Why God-Belief Is Irrational

by CJ Holmes

 

 

Many theists hold that "the atheist position" is untenable because one cannot prove a negative. (1) If this were the case, then any time one asserts a positive, the negation of that positive would be untenable, regardless of its merits, supposing it has any. The idea that atheism is untenable because of the impossibility to prove negative claims is founded on a false view of knowledge and reasoning. Specifically, such an idea ignores the onus of proof falls on those who assert the positive. It is also founded on a most uncharitable characterization of what atheism is in terms of essentials. Atheism is the absence of a particular kind of belief (namely god-belief), and is necessarily the default for man since he is born without knowledge, and therefore without beliefs (including god-belief). Even religions tacitly acknowledge this when they advocate conversion, since conversion is essentially from non-belief to belief.

In this essay, I intend to present a few points in support of my view that god-belief is irrational. Since the claim "god-belief is irrational" is a positive claim, and since in the previous paragraph I affirm the position that "the onus of proof falls on those who assert the positive," I am certainly willing to defend my assertion that god-belief is irrational.

However, readers should not mistake my position as a tacit affirmation that atheism would not be valid without supporting my contention that god-belief is irrational. Since atheism is essentially the absence of a particular kind of belief, it already has a logical advantage since we all start out without beliefs, and beliefs do not gain validity simply because they are believed. My lacking a belief in a god is no less "valid" than my lacking a belief in unicorns, the Tooth Fairy, Tashteill the Prairie Dog King, Elvis sightings, or Geusha the supreme being of the Lahu tribe of northern Thailand. If the context of my knowledge does not support a certain belief, then my lacking that belief is necessarily valid, for it would be invalid for me to hold a belief for which the context of my knowledge does not support.

 

What is Rationality?

Before presenting my argument for why god-belief is irrational, I should explain what I mean by 'rationality'. It is especially important that I explain this, since the Bible does not teach rationality (it teaches 'faith' instead (2)), and a perusal of apologetic arguments in defense of theism shows me that theists' understanding of rationality is for the most part gravely deficient. Furthermore, the conception of rationality which I assume in my topical argument is one which is framed within a larger, fully integrated philosophical system, a context of which few theists have any firsthand familiarity or understanding.

Since I am an Objectivist, I assume the Objectivist conception of rationality in my argument establishing the irrationality of god-belief. Ayn Rand, the founder of the philosophy of Objectivism, held that "rationality is man's basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues," and that this basic virtue entails "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." (3) In defining this concept, Rand wrote:

Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking - that the mind is one's only judge of values and one's only guide of action - that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise - that a concession to the irrational invalidates one's consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality - that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind - that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one's consciousness. (4)

Now, it may appear to readers that I am building my case into the very conception of 'rationality' which it assumes, since that conception rejects "the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith." Some might even call this an instance of circular reasoning. However, this would be a misguided judgment. Rather, given such a definition of 'rationality', the statement "god-belief is irrational" is essentially tautological. A tautology whose reference is to reality is necessarily true, and a strong case can be made for the position that all truths are in one way or another tautological in nature. (5) Thus, the claim "god-belief is irrational" is essentially no different from the statement "that which is irrational is that which is irrational," which is tautological, not circular. Besides, the commitment to "reason as one's only source of knowledge" necessarily constitutes a rejection of faith.

 

The Basis of Rationality

If rationality is a commitment to reason (and it is), what is reason, and what is its basis? "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." (6) Thus, our reasoning begins where our awareness begins: with sense perception. Objectivism holds that all things which exist have identity: that which exists is that which exists (again, truth is tautological in nature). Existence exists, therefore it has identity. Consciousness exists, therefore it has identity. The mind exists, therefore it has identity. Action, since it is action of entities (things which exist), also has identity. This is the law of causality: the law of identity applied to action. Things which act, do so in accordance with their identity. Consciousness is an active process: to be aware is action. And to be aware requires an object. The means by which we are aware of objects begins with our physical senses: we perceive objects by means of sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Therefore sensory perception is the basis of reason since reason begins with what we perceive. Even if what we think we perceive is illusory, as some claim, we would not be able to determine this by looking only inward, or by neglecting what it is that we are calling an illusion. We must begin with our awareness of what is outside us (external reality) before we could even determine that what is outside us is illusory. This is why the "illusion" counterexample is so misguided; it is asserted in an attempt to discredit sensory perception as such. But without sensory perception, we would not even be able to make the statement that what we perceive is an illusion: illusion as opposed to what? We must begin with our awareness, and our awareness is of objects outside us. We are aware of these objects by means of sensory perception - the front line of man's awareness.

