New Atheist’s Self-Exceptional Fallacy Or Self-Deluded

Reflecting on the new Atheist, Richard Dawkin claim that there is no meaning, or purpose of this life. If that is true then I can not help but notice how self-contradicting his claim is. In his famous book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkin claims:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” p.133

Questions:

How can we explain the hurting if we have no idea what “not hurting”  feels? How can we explain “luck” if we do not know what “unlucky” means? How can we explain “injustice” if we do not have any knowledge of what “justice” is?

If at the bottom, there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, why are we(including Dawkin) wants the fairness, “Justice”, and not ready to pretend we are not in pain, “getting hurt” when fair-play is not exercised?

If it is true that there is no evil and no good, then I am not in a position to point these things out. If no purpose, fairness, including Dawkin’s own claim is “nothing but blind pitiless indifference” which is absurd.

Dawkin wishes his reader to take his claims serious namely “becoming an atheist after reading to the end of his God Delusion book” Are Richard Dawkin’s claims also “at the bottom … nothing but blind pitiless indifference?” (You ought to ponder these one by yourself)

Dawkin’s Self-exception Fallacy:

In his best selling book, God Delusion, Richard Dawkin attacks the evilness of religion throughout his entire book. “Religion: Root of All Evil” but I am at lost! Help me understand here! If, by his own words “there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” how then is Religion evil?

More over, if Religion is the root of all evil, then there are other evil to which Dawkin knows they exist but rationally deny them by his own definition which again is absurd.

Dawkin’s Self-Deluded Logic:

There is no A and no B
There is A and B

There is no evil and no good,
Religion is evil, not good.

There is No A and there is A can not all be true at the same time. Accepting there is evil i.e. “Religion is the root of all evil”  and not accept there is evil i.e. “there is at the bottom … no evil”  is simply absurd because either one is wrong, or both are wrong. They can not all be true.

Dawkin’s claim fails to satisfy Logical Thinking on the light of The Law of Non-contradiction . A cannot be B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense.

Therefore, Richard Dawkin’s New Atheist claim commits a “Self-Deluded” Logic namely A is evil and not-evil at the same time and in the same sense.

Dawkin’s Self-Exceptional Fallacy:

If  I at the bottom, accepts no evil and no good, I will have to accept and apply it to all my views, not just on my hobbies as Dawkin does on his hatred-of-Religion dogma.

Moreover, If I were to accept Dawkin atheistic idea, the only an avoidable conclusion I would reach is, Religion is no evil, no good, just a blind pitiless indifference. Attacking Religion as evil is simply absurd from Dawkin’s own chain of thinking.

Therefore, claiming no evil and no good to all things except Religion is simply a self-exceptional fallacious.

Now What?:

There has to be purpose to trace a seemingly purposeless life. Seemingly purposeless life does not mean life is purposeless, but it looks like it purposeless, no meaning(as the new Atheistic calm to which I beg to differ). If there is no God, then there is no meaning to our lives, no purposes, no values, no fairness, nothing, we live, reproduce and die.

If there is no God, why should I be fair? why should I not have my own standards, say murdering babies for no reasons, raping, stealing, lying? Social conduct? You help me I help you? But why do you need to help me if at the bottom all is meaningless? It is normal for animals to rape, steal, kill each other! If at the bottom, there is no evil and no good why am I ought to act like  evil and good exists?

Can I stand in front of the courtroom charged with killing, raping, and stealing and bravery state that “Judge! at the bottom, all these is nothing but blind pitiless indifference” without the Judge thinking I am self-deluded?

Meaning of our Universe:

From C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, comes a very interesting argument for the meaning of our universe.

“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” p.45-46

I will try to put his argument in Contrapositive form to which I believe is easy to follow:

If not A, not B
B
Therefore A

not A = Universe has no meaning
A = Universe has meaning
not B = Never(not) have found out the universe has no meaning
B= Have found out the universe has no meaning

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning,
We have found out the universe has no meaning,
Therefore, the universe has meaning.

I am open for your views,comments, corrections or something I overlooked or over reacted on, and most if I have committed a logical fallacy.

P:S I am officially banned from Dawkin’s Website Discussion for pointing Dawkin’s Self-Delude Logic, Don’t Feed A Troll is their Motto; “You don’t have the ability to comment” And they call themselves Truth-Seeker. I beg to differ, Dawkin-Discussion  is no better than a religious cult! Say something different and you are out.

About Prayson Daniel

Prayson Daniel is a Tanzanian, married to Lea and a father to Eloise. Reformed theology, philosophy of religion, apologetics and church history are areas he enjoy reading, pondering and sharing with a motto "when love comes first, disagreement follows at its right and proper place".

