The atheist holds that there is no God; the nihilist holds that all meaning is transient and imposed by the subjective mind of a transient being and thus, reality is ultimately meaningless, and life, as existence, is absurd; a solipsist claims to know only that he – or she – exists, and all else is questionable…
Although the atheist holds that there is no God, an atheist is not born an atheist – or to atheism; atheism is an inductive inference which the atheist draws from his/her assessment of objective reality i.e., a reality ordered independently of their subjective mind/thought… Thus, atheism is – consciously or unconsciously – the product of a particular pattern thought arguing from particular – conscious (or otherwise) – selection of premises, whether those premises be logical or otherwise (i.e., some “premises” may be utter sentimentality…)… Identifying the various premises which may influence a particular atheist is beyond the scope of this missive, but we note that different paths – of thought and sentiment – may be followed for an individual to come to believe that reality is bereft of any transcendent meaning; that is to say to come to believe that existence is not dependent upon a creative transcendent intelligence (i.e., God)…
We note that the atheist must, however, acknowledge the corresponding relation between their mind/intellect and that which is not their mind/intellect (i.e., objective reality); this relation is presupposed* as the atheist consciously – or unconsciously – selects his/her premises and sentiments upon which they found – or predicate – their unbelief. Now if the atheist should claim otherwise; that is, if they reject that intelligent corresponding relation, then they claim that their claim (i.e., the validity of the dogmas of atheism) – as well as any other claim which they choose to make – to include the claims of modern science, is unadulterated gibberish and thus, they default to nihilism (note: nihilism was one of the principle derivatives of Kantianism…). If the atheist, however, holds that their subjective consciousness/mind intelligently corresponds dependently to reality – reality independent of the atheist’s mind – the correspondence assumes (unconsciously) God as the guarantee of the relation… Such atheists are actually theists, but do not know that they are…
* Unless following the path of Kant (critical idealism), and argue objective reality is unknowable – ‘one may know only how things appear to consciousness’; the Kantian path, however, is refuted by the empirical sciences (particularly General theory of Relativity and quantum-electrodynamics); Kant presupposed Euclidean geometry as representing and Newtonian (classic) physics embodied the objective ground for his epistemology to which he subordinates metaphysics; hence the age of nihilism which followed… Note: Kantianism [a priori] reduces reality to a subjective appearance…
Now if an individual holds that their mind/intellect/consciousness does not intelligently correlate to an objective intelligent order then the individual – solipsistically (the “solipsist” knows only of his own existence) argues with themselves, and even that argument is predicated upon a presupposition of the aforementioned intelligent correlation… Such an individual may believe many things – including that God is – but such an individual only knows of the self… The solipsist – however – would have a hard time explaining: “what it is to know.”
If an atheist reduces his/her thought to solipsism, the atheist is a nihilist in denial; for a true nihilist is silent, since meaningful utterances contradict nihilism.
Now if an individual – theist, atheist or agnostic – reduces reality to the subjective mind/consciousness by logical necessity argue as an idealist – critical or naïve, and thus they assume the throne of God themselves…
The question then becomes what accounts for that correspondence? Of course, those disciplines each presuppose that correspondence, as all disciplines do; thus that correspondence cannot be proven scientifically, moreover, it cannot be proven at all, and thus it is a philosophical tenet (a.k.a. a dogma), and a tenet of faith, as is the principle of non-contradiction is such a necessary dogma; one upon which – formal logic and – knowledge hangs. Make no mistake, the atheist argues from an unconscious faith, and note the irony; unlike his theistic counterpart, the atheist’s faith is irrational fideism, and thus as the atheist argues – for whatever he/she argues e.g., Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker – argue in contraction to their avowed faith i.e., in contradiction to atheism. The atheist argues unconsciously by assuming a fixed intelligent correspondence between the subjective consciousness/mind and an objective – intelligently ordered – reality; an objective-reality – by definition – is independent of the subjective mind.
Note too, that all proofs (and all of the sciences) – including proofs for God – assume the same fixed intelligent correspondence; moreover, all knowledge rests upon that same correspondence. Consequentially, God is not to be proven; God is the necessary condition of all proofs and all knowledge!
We argue Saint Thomas Aquinas – and his 5 ways/proofs – only posited such ways because of thoroughness vis-à-vis presenting his philosophical/theological synthesized worldview (Christendom) – which Aquinas most consciously knew was – completely dependent upon God! Nobody – prior to Descartes (often labeled an idealist…) – forcibly argued in doubt of the human mind’s dependence upon an objective reality… Descartes doubts his senses, as he proves existence of the incorporeal soul; he proves God’s existence, but then utilizes trusts that God has communicated truth to His creation which may be known if one utilizes ‘clear distinct ideas’ – garnered through meticulous criticism of those ideas (i.e., not allowing prejudices corrupt such ideas…) – thus, Descartes too presupposes an intelligent relation between consciousness and objective reality – guaranteed by God’s truthfulness (‘God does not; cannot deceive’)… Note: Descartes “doubt” inadvertently precipitates skepticism and modern philosophy…
Had Saint Thomas – as perhaps any of his antecedent philosophers e.g., Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Saint Augustine et al, – encountered the Cartesian doubt, we suspect he would have discussed (written upon) that which he/they consciously understood as necessary presuppositions (which Descartes took for granted), but they hadn’t any reason to discuss (nobody proves, or argues for the validity of an axiom; by definition the axiom is self-evident; for classical philosophers the subjective mind’s dependence upon an objective-reality is the 1st principle of the Perennial Philosophy** and is key/central – along with the other 3 principles, viz: the principles of non-contradiction, causality, and identity – to its epistemology (i.e., theory of knowledge).
**Perennial Philosophy a.k.a. philosophical realism…Iterations of this philosophy run from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine,…, Aquinas and the scholastics (note: scholasticism began to go “off-the-rails” through careless accretions, thus Descartes…).
At-the-end-of-the-day one may acknowledge God – as one of several necessary presuppositions of knowledge (the principle of non-contradiction and objective reality are also necessary, albeit as contingencies of the God which they logically imply…) – or one may reject such a presupposition and then fall silent as a consistent nihilist…
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.