Rand recognized that the method of reason is logic, which she called "the art or skill of non-contradictory identification." (7) The basis of logic is the law of identity: A is A. Along with the fact that existence exists and the fact that consciousness exists, identity is one of Objectivism's fundamental axioms: if something exists, it exists as itself, i.e., it is something specific. The fundamental principles of logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle, etc.) are corollaries of this fundamental truth.

Peikoff makes the following point:

Any theory that propounds an opposition between the logical and the empirical, represents a failure to grasp the nature of logic and its role in human cognition. Man's knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience. (8)

Thus, when theists attempt to argue that the senses are "untrustworthy" (9), they simply undermine their own use of logic and consequently negate their own conclusions.

 

The Primacy of Existence

In Rand's conception of rationality, she recognized that "the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth." Here Rand indicated that rationality is founded on what is known in her philosophy as the primacy of existence principle. This is the principle which acknowledges the fact that existence exists independent of consciousness. In other words, according to this principle, reality does not conform to the dictates of anyone's consciousness. Existence (i.e., reality, the way things are) is primary; the task of consciousness is not to create its objects, but to perceive and identify them. This principle is a staple of rationality; it is not an option if rationality is to be one's standard.

The primacy of existence principle is contrasted with its antithesis: the primacy of consciousness. Contrary to the primacy of existence, the primacy of consciousness holds that reality is a creation of a consciousness; that existence is a product or effect of some prior cause which was conscious in nature (10); that the objects of awareness are what they are because a consciousness wants them to be what they are. (11) Hence, they are amenable and can be revised at the whim of "the ruling consciousness." (12) In other words, the facts of reality are not the final court of appeal in determining what is true (as is the case with the primacy of existence); since the primacy of consciousness holds that the facts of reality are pliant and subject to the desires and projections of the ruling consciousness, the final court of appeal is whatever the whim of the ruling consciousness says is the final court of appeal. This is the very basis of the so-called "divine command theory" in religious morality: something is right or wrong, not because the facts of reality as discovered by reason tell us, but because of someone's say-so.

Thus we have two basic approaches to the issue of metaphysical primacy: the primacy of existence principle, which enables and demands rationality, and the primacy of consciousness, which thwarts the very foundations of rationality. Any view which is built on the primacy of consciousness is one which is inherently antagonistic to reality, and thus also to reason and rationality.

 

The Nature of God-Belief

By 'god-belief' I mean any belief in the existence of a "supreme being" which:

  1. is conscious
  2. is incorporeal (i.e., has no physical body)
  3. created and/or "sustains" the universe, and
  4. is capable of influencing nature by direct intention (cf. "miracles")

Of course, these are the primary essentials of the western monotheistic religions which assert the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful god whose dictates and commands are taken as unquestionable "duties" which all men are expected to obey.

Many thinkers who come to the debate on the existence of a god attend the debate with the assumption that the claim that a god exists should be settled by reviewing any evidence presented its behalf. But of course, these religions have defined their gods in such a way that direct evidence for such a being is not only impossible to produce (since god is supposed to be incorporeal, non-physical, imperceptible), it is the wrong thing to ask for. For instance, Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen stated,

The assumptions that all existence claims are questions about matters of fact; the assumption that these are all answered in the very same way is not merely oversimplified and misleading, it is simply mistaken. The existence, factuality, or reality of different kinds of things is not established or disconfirmed in the same way in every case. (13)

The question, however, is whether or not the claim that a god exists can be settled by means of reason. While apologists like Bahnsen usually do not come out and say so explicitly, they typically operate on the unstated premise that reason as such is insufficient to the task of dealing with the claim of god's existence. And of course, reason is not suited to establishing the alleged truth of god-belief, but this is not the case because reason is somehow deficient. When one argues for a conclusion which he wants to be true, regardless of its logical soundness, he tends to treat reason as if it were a lamp: something he can switch on - and off - at the flick of a switch. An atheist's objections are dismissed as unreasonable, yet the theist's assumptions are supposed to be granted regardless of their unreasonableness. Similarly, atheists are vilified as irrational by virtue of their atheism, yet it is not the atheist who expects others to believe that supernatural claims are true.