20 comments

  1. Pingback: Why I am No Longer An Atheist | With All I Am

  2. Pingback: Craig's Explanation of Moral Argument | With All I Am

  3. Kim Merrild

    On the topic of what morality you are left with when denying I think that there is more to be said. You are in actuality left with something akin to statements about the statistics of what favorite flavours of icecream some group of people have within some society structure.

    The logical conclusions that seems to lead from saying that we develope morality on the basis of the desire to live it does simply not imply (in a subjective sense) that it should be wrong to kill the man in order to harvest organs. Indeed the you might even do it to save your own life in addition to four others by taking vital organs. These people might even have a far better vocations helping the society than that one man who might not even be a nice person. Would it then not be for the greater “life desire” interest to go ahead and harvest the organs?

    What basis do you really have left by which you can declare the act disturbing if not by refering to an objective principle of “though shallt not kill”?

    Indeed what standard does your developed morality have left but to anyone committing for instance treason that you personally find their actions distasteful?

    Furthermore I think that there is a problem in basing conclusions on people’s morality, or withknowledge of what is right or wrong, on their behaviour. This is due to the fact that I know by myself I do not always do what I know is right. For instance I know very well that it is wrong of me to lie yet I fall in and do it anyhow. Indeed the first urge I seem to have when faced with a sign telling me to “not step on the grass” is to go ahead and do it. How then can I know that the persons passing by the man who is falling of the cliff does not know that they should save him and simply choose to go ahead and not do it anyhow?

    In short morality seems to me to deal with fundamental good and evil. Setting up examples where it can be difficult to see which choice that should be taken when eigther choice is bad does not change the fact that we can know both choices are bad or that we can still classify would I take to be objective right and wrong.

  4. Pingback: Craig’s Explanation of Moral Argument | With All I Am

  5. Anasastu

    I believe that people can develop a moral conscious, but I don’t consider it innate. If a man, for example, grew up on a deserted island and never met other human beings, I don’t think he would risk his life to save another person suddenly seen dangling from a cliff. I think morality is fundamentally based on the desire to live. People come together to hoist each other up, and, like clans, fight for each other but don’t attack each other. If the castaway had known the dangling man, I’m sure he would pull him up.

    Even in today’s world, some people’s lives are threatened, and those faced with a common obstacle work together to press on. This is limited morality, though, because it means that we only do what we feel is right when “right” means defending ourselves, or those who support us in life; when it is to our benefit. And in general I find that we do behave this way. We look after our own, often when others could use our help much more.

    That said, I can imagine a passerby saving the dangling man, but also another person that continues walking. I imagine one with an expression somewhat friendly, and the other passerby with a look of despair or indifference. I think both of these characters are due to individual experience. I can also see someone forcing the man to fall, in order to harvest (it disturbs me to use this word) that person’s body.

    I also agree that it doesn’t make sense for Dawkins to make the point of there being evil when I doubt he thinks of ethics that way.

  6. Anasastu

    Proteusiq, I understand your argument. What Richard Dawkins is stating, I believe, is that we originally have no purpose in the universe. We are indeed born, we live, and we die. However, between our inception and death, we meet people, form friendships and families, and develop a sense of compassion for all life. It is my belief that, by sitting down and having a lengthy conversation, an individual grows a bond with that person. With more experience, we come to grasp the importance of relationships: we have people to confide in and to comfort us.
    Compassion and empathy derail some desires that would harm others. A person would rather form alliances than make enemies – assuming they have witnessed the value of relationships. But even then, sometimes people become desperate, and do whatever they can to achieve certain goals. Sometimes they simply don’t value getting to know each other. So, societal structures are established to keep people in line, such as law and police.
    When it comes to purpose, that is something people decide for themselves. We are born, yes, but then we grow. We make decisions to better ourselves and those we love, and also develop principles. These personal tenets are also products of experience, of conversation, and of learning. Principles incur purpose.
    Of course, we all come from different backgrounds, and thus abide by unique principles. If we talk to each other and discover each other’s history, we will understand what makes people do “bad things.” These are acts of desperation, or of principles we disagree with (such as stealing as a legitimate method). For example, people generally agree that killing people is bad, but generally have exceptions even to this rule. Desperate people, though, are in circumstances outside the norm, and are more likely to act outside their principles if necessary. This is my conclusion.
    On another note, I don’t agree with the Richard Dawkins site banning you, although “In Texas and Frightened” is unrelated to this topic.

    • Dear Anasastu,

      Thank you for your comment, thank you for your tone in this.

      I will like for us to think on this deep! It is great that your affirm that some things are worth, like Compassion, friendship,empathy and that we do have values.

      It is hard and close to impossible to accept that a blind-processed, valueless animal came to have values by chance and for no reasons at all at the bottom as Dawkin’s calm.

      I think murder, rape, theft, torturing of innocents will be morally evil even if people did not find out or agree that these things are indeed bad( Moral evil).

