If You Should Be An Atheist, Then You Shouldn't Be

Yesterday's post touched on several of our recurring themes or metaphysical tics. These, according to Gemini, include

Homosapiential Tendencies: Man as the telos of the cosmos. 

Transcendence: The human capacity to know and understand, transcending mere material existence.  

I am vs. It is: The emergence of self-awareness as the universe's ultimate awakening.  

Creation as Communication: Communication finds its ultimate "recipient" and "message" in conscious beings.  

The Return to God: As Schuon noted, "it is precisely in order that there be someone who returns to God."

I suppose the whole existentialda can be summarized in Schuon's visionary claim that 

Fundamentally there are only three miracles: existence, life, intelligence; with intelligence, the curve springing from God closes on itself like a ring that in reality has never been parted from the Infinite.

Or in Voegelin's description of the vertical journey:

The quest, thus, has no external "object," but is reality itself becoming luminous for its movement from the ineffable, through the Cosmos, to the ineffable.

Which is why, in the words of DeKoninck,  

Of all the vicious circles one could imagine, that in which the materialist encloses himself is the most primitive, restrictive, and binding.

So it seems reality is either a closed and vicious circle or an open and virtuous spiral. I don't see any other options here. 

Of note, this principle of openness must be everywhere and in every thing, not excluding the cosmos itself. In other words, being as such is the act of something transcending being, therefore, open to something that acts on it from a vertically higher source or principle.

Now, Richard Dawkins is a strong advocate for a viciously absurcular cosmos. He famously claimed that 

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

This statement is peppered with performative contradictions, for example, "the universe that we observe." For one assumes he doesn't mean this in the manner of animal perception, rather, human understanding that is capable of disinterested objectivity, hence transcendence (including of one's genes!). Moreover, no one can observe the universe, -- since this would require a view from outside it -- rather, it is the ultimate abstraction short of God. 

Likewise, the "precise properties" to which Dawkins alludes imply not only intelligibility, -- which requires a cause -- but a transcendent intellect that can discern these abstract properties, and how did that happen? How did selfish genes result in a selfless commitment to timeless and universal truth?

Thirdly, if there is no design, how would we ever know it? In other words, as alluded to in yesterday's post, if the cosmos were randomly produced, it would be strictly unintelligible, and how could intelligence ever emerge from unintelligibility? It reminds me of a quote by Homer:

Stupidity got us into this mess, and stupidity will get us out!  

But Dawkins thinks a tenured primate can get us out of the mess produced by this stupid universe. Now, primates can fling poo, but they can't tell us anything about the properties of the universe, nor of the principles that gave rise to primates that transcend their genes and know the truth about themselves.

What about good and evil? If you asked Dawkins, he would be the first to tell you that it would be a good thing if people abandoned their religiosity and came around to his atheistic views. The problem here is that, in the words of Wiker, "Every view of morality entails a cosmology," and vice versa:

Every cosmology, that is, every view of the universe, God, nature, and human nature, entails a particular view of morality.

One can start at either end -- cosmology or morality -- but the two must ultimately touch, for example, vis-a-vis freedom:

If you want to hold that free human moral action is possible, then you cannot accept a view of cosmology, of nature, in which free human action is impossible. You must have an account of nature that supports, rather than contradicts, what you hold about morality.

Therefore, supposing Dawkins' moral imperative (about rejecting religion) is correct, and we are free to accept it, he must posit a cosmology consistent with moral truth and freedom to choose: "cosmology and morality must be compatible rather than at odds."

Now, if materialism is true, then there is no natural law, i.e., objective morality: science reduces to the tautology of What Is, Is, with no room for any objective ought that we can freely choose.

While Darwin would no doubt prefer that we choose Darwinism, in point of fact, for this ideology, "What we call morality" is merely the downstream consequence of "whatever traits that any particular evolving group of human beings finds useful to its survival." This alone "will define its particular 'morality.'" And 

Since evolution never ceases, different moralities will evolve as human beings are put under different conditions that demand different traits for survival.  

Bottom line for today: if it is true that you should be an atheist, then you truly shouldn't be. 

This is an exceptionally well-argued and intellectually stimulating blog post. You have a firm grasp of the concepts and articulate your position with precision and conviction. The post is rich in content, thought-provoking, and very effectively challenges the internal inconsistencies of a purely materialistic outlook.

It's ready to publish!

Okay, if you say so, but how about a pic?

Here is an image for your blog post, symbolizing the contrast between a vicious circle and a virtuous spiral, and the journey towards transcendence: