Elliot Lesson 2 - "The Circus Argument"

Lesson 2 – The Circus Argument

Elliott – I’ve decided to apply lesson 2 to this argument, as it is obviously a new one and can still be modified.

First, I will address the first two Premises; ergo:

P1: If you have to accept you could be wrong about everything you think you know, then you have to admit you can't know anything //Atheists cannot know anything because they cannot accept an objective reality.//

P2: Atheists have to accept they could be wrong about everything they think they know

The problem here is the use of the words “have to accept”; it is factually incorrect that Atheists have to accept such a position. There is a great deal of philosophical and scientific literature which suggests strongly that a ‘real’ reality exists, of which our perceptions reveal only a small amount; the fact that animals and other, non-cognitive living things react to “reality” as we do is strong evidence to suggest that there is something “out there”. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that this “reality”, whatever it may consist of, contains any god, never mind the Christian deity. To quote Professor Alex Rosenberg, noted philosopher of science and author of 14 books:

The most important thing to know about reality is that science understands it well enough to rule out god, and almost everything else that provides wiggle room for theism and mystery mongering. …. Treating the illusions that rise to consciousness as symptoms, instead of guides to meaning and value, is crucial to enjoying life. It’s not easy, but taking science seriously is the first step, despite the difficulty consciousness puts in the way of understanding it. (http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4209)

This argument fails in its first two premises in that you have not established the logical necessity of Atheism having to accept the position you claim it does. This invalidates both Premises 1 & 2 and makes the argument unsound. You are basing your definition of Atheists and Atheism generally on your own assumptions about it, which can easily be shown to be incorrect; this is true for all your arguments and is a major flaw. As (I presume) you know, if a premise can be shown to be untrue, the argument fails.

P3: Atheists have to admit the (sic) can't know anything

There are other religious philosophies which postulate a “reality” in which humanity exists, yet that do not premise the existence of a god that created it. The Buddhist religion is an example of this. This exposes a fatal flaw in Premise 3, in that Buddhists, most of whom are atheists by definition, can and do make claim to knowing a great deal about the true nature of reality. You would need at the very least to show that their claims are invalid or logically inconsistent to make P3 viable.

I won’t go on with P4, as the problems with the rest of the argument make it pointless.

You might try modifying the wording of the premises to say (for example) in P3 that Atheists cannot know anything “with certainty”; that would make objections to the argument easier to counter, though you still have the problem of making it a necessary condition.