Atheists – Willfully Ignorant in their Looking Glass World


The white hare, Alice, the dodo, Tweedledee & Tweedledum examining the Oraculum as depicted in the Oraculum
Only in the  looking glass world of Wonderland do atheistic explanations make sense


“I know what you’re thinking about,” said Tweedledum; “but it isn’t so, nohow.”
“Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “If it was so, it might be; and if it were so,  it would be;  but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”1
— Tweedledum & Tweedledee

 

In the Looking Glass world of Alice in Wonderland, Tweedledee’s “logic” makes perfect sense.  In the real world –  it’s nonsense – or to be more precise – suffers from both a formal and a non-formal logical fallacy.2  Yet it makes perfect sense to Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

In the same manner, the logic of atheists makes perfect sense to them in their looking glass world where they protect themselves from the truth; they can’t see anything wrong with it – yet it is clear to others it is as fallacious as the flawed  logic of Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

When difficult questions are put to atheists about the nature of reality for which the atheistic worldview has no answer, atheists (and evolutionists alike) throw out fine sounding arguments. And like the Looking Glass characters,  their answers have the form of validity, but upon close examination it is apparent their arguments are as fallacious as the logic used by the Tweedles. Let me give a couple of examples.

Consider the question – Why is there something rather than nothing? For the Christian, there’s an easy answer: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1.1).  For philosophers, it is a very deep philosophical question. In fact Martin Rees, cosmologist, astrophysicist and astronomer royal calls it the “preeminent mystery.”3   Such a formulation does not affirm the Christian worldview, but neither is it overtly antagonistic.  But for particle physicist, skeptic (of the supernatural)  and atheist Victor Stenger that question is:

 “…often the last resort of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of God from science and finds all his other arguments fail.4


Stengel is clearly antagonistic toward Christianity and is trying to deflect the illuminating power of this question. In his article Why is there Something Rather than Nothing Stenger winds up comparing “nothingness” to an unstable, simple system. What he does not seem to realize is that is an invalid comparison because a system – however simple –  is something; while nothingness is – well  nothingness. Or as famous former atheist turned theist Anthony Flew put it:

Stenger’s fundamental fallacy is an old one: it is the error of treating “nothing” as a kind of “something.” Over the centuries, thinkers who have considered the concept of “nothing” have been careful to emphasize the point that “nothing” is not a kind of something. Absolute nothingness means no laws, no vacuums, no fields, no energy, no structures, no physical or mental entities of any kind-and no ”symmetries.”  It has no properties or potentialities. Absolute nothingness cannot produce something given endless time-in fact, there can be no time in absolute nothingness.  5

Flew elegantly points out that Stenger’s argument is invalid and so atheists still have no answer to this question of why something exists rather than nothing. Yet they arrogantly (and ignorantly) believe that they do.

Let me give another example. Philosopher of Science Stephen Meyer points out that:

“The discovery of the information bearing properties of DNA and RNA is a fundamental challenge to all
materialistic challenges to the origin of life”6


I highlight the powerful testimony of DNA, it’s information bearing properties and the information it contains in the articles Windtalks and DNA and The Poor Marksmanship of Evolutionists.  Given such evidence, it is clear that atheists and evolutionists have no answer to the question of the origin of life – but they try – with looking glass results. You can see some of the fallacious answers (and my responses) that are offered in the comments after Poor Marksmanship, and in item 6 of GULO and Other Irrational Arguments by Athiests, Part 2. 

These all demonstrate the same thing: while atheists and evolutionists believe they offer valid answers, in actuality they are answers worthy of Wonderland  because they are clearly invalid – though those offering them appear unable to see that. Granted, these answers are not from credentialed or well known atheists or skeptics – but as Stenger’s response illustrates – such answers are no better in terms of actually answering the question at hand without falling to some logical fallacy. 

