Atheism

That is it? I like how atheism can be proven with just a poem. Let me start with what rational justification is. From the moment we begin to draw conclusions as individual human beings, We already know how to learn. Knowledge of the basic and fundamental process of learning is already well established in our minds before we begin using it to draw conclusions. Before we learn anything at all, We assume (or presuppose) a method of learning. This initial knowledge of how to learn is not itself learned, Rather, Acceptance of the method is a precondition of our usage of it. When we begin at drawing conclusions, When we first start learning things, We do so with certain presupposed assumptions or "first principles. " For example: Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same way. This is known as the law of non-contradiction. Before we can learn anything at all, We must first presuppose this rule of thought. Evidence, Assertions, Conclusions, And thinking itself would all be completely meaningless to us if we did not initially grant that all of reality is non contradictory. That we have this initial assumption is true for all humans from the time we begin to think. The infant knows that milk is milk. Milk is not non-milk. If the infant allows the possibility that milk were non-milk, He would have no reason to believe that he had received what he had been crying for, Even as it fills his mouth. The infant simply grants or assumes-the infant knows-that the law of noncontradiction is universal and invariant. It is not my claim that the infant can articulate the law of non-contradiction, Or teach it, Or defend it, But rather that he inherently believes and operates in accordance with the law even if he has never consciously pondered it. And so do you. Further, Every single correct conclusion the infant ever comes to, And every single correct conclusion the adult ever comes to, Is based upon this assumption that the law of non-contradiction is universally valid, Both now and forever. We not only start off believing it without ever actually learning it, But everything we ever conclude is founded on or grounded in that initial assumption. But what if we're wrong? Is that initial assumption justified? Is there a good reason for us to hold to it? Is it a blind invention of random chance? Is the author of our initial assumptions rational? Is this universal truth claim merely an unfounded, Dogmatic assertion made by someone without authority over the entire universe such that the universe is not bound to fulfill his dogmatic claims? Could the law of non-contradiction fail to work in some parts of the universe? And what connects our own thoughts with our environment? Why should there be any similarity at all between your own internally presupposed rules of thought and the way that our external environment behaves? If genuine contradictions could actually exist, It would be impossible for anyone to know anything at all. If contradictions were viable, Then even if a conclusion were accurate, It may not be accurate. Assertions would not necessarily be any different than their exact negations. Even if it were true that you are reading this, It may not be true that you're reading this. That last sentence is completely meaningless and impossible to understand because it asserts a contradictory proposition. If it were possible for a reality itself to be contradictory, Like that sentence, Reality itself would be equally impossible to understand. It's would not be possible to know anything at all. But this is not the case. We all automatically believe that reality is not contradictory. Rational Though Requires Rational Justification In order for an idea to be rational, Holding the belief must be rationally justified. Even if a belief happened to be accurate or factual, This alone is not enough to make that belief rational. The process by which the person came to hold that belief is actually more important than the belief's truth value in terms of whether or not the belief is rationally held. A belief may be true, Yet still be irrational. For example, Any wishful thinker may assert without grounds that there are exactly 501, 043 pink flying unicorns on a planet in the next galaxy. For that individual to believe such a thing would be irrational, Because they themselves have asserted it groundlessly or without reason. Even if this bizarre, Groundless assertion happened to be true, Its factuality would not make belief in the assertion anymore rational, Since it was asserted groundlessly-without justification or reason. On the other hand, A belief may be false while being perfectly rational. For example, Consider the man who believes that pushing the brake pedal in his car will slow the car and eventually bring it to a complete stop. He believes this because he has been told this is true by his parents and friends, And he tested their claims on thousands of occasions. 100% of the time, The car behaved exactly as he expected. But then one day it didn't, And the man died. He was wrong to believe his car would stop when you pushed the brakes on that day, But nonetheless, Based on all of the evidence, He held to this false belief rationally. He had testimony from multiple witnesses, Observations, And lots of experience upon which he grounded his belief. It was rationally justified in spite of being incorrect. Now, Is our belief that all reality is non-contradictory rationally justified? Or are we irrationally, Without reason, Holding to an idea that is only asserted groundlessly? Rationally Justifying Rational Justification While it is true that some beliefs may be rationally justified while being completely false, The same cannot be said of every belief. Consider, For example, The following assertion: Rational justification is possible. In addition to the law of non-contradiction, The assertion above is another one of our initial starting points, Our "first principles. " As humans, We begin the learning process already believing that this assertion is true, That rational justification is possible. But note that this statement can only be rationally justified if it is also true; if it is false, Nothing can be rationally justified, Including the statement itself. The idea that "rational justification is possible" must itself be true in order for it to be rationally justified. For any worldview to allow for rational human thought, It must not only allow for our initial assumptions about the non-contradictory nature of the universe to be true, But it must also allow for the possibility of rational justification itself. It's must allow for a mechanism whereby rational justification is possible. Would you agree with this view of rational justification?