      Slavery, Holocaust, or white supremacy was wrong even when the community(people) did agree or disagree at any given time,past, present or future. These things are Objectively wrong(evil) whether we discover them out or not, whether we agree on them or not.

      Funny enough this Moral Objective duties and values are discovered they are neither agree on, nor made up by communities.

      Example: Child molester by the Irish Catholic Priests is morally wrong, even if they could have covered it up and was never discovered or agree by a community. Burning witches by the name of Religion was Morally evil, no question about it. Murdering of millions under any belief, whether Religious, atheistic(Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism) or for what ever ideas is simply moral wrong!

      If we are to make our own standard or agreements to what is wrong and what is right, by which we deep down know that at the end there is no true evil, or no true good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference then why should I be deluded to follow our own created Morals?

      Here is were I believe Atheism has great challenge, If God does not Exist, I can do what ever I want to do! Read through the Atheism history, If God does not exist, I am God. I make my own standard and leaving in someone else or community standard is simply leaving in a delusion.

      Please do understand I am not saying Atheists are evil, no! Belief in God, and God existence are two different things. Atheist and Theist knows they are ought to do good, and right and I believe this is so because of Existence(not belief) of God.

      Funny enough Dawkin’s Logic affirms Moral Argument for Existence of God:

      1. If God does not Exist, Objective Moral values and duties do no exist( Just like Dawkin’s view, no good, no evil)
      2. Objective Moral values and duties do exist( Dawkin’s Religion:Root of all Evil)
      3.Therefore God Exists.


      But Dawkin does not see that what he just pointed concludes with exactly the opposite of what he want to say, namely God Exist:

      If God did not exists, then Dawkin is so right, we are to leave in a delusion where we create our own good, and values to which at the bottom they are nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

      But that is not true, because if at the bottom no evil and no good, why cry out for Justice, Fairness and Meaningless!?

      Please let me hear what you think about this, dear friend.

  7. Maybe they run a script that excludes anyone who uses the word Logic. :)

  8. That is a very fine outline of C.S. Lewis argument you have given us for consideration – thank you.
    It is surely selfcontradictory of Dawkins to hold to such blatant fallacious viewpoints.
    I read recently a Philosopher – who gave a parallel to this as a man who claims that there are no diseases, while affirming that you have lung cancer.
    If there are no meaning at all, then is that a meaninful statement?
    The problem is that Dawkins, while being a brilliant scientist, is a lousy philosopher.

    • “You don’t have the ability to comment” that is what I got out of “http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/” after pointing Dawkin’s Logic! I can not comment anymore! Is Richard Dawkin site a cult?
      Is it a place only for Atheistic Believer! Wow I am called a Troll, and many other names in that site! So militant some atheists are! I am scared where this is going, will Atheism bring back Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism? Will they start killing for the name of what they believe namely “Religion is a virus” need to be removed!

  9. Stefan

    PS: if you want people to take you seriously, learn to use the right words for what you want. I’m sure all of Dawkins’ “calms” are more reasonable than believing that some fella (see: god) is in control (if doing nothing is what you call “in control”)

    • Dear Stefan,

      I am trying my best to use the right words, but I must confess that English is not my first language.

      Why so militant Stefan, If atheism is true, I do not think we need to be so aggressive when someone points a hole in our thinking because we just need to point them in the right direction, this of cause applies to the Theist.

      At the end Stefan, with all your claims(“calms“), do you believe I have the right to say at the bottom what you say is “nothing but blind pitiless indifference”?

      Moreover, if the universe has no meaning at the bottom, so are Dawkin’s calms, so are your claims and my claims at the bottom no meaning. But this is not true because you are so aggressive over my meaning of Dawkin’s meaning! Can you see? If there was no meaning you would not be here telling me that I am wrong and Dawkin and you are right. If no meaning, there is no meaning to all of us. Not just you and Dawkin, to which is absurd.

      It is time to reason what you read Stefan, not just be a fan of the idea because you love it! We need to learn it, love it and live it! But for Atheist that is hard, you learn it, and you love it but can not live it? Can you live like there is no evil, no good, jut blind pitiless indifference? No, Dawkin himself knows it, for he is number one to scream that Religion is evil! Why can’t Dawkin live like Religion is no evil, no good, just blind pitiless indifference?

      This is why I left Atheism to Theism :)

  10. Stefan

    You’ve thought up a half-assed argument with no real basis in fact except for the fact that you don’t like the facts. That’s your logical fallacy, you’re being illogical. The very fact that the universe has no meaning does indeed mean that it has meaning. Unfortunately for you, you can’t get past that part and understand that the meaning you putinto the universe is the meaning you get out of it. As in: if you decide to be a thief, then the world around becomes a universe than means lies, theft and such things. If you become a christian the world takes new meaning as such it becomes a world full of the love of jesus etc. You are stuck on the fallacy that because the universe has no meaning, none of us can do anything about it. I’ve done something about it, that is: I live my life to the best way that I can, I’m a good person that does his best to be a kind, generous and loving person. I do this precisely because there is no meaning in the universe, the meaning you give it is the best meaning you have, make it a good meaning.