Nevertheless though they themselves have no valid answers, the more vocal atheists accuse Christian apologists (and by extension all Christians) of being:

“… delusional. They have been indoctrinated. They are brainwashed. They have blinders on and can only see that which their blinders allow them to see. So they are basically blind.”7

 

The author of the above quote claims to have debunked many accounts in the the Bible, including the resurrection account. The historicity of the resurrection has been established numerous times by numerous historians and apologists. I give you a couple below.8  No doubt Loftus and atheists like him are unpersuaded by such evidence – but that is to be expected from those who live in the backwards world of the looking glass.  The Bible describes their approach to life well: they are willfully ignorant of the truth. (2 Pe 3.5) Jesus advises not to follow such self-deceived people because they are blind guides (Matt 15.14) – who will eventuality fall into a pit – taking you with them if you follow.

When Alice came across the poem JABBAWOCKY – she could neither read it nor understand it – until she realized that having gone through the looking glass, what she was looking at was a mirror image. When she put it up to the looking glass the words were at least in the right form, so she could read them – but she still didn’t understand them. To her credit she was honest enough to admit she didn’t understand it.  Unlike pretentious atheists – who put arguments in the right form, but still don’t recognize their arguments are invalid for other reasons and don’t make sense, and so they have proved nothing. Rather than correct themselves when this is pointed out they remain willfully ignorant.

How can you avoid being deceived by such willfully ignorant blind guides? Simple. Don’t yourself be willfully ignorant. Take a step of faith and become a follower of Christ. It will be a rational step. Then study God’s word and be encouraged. Jesus says it is not possible for real Christians to be deceived by even apparent miracles of false prophets:

For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect–if that were possible.
Jesus – Matt 24.24

God’s chosen can identifying false miracles from false prophets without error; identifying their false stories will be just as easy. If you want to know the truth, go to the one who is himself the Truth – Jesus Christ. (John 14.6).


Duane Caldwell | posted 10/12/2014 | print format



Notes:

  1 Lewis Carroll Through the Looking Glass first published in 1871
back

 

  2 Tweedledee makes two logical errors:The first: he attempts to make a statement of contrariety which has the format:

Given Propositions A and B
(In this case A is What Alice is thinking)

If A is true, B is false but
If A is not True, The truth of B is unknown,

or put another way:
Either A or B is true:
If not A, perhaps B

But what is actually stated is:

Not A (Tweedledum)
If A, Perhaps A (Tweedledee)

This is a “formal fallacy”; it is not a correctly formed contrary statement; in fact there is no deductive reasoning anywhere – the first statement is meant to be accepted as a premise; but the second statement negates the premise, then contradicts itself.

(For more on the logical concept of contrariety and formal fallacies, see Sharvey, Robert  Logic an Outline, p29-30; 133)

The second error is the non-formal fallacy of circular reasoning.
Their argument has this format:

Not A (Tweedledum)
If A,  then A
But Not A, therefore not A (Tweedledee)

Tweededee and Tweedledum have already decided the outcome – their argument winds up with the very premise they started with (what you’re thinking is not true) – the clear mark of a circular argument.
(I won’t bother to go into how they could be sure they knew what Alice was thinking.)
back

 

  3 Rees, Martin Our Cosmic Habitat Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 2001, p.xi
back

 

  4 Stengel, Victor
Why is there something Rather than Nothing?
  Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 16.2 June 2006
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/why_is_there_something_rather_than_nothing
back

 

  5 Flew, Anthony There is a God – How the World’s
Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind
New York: Harper One, 2007 p 170
back

 

  6   Stephen Meyer in Lee Strobel’s DVD Documentary “The Case for a Creator”, Illustra Media, 2006
back

 

  7  Loftus, John W.  Are Christian Apologists Liars, Ignorant or Blind?  12/19/2010
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/12/are-christian-apologists-liars-ignorant.html

  back

 

  8 On the historicity of the resurrection:
Craig, William Lane The Son Rises – Historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Chicago: Moody Press 1981

Morison, Frank Who Moved the Stone?  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House 1958
back



Picture: From the 2010 movie Alice in Wonderland directed by Tim Burton

 

Comments are closed.