Why Do Atheists Still Rely on Reason When Critics Say It’s Faulty?

Recently, I came across a statement by Anthony Flew, a Christian evangelist and philosopher, suggesting that logical positivism, often seen as a cornerstone of critical thinking, is no longer relevant. It prompts us to question why—despite criticisms—atheists and skeptics still view logic and critical thinking as essential tools for understanding the world.

The Nature of Logical Positivism

Logical positivism, as I understand it, goes hand-in-hand with skepticism and critical thinking. It emphasizes the importance of empirical verification and the rejection of metaphysical or unfalsifiable statements. Essentially, it is the exercise of reason in its purest form.

Anthony Flew: A Christian Philosopher

Anthony Flew was a Christian evangelist philosopher known for his trenchant criticisms of atheism and his own shift from atheism to deism later in life. His perspective, influenced by his Christian beliefs, may color his understanding and critiques of atheism.

The Overemphasis on Reason by Atheists

The question arises: Why do atheists, who are generally critical and rational in their worldview, still rely on reason and critical thinking despite experts like Flew suggesting that these tools are flawed or outdated?

The Limitations of Human Cognition

A key argument is that human cognition is limited. Despite our intellectual prowess, our brains cannot fully comprehend the vastness of reality. We are confined by our perspectives and cognitive biases. This is not a flaw in logical positivism but rather an acknowledgment of our cognitive limitations.

The Role of Unproven Assumptions

Anthony Flew’s argument hinges on the unproven nature of many assumptions we make about the world—such as the existence of numbers or the laws of physics. However, without these assumptions, much of our scientific understanding would collapse.

Mathematics and Assumptions

Mathematics, for instance, is true because it is based on defined assumptions. We create and operate within a framework of numbers and operations that are agreed upon and used to derive truths. This is not a dodge from reality but a pragmatic approach to understanding a specific aspect of it.

Skepticism and Solipsism

Flew’s argument also touches on solipsism, the theory that one’s mind is the sole thing one can be certain about. In this context, Flew seems to adopt a skeptical stance, questioning our ability to prove the external world’s existence. While solipsism is a valid philosophical position, it is not supported by empirical evidence and is generally used to highlight the limits of knowledge rather than dismiss the world.

The Benefits of Science

Despite its imperfections, science offers the best explanation for the universe. Theories in science, while not perfect, are continuously tested and refined based on empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Critics like Flew might argue that science is not always perfect, but without it, we would have no means to increase our understanding of the universe.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the critique of logical positivism by philosophers like Flew is valid, it does not negate the value of reason and critical thinking. Using these tools, we can make sense of the world around us and continue to develop our understanding, even if our knowledge is continually evolving. In the absence of better methods, science, informed by logical positivism, remains the most practical approach to exploring the universe.