Vox Popularitas

Vox Day of Vox Popoli, for all of his formidable use of the english language and claims of Mensa membership, makes some pretty basic errors when attempting to show that atheists are irrational in his November 16, 2003 column entitled "The irrational atheist" over at WorldNetDaily.

Now, as all honest folks know, atheism is not a philosophy, a world-view, or a religion. Atheism has no dogma, no rules, no edicts, no scriptures, and no articles of faith. The same goes for theism. The words "atheism" and "theism" simply indicate the absence or presence of god-belief.

In light of this, Vox Day goes on to make the following silly assumption about atheists:

"The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not."

Being an atheist - that is to say, someone in which there is an absence of god-belief - does not necessarily mean that that same someone ". . .puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not." It is a non-sequitur. It literally "does not follow."

Now, it is absolutely true that some atheists do indeed trust the scientific method. Some of them may not even understand it. However, Mr. Day makes it sound as if it is a requirement that atheists trust the scientific method, as if it is a rule or a piece of dogma that springs from the religion of atheism. This implication is not true. It is a lie - a lie designed to fool those Christian salt-of-the-earth folks into smacking their fist into the palm of their hand and exclaiming "A Ha! I knew atheism was a religion! Why, this Mensa member says so right here in this article!"

He then goes on to liken the scientific method to higher level physics:

"Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing."

When has anyone ever needed to grasp "higher-level physics" in order understand and utilize the scientific method? Utter hogwash. Classic bait and switch tactics. The "Scientific Method" and "Higher-Level Physics" are not interchangeable terms, but Mr. Day sure seems to imply that they are. Not only hogwash, but dishonest and misleading as well.

Moving on, Mr. Day claims that the irrationality of "the atheist" (notice how he uses this much like a racial epithet from the eighteenth century commenting on "the black", "the moor", or "the musselmen" - attempting to paint all atheists into a single, conveniently disregarded box with a very wide brush) derives from their unreasonable desire to live a moral life without a god of some sort commanding them to. Apparently, in Mr. Day's world, it is "rational" to believe without evidence of any sort that a supreme being exists, and cares enough about it's creations to "command" them to act in moral ways:

"The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so the atheist does not."

So, apparently, it only makes sense to Mr. Day to be a good person if there is a threat or reward of some kind hanging over his head.

How very sad and shallow a reason that is.

Mr. Day then claims that atheists, even the very best, moral atheists, live their lives with "borrowed" ethics:

"Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics."

As theoretical deduction and the evidence suggest, the primitive elements of moral behavior are far older than religions of any flavor. Religion arose on a foundation of ethics, and it has probably always been used in one manner or another to justify moral codes that were already in existence. The biological and evolutionary explanation for human ethics and morals is well understood and supported by the evidence. Adding an un-evidenced magic man in the sky to the explanation is not only foolish and shallow, but completely unnecessary.

So, rather than "the atheist" borrowing his ethics from "the religious", it turns out that the religious folks are the true "moral parasites" using the existent biologically-based morality and ethical behavioral traits present in themselves and their fellow humans to build their particular fantasy world where a sky father (or mother) commands them to be good people under the penalty of death and eternal damnation.

Vox Day is an elitist snob with a Christian bias. As long as you swallow his initial premise that "god exists - and in particular, the Christian God exists", then this article of his makes a certain kind of twisted sense. Unfortunately, his premise is wholly unsupported by anything other than dogmatic insistence on the divine origin of scripture - which is a circular argument at best, slapstick comedy at worst.

Mr. Day's entire column can be rendered into one sentence:

"God exists because God inspired the Bible which says that he exists, therefore the atheist is irrational."

It doesn't look as rational without all of the pretty words surrounding it, does it?