys, but I had never known how tough the life of the blogger was, before falling right into it about two years ago. At least I think it was two years ago. I mean, it's all dandy if you're the occasional blogger with no high hopes and no real intent, calmly strolling through the whole experience thinking your blog could never be more than a hobby. If, on the other hand, you have a project in mind - and it matters not how vague - of what your blog could - or, indeed, should - be, then it all changes. At that point you start realising how tricky it is to keep such a project alive, against other time-consuming activities, against frequent writer's blocks and against a deeply discouraging lack of interest from a web audience scattered all over a global network that sometimes just feels way too large.
So days, weeks, months go by without you getting a chance to write anything meaningful even though deep inside you'd love to because deep inside you care about what you do. If I believed in such a thing I'd say sometimes you almost feel it's a moral imperative, yet you just can't get around to doing it the way you'd like or as much as you'd like, for whatever reason. Then one day - and the long-winded introduction is almost over - you stumble upon something that reminds you why you set out to do what you do and you find new strength and motivation. I mean, even as a mildly involved atheist you often stumble upon such theistic nonsense as "But I am not endorsing religion. Only God, and Jesus who will save us from God," but in most cases you just can't be arsed to give it too much weight. Until, that is, you bump into such words of wisdom as "I can summarize by saying that atheism cannot account for rationality." Then it just gets personal and a head must fall. I'll stop beating about the bush and get to the point. Randomly surfing the web I ended up on a Facebook group where I found a clinically interesting thread opened by the Christian author of both aforementioned quotations.
As a worldview, some would say that atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems.
I'm sure some would. Proving it is a whole different story.
Others, obviously embrace it. I would like to attempt to point out the inability for the atheistic worldview to account for rationality.
And attempt you may.
I can summarize by saying that atheism cannot account for rationality. You see, logic is based upon universal truth statements which we call the laws of logic. Such laws are, for example, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. These universal truth statements are what rational arguments are based upon. If these additional laws changed depending upon the situation, location, time, or an individual’s personal preferences, then there is no basis for rationality and truth could not be known. Truth would then depend upon situations and personal opinions. If that were the case, then I could say that blue sleeps faster than Wednesday and whatever I say is always true because I claim it.
But, this is not rational and you and I both know that it isn't.
Funny you should mention that, because "blue sleeps faster than Wednesday" makes about as much sense as Judeo-Christian theology and theists usually do claim it is true because...well, they claim it is true. They and their holy book, which they claim is god's word because god said it is. And god exists because the holy book says so. Never mind, for the sake of argument I will simply ignore - for now - that you have an imaginary friend. I find it quite interesting that someone would go about the business of demonstrating a certain world view is irrational without first laying out a definition of rationality in a way that can be agreed upon by all parties involved. But then again, you just can't do it. After centuries we still haven't come to an agreement about what constitutes rationality and rational behaviour. The only thing we have pretty much agreed upon is that humans have the intellect to devise more or less ideal theories of rationality but not the ability to conform to such idealised standards - because of biological or social constraints - to the point that, in many a practical domain, the rigid algorithmic logic as described by the aforementioned Laws of Logic often has to make way for a heuristic theory of logic and rationality. But, as the evolution of scientific investigation - and of human societies in general - over the past few centuries clearly demonstrates, such flexibility in the application of our notions of logic to rational investigation and decision-making has proven to be a strength for science and intellectual human endeavours rather than a weakness. (See Gigerenzer, G. & Selten, R., 2002)
In the Christian worldview, the universal truth statements are derived from God. These universal truth statements, these laws of identity, are conceptual by nature. Why? Because they are statements. Statements require minds and since logic is the process of the mind, the logical foundations upon which rationality depends, is of the mind and is conceptual by nature.
I'm afraid we're falling into the sterile world of semantics and rhetoric here, as it often happens when discussing such things. As we have just seen, algorithmic logic and rationality are not necessarily associated and rationality certainly doesn't necessarily depend upon formally - or informally - logical foundations. Plus, something's being conceptual is not really a meaningful identifier.
