Materialism and Fallacious Thinking: Only the First is Exclusive to Atheism

On January 4 I posted “If You Want Atheism, Destroy Creation, Embrace Capitalism“.

I didn’t expect too many people sympathetic to atheism to show interest in the piece, as it was directed to theists.

If you check out the “combox”, you’ll see that all but one person (not including myself) support or defend atheism to some degree, if not identifying as atheists altogether.

A lot of our atheist friends were offended or seemed confused by the language in the article. Others simply resorted to plain and simple fallacy production.

What I found interesting, however, was the insistence on a few things:

1. Reason and logic lead to atheism
2. I – the author – don’t understand atheism
3. Atheists aren’t necessarily materialists
4. Atheism isn’t pro-capitalism or desires the destruction of creation

Along with these, many comment producers suggested that it is religion that leads to and is the greatest contributor to the establishment of capitalism and the destruction of creation. Yet, our friends didn’t provide anything but the example of several religious folk. That is, they were trying to generalize and didn’t address any particular theist system of beliefs or theism as a system of belief, as such. Nor would our kind friends offer a demonstration of how Catholicism, for example, is pro-capitalism or anti-creation.

From the examples above (1-4) we can see some challenges in the same order, though not exclusive to each:

1. This argument begs the question, entailing circular reasoning. I’d love to see examples of the most rational and logical persons in our history and learn why theists are necessarily excluded.
2. This is tough for those who would suggest that atheism accepts the existence of things that are not material. I go off of folk like Peter Singer or Karl Marx to tie materialism and atheism together. For one coming from a Catholic perspective, this doesn’t require elaboration.
3. Here many of our atheist friends seem to confuse materialism (as asserting that only what is material can be real) with materialism (as the cultural illness which is obsessed and solely values material things, without regard for non-material things or values in themselves).
4. Here our friends confuse what the author is saying. Capitalism and the destruction of creation leads to atheism as materialism. Atheism as materialism isn’t necessarily in favor of capitalism or the destruction of creation. What the atheists are doing – who esteem logic so much – is affirming the consequent. If P, then Q, P, therefore Q is what I’m saying; where P = You Destroy Creation, and Embrace Capitalism, and Q = Atheism as Materialism. Our friends say, “Hey, I’m Q, how dare you suggest I’m P?” This isn’t logical and it isn’t what I’m saying, either.

So, my friends, every atheist may, like libertarians, suggest we simply do not know what atheism is or insist that it is objectively one thing or not another, without, it seems, providing an explanation of what atheism is. Moreover, while some atheists are rational, we shouldn’t believe that you’re an atheist because you’re rational, unless we have a demonstration to the contrary. Indeed, atheism is materialistic, as we said in the last post – but some would disagree, and that’s fine! Will they offer an explanation? I am not so sure. Are Christians pro-capitalism and do they destroy creation? Of course! But this doesn’t mean Christianity is compatible with such practices.

So, if conversation is possible, I ask:

• What is atheism?
• What is materialism?
• What is capitalism? Can it have certain values? Did it lead to a rejection of religion or reinforce the rejection (as it did for Marx, etc.)?
• Why be moral?
• What is and who is logic and logical?
• Can states be atheistic? If so, how have they done in protecting creation? We wouldn’t think that this means atheism necessitates the destruction of creation, right?
• What is hedonism?
• What is good?

And if you can, add any other explanations or definitions to lead me out of the darkness – if it’s possible. As I said, the way I understand the above is demonstrating itself to be different or at odds with what atheists or defenders of atheism seem to understand.

I totally believe atheists can do good things and be kind. We should work together in doing good things, especially where we agree x or y is a good thing. Maybe a new word should be made for materialists/atheists who do good and want to cooperate, as opposed to those who are totalitarian, etc. It doesn’t seem from the comments our post from Monday that the original submission is false, as no one has shown this to be the case: “If you want atheism, destroy creation, embrace capitalism.” Again, not to say that if you’re an atheist you’d destroy creation and embrace capitalism. I would think that atheists would support the post to get theists (or those who detest atheism and its occurrence in the world) to start rejecting capitalism and protecting the planet, something many atheists and I agree would be a good thing.

As in the last post, I won’t delete fallacious comments or comments employing abusive or unworthy language – but I don’t recommend it. I may change my mind or may simply edit your comment to remove the silly language – the fallacies may be immune from editing, as I don’t want to assume you intend on producing an argument. And please don’t get too offended too soon, resulting in some silliness all to common among certain religious circles. Inquire with language, and reason, and logic, etc. Show the fundamentalists how to do it!

I will say, though, that the atheists and defenders of atheism have been less cruel and childish in their speech than many Christians I know. Shame.

Cheers!

Keith Michael Estrada

(Update/edit from 20 minutes after the post was published: I think many atheists may also eventually come to find themselves as more suitably identifying as agnostic, deist, or pantheist, etc. Also if you have any favorite authors who treat atheism and/or economics and/or politics, share below!)