Physics and the Circularity of Atheist Argumentation

The circularity of materialism is well expressed in this quote:
“Physics explains everything, which we know because anything physics cannot explain does not exist, which we know because whatever exists must be explicable by physics, which we know because physics explains everything… There is something here of the mystical.”
-David Bentley Hart (Christian academic/theologian)
Atheists laugh at Christians who try to prove the truth of Christianity by solely citing the Bible. This is nothing other than circular reasoning, the atheists argue.
But what about the materialists?
To point to the truth of science, all they do is cite more science or make arguments to authority, e.g., “All scientists agree that science is the only way to understand the world!”
The irony is lost on them.
MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!

4 COMMENTS

  1. No irony is lost on anyone who tries to find as much truth as is possible with the limited mind of humans.
    Religions the world over have many aspects.
    There is the personal quest aspect of what truth is, what God is, and whether it can be found.
    Then there is the societal aspect of a religion trying to be the only arbiter of what’s right or wrong.
    Then there is the political aspect of a religion trying to be the only government of a particular country.
    Next, there is the financial aspect of collecting taxes (also known as expected charitable contributions) from all believers of a particular religion. Such that the question of greed comes into play.
    Plus you can look at the sociological aspect of “Why are all major world religions, say Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhism, etc all run by old bearded men?” I.e. does a religion require an excess of male hormones?
    One can almost predict that Atheism would come into being, because one of the main questions here is:
    “Why should I believe that, of all world religions, yours is the most true, most holy, and most qualified to represent God on Earth?” In other words, an atheist may well believe that there is an unknown power, a type of God, somehow responsible for what exists in the universe, and yet still say to a religious elder of Hindus or Sikhs or Buddhists etc “I don’t think you are the one and only true representative of the one and only God that may have created the universe, because that God is way bigger, and way less understandable than any of you!” As a result you have religious fanatics that cannot tolerate any such
    questions, and would rather kill anyone asking questions than engage in rational dialogue.

    Meanwhile there are those who think that any religion which does not emphasize the value of kindness,
    reason, helpfulness, knowledge, charity, etc. has completely lost its reason for being. Why? Because, if your religion only stands for viciousness, greed, merciless persecution, then you might as well go with the law of the jungle and have complete lawlessness. If you don’t see that, then we just have to disagree. I am aware that most big religions will dismiss my points as childish, immature and ridiculous.

    • wait, who would rather kill than engage in a rational dialogue? lmao. Saying most religious fanatics do that is totally incorrect. These debates have been going on for centuries sny, stop acting like these questions have never been asked before, that you are somehow AWOKE. Speaking of knowing which religion to follow, have you ever done any research on those religions to find which is the most authentic? If you are sincerely searching, I would recommend you to read the Qur’an and a book called “THE DIVINE REALITY”.

    • Christianity isn’t mostly ran by old bearded men, u can see it in pops or whatever, they have a clean chin. For Muslims however, this is part of the authentic sunnah(the prophetic tradition) highly recommended to do so, it has nothing to do with male hormones as you presume lol. I don’t know about Jews, Hindus and Budhhist, if its part of their religion. I think the “sociological aspect” point you gave, is a little misplaced, because you are assuming they all have the same reason to do so. I mean one could say the same about philosophers the likes of Michael Ruse, Alfred Wallace, Karl Max etc. Or one might even go further and question “why are leaders of Atheism white men from the west i.e Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Chris Hitchens?”.

    • Bruh you literally just did what he describes (using circular reasoning) multiple times not to mention you never even addressed the article at hand all you did was go on an angry butt hurt rant and also what is “fanaticism” you failed to completely define it and also you said that these “fanatics” can’t handle questions where is the proof of that? Good God you people really are grasping at straws at this point 😂

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here