An Appeal to un-Reason

Right from the onset, the emcee opened detailing three of the core values of humanism generally, and of the Manitoba humanists diocese specifically; they were reason, ethics, and justice. The latter two will yet be addressed, but let us first assess these claims about reason.

Myers made the claim he was a naturalist. He falls into the camp of people who believe all phenomena have a natural explanation, and we cannot appeal to a supernatural realm, i.e. God, angels, miracles, or anything else that can’t be empirically verified. As an atheist, he presented himself as a materialist. Myers’ position is most laughable from a rational standpoint. Before I can tackle it, first we must look at the consequences of such nonsense, and then backtrack.

In the atheist view, in Myers’ view, everything is a direct result of some natural process. There can be no supernatural explanation because the supernatural does not exist; if this is true, it applies to any activity of the brain as well. As there is no allowance for an immaterial mind, since it can’t be measured in a lab, then the only explanation for thought and reason is they exist as secretions of the brain. It’s significantly less complicated, but not unlike mixing vinegar and baking soda. A chemical reaction takes place, and out froths the result. Under Myers’ view, a brain secretes thought as much as other organs secret their byproducts. This is the sum worth of a thought or idea, and if evolution is true, every idea and thought has no more value than bile. When the humanist attempts to advocate free thought, in actuality they are advocating freedom from thought. The assertion was made that they were upholding reason as a core value. It simply doesn’t measure up.

Having assessed the value of Myers rhetoric, it has to be taken one step further. Place a group of supposed thinking individuals in a room, and what do we have when a debate ensues? As someone once put it, which would you like to be, the coke or the root beer? We’ll shake the cans, open the tabs, and watch what happens. That is the sum total of any debate in which the humanist engages. If no man’s thoughts have value, than there is no idea better or more valid than another. The reality becomes ideas are only things which appeal to us because we have a similar chemical make-up. The only weight an argument can have is equal to the measure of the chemicals producing it as they interact. The consequence of Myers’ and HAM’s view, is it has completely undermined the very thing they purport to value. They have delegitimized reason.

Now, if immaterial realities do exist, then reason can be justified and assigned value. Imagine being a fish as someone attempts to explain wet or dry to you; the only possible way to gain any perspective is to get out into the dry air. Assuming the posture of atheism, the only way to have a valid, value rich thought, is to break free of the restraints, to evade capture by the chemicals reacting in this natural world. However, if one were able to do that, they would find themselves in a supernatural realm, that is, a realm outside the natural. This makes the probability of there being a supernatural outweigh that of there being no supernatural. Yet, even in that, it still necessitates a common point of reference to pit an idea against another, and determine which is better. This common point of reference must be personal, not abstract. Christians posit God as that point of reference. Theists can account for the validity of thought. Myers and those who follow his lead cannot.

Let’s now consider some of the other problems which arise if we trust this naturalistc framework. Under the naturalist view, it requires more faith and appeals less to reason than does the biblical creationist view. If there are no supernatural realities, the naturalist cannot account for the origin of the universe as tidily. They must believe one of two options; the universe is eternal, which contradicts some of the most firmly established scientific laws, or else nothing exploded in a big bang and became everything. From nothing, nothing comes. How can nothing give birth to something? That is unreasonable.

There you have it, the atheist contentions made at this meeting were; they do real science, and they value reason. Yet if atheism is true, the first step in the origin of the universe is either anti- scientific, or illogical. I would also add it’s most certainly a faith. The Christian theist takes the answer to the origins question in the Genesis account by faith as well. But we say a supernatural mind wound up the universe, and from someone, something has come. We have a basis to try to explain why the laws show a winding down of the universe. Certainly it is every bit as much by faith, but it isn’t against science, and it isn’t illogical. Creationists were criticized and maligned, because the humanists supposedly hold beliefs “born out by the evidence”. If any atheist reading this has an ounce of honesty, they would have to admit their guns should be leveled at themselves first.

Myers also boldly declared three reasons why the apparent conflict between religion (insert creationists) and science exists. I will touch on one of them here, and the other two later.

According to Myers, religion is “epistemically empty and unverifiable.” I wonder how many who applauded this idea understood what it meant. Epistemology is the philosophical science which critically asks what we can know, how can we know, and what are the limits of knowledge. This catch phrase accuses creationists of knowing nothing, and being able to prove nothing.

First, it’s already been established that if naturalism is true, we truly don’t know, and we truly can’t know. However, such a worldview is absurd and unlivable. Second, if naturalism is true and we arrived by purely irrational natural causes, and we are incapable of being truly rational, then on what basis do we justify asking reasonable questions of the universe and expecting to receive a reasonable answer? Biblical creationists assert a foundation for reason and ordered causal relationships in the universe. Theists have a justifiable reason to expect reasonable answers in the search for understanding the order in the universe. Third, in what way has the evolutionary scientist observed his theory in action (i.e. watched a rock become a rocket scientist), and then been able to repeat or falsify it in a lab? Without this it is still an unproved conjecture, but even if they could it would prove the need for intelligent intervention. What evidence do they have for nothing begetting everything? A valid scientific theory must be testable and repeatable; in what way then has evolution even been able to attain to status as a valid theory? It hasn’t plain and simple. Repeating “we have the proof” like a mantra does not turn it into a real proof.

There is so much more to be said about the unfounded and unsubstantiated appeals to reason I heard at the meeting. For now, I’ll end on this…simply put, if you are the product of atheistic evolution, how could you know anything and why would you expect to? Mr. Myers… he who throws dirt loses ground.

Prev - Next

1. P.Z. Myers visits Winnipeg 2. An Appeal to un-Reason 3. Morality, Ethics… 4. …and What Justice? 5. Misrepresentations and Factual errors 6. Conclusion All Pages