There’s a video that was loaded up by Red Grace Media a few days ago in which the host asked an atheist about atheism and the laws of logic:
Normally I don’t read the comment section of Youtube videos because of how much ignorance and trolls exists on there. But there’s this one comment I want to briefly respond to:
‘How can you have logic and reason without God?’……..the obvious answer, ‘we have a brain that has evolved to be able to work things out logically and use reason’ [and we are not the only species that can do this by the way] So now lets ask this stupid question to an atheist and piss him off because it’s such a stupid question that you are sure to find at least one atheist that gets pissed at this stupid question…………. And then we can go ridicule atheism by making a YouTube video of it. Is religion really getting this desperate! 🙂
- First off merely saying it is a stupid question doesn’t make it so.
- Secondly the question “How can you have logic and reason without God?” is a legitimate question. If the atheist doesn’t believe in God, then then they will see the world a certain way without the presupposition of God and hence different than the Christian. What does that kind of world look like and how does one explain things?
- Stupid questions question exists such as complex question fallacies, etc. But did our troll demonstrate and explain how its a stupid question? Not really. So much for emphasizing being reasonable and logical.
- To assume that atheism has some kind of immunity from questions by Christian about the atheist worldview is quite ironic with a rally that’s called “Reason Rally” where being skeptical and asking questions are supposedly the spirit of the gathering.
- We see here that the dogmaticism is greatest among those who think they hold no dogma just like how the most intolerant people are those who parade under the charade of being tolerant, etc.
- Its interesting to see how some anti-Christians such as the guy in the video and the commentator use psycho-assertions instead of actual argumentation. Note the commentator wondering aloud that perhaps the reason why this video was made was because “religion” is getting desperate. Explanation is not argumentation, and that’s the first thing one learns in logic 101.
- The comment answers the question about logic and reason origins with God with “the obvious answer, ‘we have a brain that has evolved to be able to work things out logically and use reason.’” But it’s not as “obvious” as he thinks. I’ll begin with what the experts have to say before my own words:
- Former president of the American Philosopher Association Alvin Plantinga has developed his “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism” on the problem of knowledge existing if our mind is the product of naturalism. See a PDF note here by Plantinga. This is relevant because if knowledge is underminded in a naturalistic evolutionary worldview, then the knowledge of logic and reason goes down the tube with it.
- Philosopher Victor Reppert has developed his argument from reason for God and has written a book titled “C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Ideas In Defense of the Argument from Reason” (link to my review). One aspect of his argument is his argument of the problem of explaining reasoning apart from God. Again I bring this up to show how its not as obviously simple as our commentator think.
- Philosopher James Anderson has also argued that the laws of logic proves the existence of God HERE.
- Now my own thoughts: In a world that is not directed by God in which a brain “evolved” to have the laws of logic, it actually makes everything irrational. We normally don’t attribute getting the right answer coincidentally as the person having true knowledge. Think of a guy who gets the time right when he looks at a dead clock that happened to be at 5 PM when it was 5 PM. Or a lawyer reading the wrong state law book and it happen that the state he’s working at also declared something illegal with the same penalty. Coincidences doesn’t make it rational. In a world where God didn’t create, and in which everything is nonpurposeful, laws of logic that happened to coincide with the mind make the law of logic irrational. If the laws of logic is coincidental and it is used as a tool to come to conclusion, even if the conclusion is true it makes everything all a big unsound argument. Atheistic evolutionary naturalism destroys the rationality of the laws of logic. But the Laws of Logic is rational. Therefore atheistic evolutionary naturalism is false.