So the nature of god-belief is the desire that there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, universe-creating, ultimately authoritative conscious being before which all men are expected to bow and to which they are supposed to submit. The original formulators of such ideas did not appeal to elaborate logical schemes in order to prove the existence of such a being; there are no formal arguments for the existence of God in the Bible. Instead, they appealed to faith, which is simply a euphemism for wishful thinking, for confusing one's hopes with reality. In modern times, however, thanks in part to Thomas Aquinas' revival of Aristotelian thought in western civilization, theists today recognize that appealing to faith will gain no mileage among many thinking adults. Religionists want to make their god-beliefs seem rational in an effort to satisfy today's thinkers who tend to expect some form of argumentation, even if such argumentation is simply a disguise used in an attempt to smuggle faith commitments into the arena of genuine knowledge of reality. Sadly, much of this argumentation amounts to little more than an effort to discredit the human mind. (14) What good is a man's mind if he considers its functions to be invalid in the quest for knowledge, and he's persuaded to accept the first passer-by as an authority on all things true and false?

I, however, do not ascribe to a mind-negating form of philosophy which is intended to rationalize the irrational. Since, as Rand pointed out, rationality is "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge," I hold that the question of the existence of such a being as god is described can be put to rest by an appeal to reason. Just as faith is the handmaiden of mysticism, so subterfuge is the handmaiden of dishonesty. And only by accepting subterfuge can one accept the position that his own mind is invalid and consequently too impotent to deal reasonably with matters such as the existence of a god.

The ancients asserted the existence of a super-consciousness in order to explain the existence of the universe. The universe, they thought, was not self-sufficient; it could not simply exist by itself. The primitive mind found the universe as the starting point to be unsatisfactory. Instead, they imagined a form of consciousness, one like their own in many respects, but even more powerful, for they ascribed to this consciousness the power to create existence and to manipulate the identity of its objects. Thus we find in their primitive literature, "In the beginning, God created the earth and the heaven." (Gen. 1:1)

The error of the primitives is easy to identify: they reversed the relationship between consciousness and existence, between the subject (the knower) and its objects (the things it knows). Where the primacy of existence principle, which is the basis of rationality, holds that the objects hold primacy over the knowing subject (this is the objective viewpoint), the primacy of consciousness holds that the knowing subject holds primacy over its objects (this is the subjective viewpoint). According to the primitives who believed that reality responds to an act of consciousness (e.g., "creationism," the doctrine of "miracles," etc.), the knowing subject has the final authority on what is fact and truth. The influence of the subjectivity of god-belief does not stop in the metaphysical realm; "God" they say does not simply create the universe and then walk away (as Deists suppose). Rather, for the theist, epistemology and morality are also subject to the ruling consciousness' whims: something is true or false, right or wrong, good or bad only if the ruling consciousness commands it. The ruling consciousness' demands are wholly authoritative over those who believe, and there is no negotiating this.

Thus, the very foundation of god-belief, which is the primacy of consciousness viewpoint, constitutes a denial or rejection of the very fundamental required for rationality, which is the primacy of existence principle. According to the primacy of existence, something is true because existence exists, and the task of consciousness is to discover and identify it, not dictate it. The same is the case in the area of morality. The fact that man's life requires values is not a matter open to choice; if one chooses to live, he must act on the fact that his life requires values and that those values can be acquired only if he acts to acquire them. This is because of man's nature as a living organism, not because of someone's demands. One can demand whatever he wants, but man's nature as a living organism will not change. According to the primacy of existence, a consciousness is powerless to change these facts. But according to the primacy of consciousness, man's nature as a living organism can be ignored if the ruling consciousness finds its requirements inconvenient or impeding to its demands. Thus on the primacy of consciousness we have "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3) which is a categorical imperative (i.e., it is to be followed regardless of context or goal), whereas on the primacy of consciousness we have "If you want to live, you must act in order to identify and achieve those values which make your life possible," which is a hypothetical imperative (i.e., it is to be followed if the end goal is chosen).

