The Arrogance of Atheism
September 7, 2009 at 10:14 am
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2009 at 10:19 am by Ryft.)
PREFACE: The following article was originally published in three different places, two which died internet deaths and one that still exists as an inactive blog. Shortly after publication it caught the attention of Austin Reed Cline, a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and editor of the Atheism section of the About.com site, who published an excoriating and profoundly inaccurate review thereof. Please feel free to weigh in with your thoughts on my original point, on Cline’s review, and on my rebuttal.
Original Article (27/Jan/2005):
THE ARROGANCE OF ATHEISM
The really frustrating thing about most atheists, at least those who enjoy debating against Christian theism, is that they presuppose the truth of their system of belief and then tacitly insist their Christian opponent work within the framework of that system. In other words, the Christian is expected to provide arguments in defense of Christian theism which accord with the atheist’s epistemology in particular and world view in general. This is implicitly demonstrated in challenges such as, "Provide evidence that God exists." The relevance of evidence, and even what constitutes evidence, are defined by his system of thought.
However, if it is permissible for the atheist to presuppose the truth of his system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system, then it is also permissible for the inverse of that situation. Otherwise, the atheist would shoulder the epistemic responsibility for explaining why the only presuppositions permitted in the field of debate are his own—and I would not anticipate a rational argument for that.
Critical Review by Austin Cline (09/Feb/2005):
Click here to read.
Rebuttal Against Cline (16/Aug/2009):
THE NATURE OF THE ARROGANCE
It is both obvious and clear that Austin Cline grossly misunderstood my argument. For example, his opening paragraph begins with the question, "Are atheists arrogant for insisting that theists support their claims before accepting them as true?" Cline describes it as an "unusual" way to demonstrate the arrogance of atheism, proving that his attempted rebuttal missed the force of my argument entirely—which had nothing to do with atheists insisting that theistic claims be supported but rather how they insist those claims be supported.
That is to say, the arrogance of atheism is proven by atheists who "presuppose the truth of their system of belief and then tacitly insist their Christian opponent work within the framework of that system" while prohibiting by fiat any competing epistemic structure in the field of debate. The force of my argument is found in the following juxtaposition:
If it is permissible and valid for
the Atheist to presuppose the truth of his system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system,
then it is equally permissible and valid for
the Christian to presuppose the truth of his system of thought and expect the Atheist to work within the framework of that system.
If an atheist disagrees with this—Cline included—then he shoulders "the epistemic responsibility for explaining why the only presuppositions permitted in the field of debate are his own," for which no rational argument can actually be anticipated.
When Cline says, "Ryft doesn’t like being held to the standard of having to provide evidence for his claims," he could not possibly get it more wrong. His rebuttal is an intellectual disaster. What I dislike is having an atheist shove his beliefs down my throat, which he does by pretending that his is the only legitimate epistemic structure while at the same time prohibiting, by his sacrosanct fiat, every other from the field of debate.
The epistemic structure of Christian theism has exactly equal validity as the one affirmed by the atheist. And the atheist cannot present an argument against this which presupposes the truth of his epistemic structure lest he commits the logical fallacy of Begging the Question.
THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE
Cline suggests that it is legitimate or fair to question the nature of evidence expected for some claim, and then attempts to assert that "trying to exempt one’s own personal god-claims from a standard used pretty much all the rest of the time in other situations is an example of the Special Pleading fallacy."
Wrong. This fallacy is committed only when "someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon an irrelevant characteristic that does not define an exception" (FallacyFiles.org; emphasis added). Empirical claims require empirical evidence; however, God-claims are not empirical claims. To demand that empirical evidence be provided for non-empirical claims is to commit a gross categorical error. It is akin to someone demanding that the Law of Non-Contradiction (a non-empirical claim) be proved with empirical evidence. The nature of evidence must correspond to the nature of the claim.
CONCLUSION
The arrogance of atheism is not proven by atheists demanding that theists support their claims. It is proven by their vituperative denial that competing epistemic structures have exactly equal validity, whereby they shove their beliefs down other people’s throats by pretending that theirs is the only legitimate epistemic structure while at the same time prohibiting or disallowing—by empty fiat—every other from the field of debate.
