xian

The Atheist's New Clothes:

An Apology to Robert Ingersoll


"I believe that the natural is supreme -- that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken -- there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer -- no power that worship can persuade or change -- no power that cares for man. I believe that with infinite arms Nature embraces the all -- that there is no interference -- no chance -- that behind every event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond every event will be and must be the necessary and countless effects." (Robert Ingersoll, Why I Am An Agnostic, 1896.)


Robert Ingersoll would be very disappointed with today's atheist. For Robert, just knowing that all events must have a cause was a great catalyst in his reversion from religion. This great truth- that all events have a cause- was for Robert a bright candle in a dark world of myth and supernatural spirits. By embracing the truth that all events have a natural cause, he was able to dispel the ideas of using myth and the supernatural to explain things, and to him, this truth of causality enabled him to break the chains of religion and lay hold of reason and freedom of mind. How could he have known back then that today's atheists would call his candle a false light, and betray the very path that set his mind free! How could he have ever known that a mere hundred years after his death, atheists would actually be arguing against the law of causality, and the theists would be the ones arguing for it!!! What an amazing reversal. *Ingersoll turns over in his grave* (which is now actually possible given the new breed of atheism).

With the great god of quantum physics, we no longer need to think that behind every event there's a necessary cause. Now their lies the possibility that something can come from nothing. Many atheists today actually believe this (note the word believe), and some even declare it to be fact. The problem is that if something can come from nothing, then you can effectively throw out all science and reason. (Are virtual particles actually proven to be uncaused? Get real.) Who needs to question how the magician pulled a rabbit out of the hat? It could now be possible that the rabbit caused itself ex-nihilo from the void (which would definitely be true magic). Perhaps life itself was the result of a flux in the "void" or a "borrowing" of energy from the zero-point sea. A DNA molecule just suddenly "popped" out from the void and bam!, you have life. (Just hope the void doesn't demand the borrowed energy back any time soon!)

With the new view that causality is no longer a universal law, now all of the sudden, every miracle mentioned in religious dogma since the history of the world becomes scientifically viable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if quantum "laws" can effect an entire universe from the void, then minimally comparable events such as a biblical flood are trivial and tripe- candidly being absolutely scientifically viable in comparison. As soon as you throw out cause-and-effect from the universe (by stating that it can be "naturally" breached), you no longer have any right to declare a miraculous event as being scientifically impossible or foolish. You no longer have a leg to stand on in your claim that miracles are unscientific. In fact it can be reasonably stated that of all religions and all myths in the history of this world combined, the idea that the universe spontaneously caused itself ex-nihilo from absolute nothingness is by far the most supernatural world view of them all. "Something from nothing" meets the very definition of supernatural, and is in fact, even more supernatural than any religion I know of. At least the other religions ascribe some sort of cause to the universe!

The only way to embrace this world view (that cause-and-effect is no longer a universal law) is to let go of all established science and reason. How amazing it is to me to see an atheist criticize a creationist for foolish views and then turn around and declare that cause-and-effect can be breached! How can you define any natural law when causality can be negated at the spontaneous "will" of the void? You cant. At least the creationist believes in a universe that is caused; far more in line with established physics. The modern atheist on the other hand a believes that it is possible for events to arise from absolute nothing- without a cause. Nothing could be more supernatural! Even a supernatural event like the resurrection of Christ is still a caused event (Christians believe it was caused by God). With the modern atheist world view, we can still have the resurrection of Christ, only now we don't need a cause for it. Yikes!

This fanatical world view is the most superstitious and supernatural of them all. I laugh every time I here people like Quentin Smith spend so much time and energy arguing with finely-tuned eloquent dialogue that "something can arise from nothing," while simultaneously declaring theism to be absurd. Its actually unbelievable! When you take a step back and look at it, you have to laugh at its pathetically sad, but blatantly exposed double standard. Like the classic story of The Emperor's New Clothes, you see a well-respected person "clothing" himself up with the robes of skilled words and philosophical reasoning, but when you realize just what he is arguing in favor of, like a flash of bright awareness, you suddenly behold a frail, naked man; weak and desperate for answers. So desperate that he is willing to throw out to the dogs the very things that science and reason stands and has stood upon; the very things that atheism has stood upon for centuries- all just to satisfy a sad, desperate need to answer to those "inferior" theists. Deep down, all atheists who are honest with themselves who publicly claim causality can be beaten know it. Why wont any of today's free-thinkers stand up and identify the naked king for what he is? Perhaps because they enjoy their puny skirmishes with the theists so much that I guess science just doesn't mean as much to them as it used to. Once you can see the obvious, you realize the truth- there is no science here; no objective pursuit of reality, no devotion to reason, no unbiased study of empirical evidence, only a bitter spirit towards theism and the desperate need to quench its thirst in man.

Robert Ingersoll would be appalled to know that today many of his fellow atheists are actually ready to throw out cause-and-effect, thereby opening the wide gates of the supernatural. He would be astonished to see so many atheists throw it out just for the sake of landing an angry, emotion-driven blow in the endless war against the theists. And doing so in the name of science is only a defamation of what science stands for, and a slap in the face of men like Robert Ingersoll. Are theists worth it? Is it worth sacrificing science and reason upon the altar of personal aversion for the sake of attacking theism? I am sorry, Mr. Ingersoll, that the progress you made in the advancement of knowledge is being so desecrated by today's new breed of supernatural atheists.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Strawman argument. Irrelevant.

Javaman

Agreed

Out of curiosity, xian, what is your occupation? You don't list it on your profile and I was wondering what your background was.

keyser_soze

That was terrible.....Who wrote that?

Psycho Economist

Phase III in your attempt to revive the "God exists as the prime mover" argument.

First, I'm going to refrain from making any absolute statements about whether everything has a cause or not until i know which direction you're feinting. I don't think I've yet said "things exist uncaused," or "all things have causes," myself. I'm hedging my bets in this argument and I have no shame about doing so.

Second, quantum mechanics is obviously unaccounted for in Ingersoll's arguments. Non-newtonian physics didn't frickin' exist when he died. But just because it's not yet explained doesn't mean "it opens the door to the supernatural". Doubly so in the macroscopic world, where quantum effects pale in comparison to the classical physics that was known to Ingersoll.

Third, Ingersoll, much as I respect the man, is not the infallible high prophet of atheism. Not one of us is beholden to his arguments or philosophies by virtue of agreeing with him that there's not sufficient reason out there to believe in supernatural surrogate parents.

Quite the contrary, I think he'd find your efforts offensive... using his words as argument-from-authority bait in a protracted attempt to catch a small handfull of us with our intellectual pants down, so you can try and revive an argument he perforated almost a century ago.

JCS

ad-hominem fallacy. irrelevant due to ad-hominem remarks, all arguments are summarily dismissed and fully ignored. I do not entertain ad-hominem responses.

Sorry couldn't resist.

braces_for_impact

Awaits the inevitable equivocation...

Eudaimonist

YAWN!

Talk about grasping at straws!

xian

atheism: strawman


agreed.

xian

I think he'd be astonished that atheists reject his reasoning, and that theists see the universe as he did. It is quite ironic, actually.


i did.

and yea, its pretty terrible how the very reasons Robert Ingersoll became an atheist, are the arguments of theists! haha. that really is funny.


i hope you don't wait too long.


i'll keep that in mind when we talk.


yea, i was reading Robert Ingersoll and got kind of bored too