On the primacy of existence, the notion that the universe was created by an act of consciousness is untenable. On the primacy of existence, the notion that an act of consciousness can manipulate reality, to make a burning bush speak (Ex. 3), to make the sun stand still in the middle of the sky (Joshua 10:12), to enable a man to walk on water (Matt. 14), to turn water into wine (John 2:1-11), to transform the dead into the living (Matt. 27:52-53 et al.), is untenable. These ideas stand in contradiction to the primacy of existence principle, which is the very foundation of rationality. Consequently, a commitment to such ideas is a commitment to irrationality as such.

 

Conclusion

Given the above points, we can now see why god-belief is irrational. Since god-belief by its very nature denies the foundation necessary for rationality, which is the primacy of existence principle, god-belief and rationality are inherently incompatible. Thus, god-belief is irrational. To put this argument in the form of a syllogism, we might have the following:

Premise: Any position which is incompatible with the primacy of existence is irrational.

Premise: Western monotheism is incompatible with the primacy of existence.

Conclusion: Therefore, western monotheism is irrational.

Another version of my argument could run as follows:

Premise: Any belief which is founded on the primacy of consciousness is irrational.

Premise: The belief that a god created the universe is a belief which is founded on the primacy of consciousness.

Conclusion: Therefore, the belief that a god created the universe is irrational.

With arguments as simple as these to show as sound, one does not need to attempt to develop grand proofs of the non-existence of a god, such as the argument from evil. Neither does one need to conduct a full investigation of a religious philosophy, such as Christianity, in order to show that philosophy to be inherently irrational. If the very foundations of a philosophy are incompatible or contrary to the foundation of rationality itself, as I have shown to be the case with god-belief, then that philosophy is irrational. Those who defend god-belief, do not identify themselves as defenders of reason, and for good reason. The fact of the matter is that god-belief and reason are not compatible. Thus, the religious apologist's attempts to posture his belief as rational is doomed from the beginning.

 

Footnotes:

(1) I have in mind comments such as those found in Matt Slick's short essay Is Atheism Viable? In that essay, Slick writes:

In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist. Of course, that isn’t to say that atheists haven’t attempted to offer some. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe?

Dawson Bethrick has written a response to this essay here.

(2) In my two articles Some Comments About Faith Part I and Some Comments About Faith Part II I discuss reasons why 'faith' is not compatible with reason and rationality.

(3) "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 25.

(4) Atlas Shrugged, p. 936.

(5) For instance, Leonard Peikoff, in his essay "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy", (in Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Edition, pg. 100) states the following:

Every truth about a given existent(s) reduces, in basic pattern, to: "‘X is: one or more of the things which it is." The predicate in such a case states some characteristic(s) of the subject; but since it is a characteristic of the subject, the concept(s) designating the subject in fact includes the predicate from the outset. If one wishes to use the term ‘tautology’ in this context, then all truths are ‘tautological’. (And, by the same reasoning, all falsehoods are self-contradictions.)

The pattern to truth of which Peikoff is here writing, is most obvious in mathematical equations. The statement "2+2=4" is essentially saying "that which adds up to equal four is that which adds up to equal four." Truth is modeled on the law of identity (i.e., A is A), which itself is tautological.

(6) Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 20.

(7) "Philosophical Detection," Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 15.

(8) "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Edition, p. 112.

(9) See for example Christian apologist Peter Pike's statements in his debates with Dawson Bethrick as found in Pike's Enshrinement of Uncertainty.

(10) Cf. the "cosmological argument" or "argument from first cause" which attempts to conclude that existence (the universe) has a cause beyond itself, which, it is assumed, must be conscious in nature, hence "God."

(11) Cf. the "teleological argument" or "argument from design" which attempts to conclude that the universe shows evidence of "design" and therefore of a "designer" which, it is assumed, must be conscious in nature.

(12) From Anton Thorn's essay The Ruling Consciousness.

(13) Quote taken from Bahnsen's opening statement in "The Great Debate" with Dr. Gordon Stein.

(14) See for instance the debates between non-believer Dawson Bethrick and Christian apologist Peter Pike.

 

 

Back to CJ's Article Armpit

 

 

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1