And it is irrational to expect non-empirical claims to be substantiated by empirical evidence, for that commits a categorical error. The nature of evidence must correspond to the nature of the claim: empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.
Original Article (27/Jan/2005):
THE ARROGANCE OF ATHEISM
The really frustrating thing about most atheists, at least those who enjoy debating against Christian theism, is that they presuppose the truth of their system of belief and then tacitly insist their Christian opponent work within the framework of that system. In other words, the Christian is expected to provide arguments in defense of Christian theism which accord with the atheist’s epistemology in particular and world view in general. This is implicitly demonstrated in challenges such as, "Provide evidence that God exists." The relevance of evidence, and even what constitutes evidence, are defined by his system of thought.
However, if it is permissible for the atheist to presuppose the truth of his system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system, then it is also permissible for the inverse of that situation. Otherwise, the atheist would shoulder the epistemic responsibility for explaining why the only presuppositions permitted in the field of debate are his own—and I would not anticipate a rational argument for that.
Critical Review by Austin Cline (09/Feb/2005):
Click here to read.
Rebuttal Against Cline (16/Aug/2009):
THE NATURE OF THE ARROGANCE
It is both obvious and clear that Austin Cline grossly misunderstood my argument. For example, his opening paragraph begins with the question, "Are atheists arrogant for insisting that theists support their claims before accepting them as true?" Cline describes it as an "unusual" way to demonstrate the arrogance of atheism, proving that his attempted rebuttal missed the force of my argument entirely—which had nothing to do with atheists insisting that theistic claims be supported but rather how they insist those claims be supported.
That is to say, the arrogance of atheism is proven by atheists who "presuppose the truth of their system of belief and then tacitly insist their Christian opponent work within the framework of that system" while prohibiting by fiat any competing epistemic structure in the field of debate. The force of my argument is found in the following juxtaposition:
If it is permissible and valid for
the Atheist to presuppose the truth of his system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system,
then it is equally permissible and valid for
the Christian to presuppose the truth of his system of thought and expect the Atheist to work within the framework of that system.
If an atheist disagrees with this—Cline included—then he shoulders "the epistemic responsibility for explaining why the only presuppositions permitted in the field of debate are his own," for which no rational argument can actually be anticipated.
When Cline says, "Ryft doesn’t like being held to the standard of having to provide evidence for his claims," he could not possibly get it more wrong. His rebuttal is an intellectual disaster. What I dislike is having an atheist shove his beliefs down my throat, which he does by pretending that his is the only legitimate epistemic structure while at the same time prohibiting, by his sacrosanct fiat, every other from the field of debate.
The epistemic structure of Christian theism has exactly equal validity as the one affirmed by the atheist. And the atheist cannot present an argument against this which presupposes the truth of his epistemic structure lest he commits the logical fallacy of Begging the Question.
THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE
Cline suggests that it is legitimate or fair to question the nature of evidence expected for some claim, and then attempts to assert that "trying to exempt one’s own personal god-claims from a standard used pretty much all the rest of the time in other situations is an example of the Special Pleading fallacy."
Wrong. This fallacy is committed only when "someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon an irrelevant characteristic that does not define an exception" (FallacyFiles.org; emphasis added). Empirical claims require empirical evidence; however, God-claims are not empirical claims. To demand that empirical evidence be provided for non-empirical claims is to commit a gross categorical error. It is akin to someone demanding that the Law of Non-Contradiction (a non-empirical claim) be proved with empirical evidence. The nature of evidence must correspond to the nature of the claim.
CONCLUSION
The arrogance of atheism is not proven by atheists demanding that theists support their claims. It is proven by their vituperative denial that competing epistemic structures have exactly equal validity, whereby they shove their beliefs down other people’s throats by pretending that theirs is the only legitimate epistemic structure while at the same time prohibiting or disallowing—by empty fiat—every other from the field of debate.
And it is irrational to expect non-empirical claims to be substantiated by empirical evidence, for that commits a categorical error. The nature of evidence must correspond to the nature of the claim: empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
