The Intuition Behind the Argument

Taken from Maverick Philosopher's insightful post Evil As it Appears to Atheists and Theists:

Thus atheism is bred in the bone before it is born in the brain. The atheist feels it in his bones and guts that the universe is godless and that theistic conceptions are so many fairy tales dreamt up for false consolation. This world is just too horrifying to be a divine creation: meaningless unredeemed suffering; ignorance and delusion; the way nature, its claws dripping with blood, feasts on itself; moral evil and injustice -- all bespeak godlessness. There can't be a God of love behind all this horror! For most atheists, theism is not a Jamesian live option. What point, then, in debating them?

This deep intuition of the godlessness of the world is prior to and the force behind arguments from evil. The arguments merely articulate and rationalize the intuition. The counterarguments of theists don't stand a chance in the face of the fundamental, gut-grounded, atheist attitude. No one who strongly FEELS that things are a certain way is likely to be moved by what he will dismiss as so much verbiage, hairsplitting, and intellectualizing.


tehzib said…
The atheistic emphasis on evil is a self-fulfilling prophecy as well, as they see more evil (and participate in more evil) when they are not in God's presence. Once the veil is lifted from their eyes, they will see.
F. said…
The part I like:

"But for the theist it is precisely the horror of this world that motivates the quest for a solution, or rather, the horror of this world together with the conviction that we cannot provide the solution for ourselves whether individually or collectively. Evil is taken by the theist, not as a 'proof' of the nonexistence of God, but as a reason, a motive, to seek God. 'Without God, life is horror.' "
Alec Lindsay said…
Why is it that people will continually arrange the thoughts of others in shapes and forms that suit their own? Is this atheist allowed to say he never feels anything in his bones in the way of philosophical thought? His views are empirical and their starting point is not intuition. I don't feel atheism, like a bad fish, rumbling in my gut. It's just that I find no evidence of theism. Or do I have to accept the 'Maverick Philosopher's view just because that's what he wants to base his polemic on? Intuition is not a measurable concept. It's either a random thought elevated into the realm of faith, or if it's something validated by evidence then it isn't 'intuition'. I wouldn't base a view on intuition because I find no evidence for its existence. Something for the fairground fortune teller, the overheated imaginations of the lovesick, or possibly the Maverick Philosopher, I think.