If the atheist were to say that logical processes are not of the mind or that the truth statements which are the foundations of logic are not of the mind, then he is being irrational. After all, truth is a statement which agrees with reality. And because truth is constructed in statements, a mind is required for such statements to be made.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "of the mind." Probably because the notion of mind is about as murky as that of logic and rationality. As far as I'm concerned, "mind" is what the brain does and I think such a definition can rationally account for all instances that require the use of the notion of mind. However, that's a different topic. Offering my interpretation I'd say that there's no doubt that the laws of informal logic which you here call "truth statements" are a product of the mind, since they're the epitome of ideal and unattainable notion. As for truth being aprioristically in agreement with reality, that largely depends on your notion of truth but in general I disagree. Personally, I prefer using the term "fact." Facts are ontologically factual and not constructed in statements or formulas. Statements or formulas can only describe an ontological fact. That aside, I agree that statements and formulas are the province of thinking minds - that is, of brain activity - and couldn't be otherwise.
Let me clarify. If a rock is all that exists in the universe, it is true that a rock is the only thing that exists. But saying that it is the only thing that exists is a statement which requires a mind. If there are no minds, and the rock is all that exists, no statements can be made about the rock. It would not be known that it was the only thing existing. But truth statements are known. Therefore, all such truth statements require minds and the universal, logical absolutes, truth statements that form the basis of rational thought, require a mind to be made and known.
If a tree falls in a forest...
Atheism has no way of accounting for these universal truth statements. Atheists can try and state that the laws of logic are based upon human minds, but this cannot be because human minds are different and contradict each other as well as themselves. Since logical absolutes are universally true, they cannot be the product of human minds because human minds are limited, are not universally true, and often contradict each other.
You're assuming too much. In particular, you're assuming humans are incapable of agreeing on anything, which is ludicrous. Aerobic organisms require oxygen in order to survive. That is an example of notion anyone can agree with. It is heuristically true and therefore agreed upon by everyone. If we take the law of identity as another example, it gets even simpler. p=p is a tautology, self-evident - at least in most cases, but let's not get into that now - and is therefore not only possible but likely for humans to agree on it. That of course doesn't apply to all laws of logic, which, as we've seen, have clear limits and are not - as you claim - universally true.
If the atheist wants to say that the logical absolutes are merely descriptions of behavior of the universe, then how would an atheist, by observation determine the third law of logic, the law of excluded middle, which says that statements are either true or false? He couldn’t.
Let's proceed with order. The law of excluded middle is probably the most limited of all informal logic laws. While there's no doubt that such tenet did serve a purpose in the development of our civilisation - one example in particular, Boolean logic and binary code, without which we wouldn't be here discussing this right now - it would be utter dishonesty to define the law of excluded middle as a universal truth. Both in the macroworld and in the quantum universe things are a tad more complicated than the binary dichotomy of Bolean logic. Take a statement such as "that tree is big." Is it true or false? By what or whose standards? Can Boolean dichotomial values fully describe the varying degrees of truth that we're frequently faced with in reality?
If the atheist wants to say that logical absolutes are the result of chemical processes in the brain, that can't work because it would mean that logic could be altered by brain chemistry.
Which is also true. Ever been drunk?
Some atheists say that logic is a product of human language, but that doesn't work because languages are subjective and culturally variable where logic is not.
Well, someone might argue that while languages per se are culturally determined, the underlying universal grammar - and I'm honest enough to admit the subject is still debated - is not and is much more constant, enough to allow for the construction of linguistic universals.
If the atheist says that logic is a property of the universe like motion and gravity, the problem here is that you cannot measure the laws of logic where such things like weight, mass, heat, and cold can be measured.
A property of the universe? That's a first, I've never heard it. That is, I've never heard an atheist use that argument. Creationists, on the other hand, are quite fond of it. Can't count the times I've heard theists of whatever convictions claim that the universe was fundamentally orderly and logical - finely tuned, if you like - and that that's evidence of an intelligent creator.
So, atheists repeatedly try to respond to the issue of trying to account for rationality founded in universal truth statements also known as logical absolutes. But in all their trying and all their attempted logical outcry, they fail. Why? Because atheism doesn’t have the substance to account for rationality. It is deficient as a worldview from this perspective.
Well, as has been shown, logical absolutes are not quite absolute in the first place. They're idealised frames we were able to create by abstraction but that fail to apply to and accurately describe the entire range of phenomena in our universe. So there's no deficiency in atheism as far as logic goes.
But, Christianity states that the universal truth statements reflect the universal mind. We, as God's creation, are able to recognize them because we are made in God’s image. Where Christianity provides an answer to this important issue, atheism clearly fails to deliver.
The Christian universal mind remains an unproven notion, however. All evidence points to its non-existence.