    • Dear Stefan,

      From your above arguments, Who is Deluded? If I create my own meaning, it is nothing but a delusion(Maya)!

      Stefan, If what you say is true, then why are you not accepting with my own “meaning” of Richard Dawkin logic!?

      Point to my logical fallacy, do not assume that I just do not like the fact! What facts? That at the bottom all is “nothing but blind pitiless indifference”? I just do not like the logic behind!

      Creating own meaning is delusional, because the Universe will not be the way it is.

      Did Hilter create his own meaning that Killing Jews was good? Should I create my own meaning and saying what you Just wrote was absurd! No I can not do that, or I will be as deluded as ones who create meaning to fit there hobbies like Dawkin’s hatred of Religion.

      Thank you for your comments Stefan

      Prayson Daniel(Proteusiq)

  11. Chris

    It seems to me that you’ve confused Dawkins denial of objective morality with his useage of subjective morality. From what I’ve read, Dawkins is giving you his opinion that religion has many evils within (subjective morality), but claims that there is no ultimate good or evil (no objective morality). Subjective morality does not equal objective morality.

    Sorry you’ve wasted your time with this long rant.

    I’d choose a subjective morality over the Christian objective morality any day. Even though, through my own view, I cannot say for sure that x, y and z are evil, I can at least give my opinion that they are. You on the other hand are forced to follow God’s objective morality and see what he says is good as good and what he says is bad as bad. This might not strike a cord with you until I point out the instances of genocide (Deuteronomy chapter 3) or child rape (Numbers 31:17-18). You are forced to side with God that those actions are perfectly moral.

    • Dear Chris,

      Thank you for your honest, indeed

      “Dawkins is giving you his opinion that religion has many evils within (subjective morality), but claims that there is no ultimate good or evil (no objective morality)”

      Is this just his opinion on Religion, and is his opinion at the bottom “nothing but blind pitiless indifference”?

      And Question Chris, Why should I follow Dawkin’s opinion?

      Why in the world should I follow an opinion of a developed primate if Atheism is true?

  12. Christian Myers

    What you are not understanding is that Dawkins is saying there is no ultimate meaning, leaving us free to decide our own meaning.

    Things like hurt, and justice are human things. Humans know what pain feels like, because our bodies have devoloped a system to which they may alert us of harm. Justice is formed from our ability to think and decide what is right.

    Your logic falls apart from there on.

    • I do understand Dawkin, and I do agree with you to a certain degree when you say “What you are not understanding is that Dawkins is saying there is no ultimate meaning, leaving us free to decide our own meaning”

      But my question is, is at the bottom what you say is “nothing but blind pitiless indifference”? if true then we are cool, you have your own indifference over my view of Dawkin, which is absurd.

      Justice is not formed, Justice is discovered! Example, Slavery was wrong even if the Western accepted it at that time! The Holocaust was wrong even if Nazi won the war and brain-wash everyone to think it was okay.

      Yes, I agree Human have a system to which they alert them when they are harm, but what is harm if at the end, there is no good, no evil?

      “What you are not understanding is that Dawkins is saying there is no ultimate meaning, leaving us free to decide our own meaning.”

      Well, I am going to decide my own meaning: If Atheism is true, Richard Dawkin’s and Christian Myers’ ideas are the dumbest ideas on planet earth

      If you are like me, Myers, reading this makes you agrrrrr! But it shouldn’t because if Atheism is true, I am left to make my own meaning of things. So if I am a true Atheist, then it is just my own meaning that your idea + Dawkin’s are the dumbest ideas in the whole world. Of cause you can think of what I said the same, that your meaning of my comment is just the dumbest of the dumbest idea and on and on we can go …

      My point is Myers, if we are to freely decide our own meaning we will then be self-deluded. Why leave under the meaning we self-created? Why should I follow or accept your meaning over my meaning? Why should I not make my own meaning that is Murdering is cool? Did the Irish Catholic Priest create his own meaning by abusing children? If atheism is true, then Yes, He created his own meaning by abusing children! And on atheist idea’s he did not do anything wrong or evil. Why? because at the bottom there is no evil, no good.

      Creating our own meaning will create a very dangerous world. Read the History of Atheistic Ideas such as Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism and what these ideas did in Mother Russia and other communist and socialist states.

      How does my logic fall apart Myers? Please let me know?

      Prayson Daniel(Proteusiq)

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,837 other followers

%d bloggers like this: