Strawman at the Reason Rally

The atheistic sponsored Reason Rally has come and gone.  The much vaunted non-event is an indication that the ultimate defense of an atheistic position is a perception that they and they alone are entitled to be identified as rational people, and that all opposition to their purposes are consequently irrational.  Tom Gilson in the Washington Post disagrees.  Atheists do not own reason, thus a parade to demonstrate the rational foundations of atheism is defeated at the onset.  Gilson explains the facade:  For years, though, knowledgeable critics have been calling attention to new atheist’ rational fallacies, emotionally loaded rhetoric, and illegitimate, selective use of evidence. It’s time now to add that up together and recognize what it means: the new atheists have no business proclaiming themselves the defenders of reason, simply because they don’t practice it competently.

It has been of great benefit to allow the rally to be attended, if to show the paucity of the claims of being the defenders of reason if they resort to mob activity to declare their programs.  Tom Gilson did attend, but not as a disruptor.  Threatened by Reason Rally organizer David Silverman that such party crashers would be escorted away by "plentiful security," Gilson attended, to discourse calmly and politely.  He explains: We handed out lots of free water, which many people gratefully accepted, even though the weather was cool and rainy. We handed out excerpts of the True Reason book. We had the quiet, respectful conversations we said we were going there to have: person-to-person, recognizing that we are all human beings interacting with fellow human beings on matters of great importance. We did exactly what we said we would do, and we’re glad we went.

Thus, avoiding a brutish (and obviously irrational) encounter, the theist demonstrated that the ad hominem presentation of those whose opinions are in opposition are not following reasonable practices themselves.  Their arrogant supposition was scuttled.  Bravo to Mr. Gilson.

The whole concept that atheism is a practiced form of reason flies in the face of reason itself.  Note the following syllogism:

1. Faith is at its foundation an irrational act.

2.  Atheism, with its rejection of God, expresses an opinion of faith.

3.  Atheism is at its foundation an irrational act.

The first premise is a standard tenet of atheism.  The second would be questioned however.  But their allegiance to science (scientism, actually, which is a faith in the advancements of science as world's deliverer) can make no definitive statement on God, thus validating the second premise.  The issue of reason in this case is best explained in the role of the boy in Waiting for Godot.  The character of Godot never appears, but a boy is always sent to excuse his absence.  With all apologies to the characters of Vladimir and Estragon, those who expect and suspect the missing character of Godot must be in a form of waiting.  Unless Becket himself resolves the play with a third act, we move slightly beyond agnosticism, fully expectant but not fulfilled, incapable of a certain yes or no.

Thus its best to have called the whole affair the Faith in Reason Rally.  Or better, called it off.



The Strawman and the Strange Case of "Circular Reasoning"

Over the past month in my readings and Internet investigations, I was amazed at a rather narrowness of thinking that I found quite ironic.  In a quandary over the opinions about young earth creationism, I noted a tendency on both sides, evolutionist and creationist, to reduce the whole argument to a matter of circular reasoning.  The creationist denounced the evolutionist position by remarking that a reiterated referral to scientific principles in regard to the cosmological argument as engaging in the fallacy.  The evolutionist rejoinder was dismissing creation as a dogmatic response to evidence apart from scientific evidence.  In short "God made the universe because God stated as much in His Scriptures" was doing battle with "The big bang theory must dismiss a divine agent because in links to causality, God needs to be caused to effect the big bang."

I propose that both sides must admit to something quite shocking: in the expression of our individual worldviews, we have not gathered much substance to advance the ideas of such view without an apparent recurrence to a position we have stated was to be defended.  The hardcore proponent of any position that purports to any notion that surmises universal importance must caution himself of being so sure of the whole of the matter under discussion.  In short, too complicated to offer a simple response.

Attached to this post is a video that I noted was amazing in offering information on design within the universe, and how simple reflective, critical thinking might alter our understanding of the role of science, not because science is flawed, but just now becoming enlightened of the fullness of what must constitute life.  A contemplation of what DNA involves may endanger much of what Darwinism may have led us to comprehend.  Programming of Life offers an investigation of this matter over which we may have argued long and hard.  But it presents no simple resolution to the question about which we have accused the other side of reasoning in circles.

It is an awesome display of scientific thought. Watch and ponder.