Atheism: Epistemological Bankruptcy

Here is an exchange I had with an atheist I might on twitter.  Thought some of you might like to take a look at the conversation (my responses are in red):

 

Speaking with @AdamRobles over the last few days we have been unable to resolve an argument that for me started with the statement from Adam:-

Atheism is built upon unjustified and often unexamined presuppositions/assumptions about the universe and its intelligibility.

I have seen this presuppositional argument before. The crux of the argument, and I invite Adam to correct me if I am wrong here is that...

In order for the scientific method or any kind of logic or inference to be valid the universe needs to be intelligible. Since the scientific method is predicated on the assumption that the universe is intelligible you can't use the scientific method to verify that the universe is in fact intelligible. The atheist therefore is unable to verify the foundation of any of their inferences which according to the theist amounts to blind faith in the intelligibility of the universe. Moreover the theist contends that a naturalistic world view should inevitably lead to an unintelligible universe because the theist also claims that a god is the only possible reason that the universe could be intelligible and as such the atheist lives inconsistently with their world view by using tools like logic and the scientific method.

What this argument does quite well is hide its premises so that it is hard to spot the logical fallacies and it quite cleverly puts the conclusion at the start of the argument so that when an attempt to deconstruct it is made using logic the theist will attempt to dismiss the argument by claiming that he has already shown that the atheist use of logic has been undermined.

Lets examine the hidden premises then.

Premise 1. The universe was caused.

Premise 2. A universe that is intelligible must be caused by a mind.

Premise 3. A universe not caused by a mind must necessarily be unintelligible.

Premise 4. It is possible for there to be an unintelligible universe.

Premise 5. The proposition of an intelligible universe is somehow faith based and cannot be inferred from observation.

　

Chris,

To make the point of my initial tweet I have no need for premises 1-4. In order for a secular person to hold the intelligibility of the universe, which almost all of them do, they must basically appeal to intuition or experience: "It just appears to be intelligible, our methods just work, so we go with them. Why does it work? It works just because it works!" This is blind faith. This is not a rational conclusion to reach as a secularist. It is a faith position. I know faith is the "F" word to secularists. But epistemologically your faith is clearly exposed.

　

Some secularists would say, "Look we don’t know why it works, but we await further evidence to find out." This statement radically fails to see the problem for what it is. It also exposes how futile non-Christian thought has become. This person is awaiting evidence based on the assumption of intelligibility, by which it hopes to explain intelligibility. Assume intelligibility to explain intelligibility. Presto! For the secularist, the whole enterprise science and knowledge is based upon blind faith. Not an enviable position for the reason crowd. But unfortunately epistemology goes unexamined for the vast majority of atheist. (The essence of the original tweet)

The choices we have are (1) the Christian solution to this colossal epistemology problem OR (2) you simply must ignore the problem and pretend like it wasn’t there. These are the only choices available.

Even though I do not need to respond to the other premises, since I assume none of them to make my argument that secularists are essentially men of strong blind faith that would make even the most committed Mormon blush, I will.

　

Question 1. Can you demonstrate that the universe was caused?

There are various ways to do this. But instead of going into it, lets pretend that the universe was uncaused. If that were true, then we have an even worse epistemological crisis. If the universe itself can break the law of causality, why would we have any reason to trust this central law in any of the physical sciences? Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face. Are you really willing to jump of this kind of epistemological cliff? I am certainly not.

Question 2. What evidence or experience would lead you to believe that an intelligible universe must be caused by a mind?

The only alternative to this conclusion is a blind faith position; that the non-rational somehow begets the rational. Intellectually, I cannot accept an epistemology based on blind faith. Therefore I am forced into accepting the idea of a rational cause begetting a rational effect. This is not only intellectually satisfying, but it gives me a foundation for future knowledge-seeking efforts.

Question 3. Why do you believe that an uncaused or undesigned universe must be unintelligible?

Because to believe otherwise would be a blind faith position. An uncaused universe is an accidental universe. It would have purely accidental origins and, by inference, purely accidental features. There is no reason to believe that purely accidental features would have any understandable relation to each other OR any understandable relation to our minds. Any apparent relations we could point to (though I am not aware of any in secular thought) would themselves be accidental and thus called into question. For the secularist, skepticism is the only intellectually consistent position. This is again, an epistemological cliff I am unwilling to jump from.

Question 4. Why would you even consider that it is possible for a universe to be unintelligible, which unintelligible universes have you witnessed?

I wouldn’t. I would argue that it is not possible for a universe to be unintelligible. I would argue that that intelligibility of the universe reflects its rational origin.

　

Basically, there is nothing inconsistent between assuming the universe is intelligible and having a naturalistic world view and it very much seems that by posing the problem of intelligibility vs unintelligibility the theist has created from nothing a problem, that probably doesn't exist, that they believe can only be solved by adding a god.

I agree the problem doesn’t exist if you are willing to make the assumption that your are making on blind faith. But as you are acutely aware, blind faith is not a good way to decide what to believe. Ignoring the obvious defeater of your foundational beliefs is roughly workable day to day, but intellectually, and dare I say spiritually, you are in a dangerous predicament. You are lying to yourself at every point.

　

I am reminded of the words of Paul in his letter to the Romans: (Chapter 1, starting at verse 18.)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world

in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.