The ‘Eternal’ Atheist

A philosophical atheist is what I consider myself to be.

Been living in science for the past 23 years of my life and I have learnt a great deal about skepticism and inquiry. Every fact  requires a proof and logical reasoning. Needless to say atheism was a logical conclusion. But then thinking a bit further, I wondered, what if there is a scientific discovery that has eluded us so far somehow proving the existence of god. Will that change my perspective? Surely in the light of such a discovery I would have to subject myself to a rational change in stance. Does a scientific atheist have to be a skeptical atheist?

In the midst of this potentially confusing situation I came across a post on deriving atheism from philosophy by a fellow Objectivist. A convincing argument showed that atheism is drowned in philosophy rather than science. A scientist can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god but cites lack of proof as a point in case of atheism. Thats because atheism is not a part of science at all. You will not expect an economist to give you a vaccine for AIDS, would you? That does not mean economics is lacking. It simply means you are trying to find a solution of a problem using the wrong tools. You are in the wrong domain. Similar is the case with science and atheism. A person using science to ‘reach’ atheism is not a true atheist. He is tolerant of another person who may believe in god and considers this a matter of personal belief. But Atheism is not a matter of personal belief. It is an ideological stance which holds the non existence of god as a fact.

How can such a fact be proved. Ayn Rand gave two fundamental axioms that are identified as existence exists and existence is identity. Applying these axioms and pursuing a simple and logical inquiry one reaches a conclusion that god not only does not, but also cannot exist.

A simple argument put forth on the above mentioned post states that if god is omnipotent, then he should be able to do anything which includes killing himself. This however isn’t possible. Therefore, god is an omnipotent being who cannot do everything. A contradiction. A similar contradiction arises when one thinks of god as omniscient. If he knows everything, he cannot know what it is like not to know! Which means god is an omniscient being who does not know everything. Another contradiction.

God is also said to be an intelligent being. Intelligence implies that god would have to be rational and logical. But we realize that such a being will be full of contradictions. By the very nature of existence, contradictions do not exist. If we ever find ourselves facing a contradiction, check the premises. We will realize that at least one of them was wrong. Our premise here was the existence of god. Since we hit multiple contradictions, which do not exist, god does not exist.

This stance is independent of any scientific discovery and shields the atheist from the domain dependent trap of skeptical atheism. Nowhere does it contradict or oppose any scientific fact but runs independently of science. It acknowledges nothing but rationality as its primary virtue and reason as its main tool.

It may be a small demonstration, but it does convincingly state that god does not and cannot exist.

I would like to acknowledge Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism for making such a demonstration possible and the works of fellow bloggers like Ergo who helped me understand the philosophy better.