Thought on the Atheists, the Kalam, and Defence Lawyers

Having worked in the field and having witnessed such things first-hand, another interesting thing to note about atheists and their interaction with the Kalam Cosmological Argument (not to mention other arguments against atheism) is how often atheists act like defence lawyers, who, when floundering, will happily throw out any theory, or any argument, or any mere possibility against the evidence or the prosecution’s case in a sheer attempt to give himself some “out” that will allow his client some chance to avoid prosecution even though no one takes these “defence possibilities” seriously (nor should they); and yet, of course, none of this is that surprising given that (as Jonathan Haidt reports in his book The Righteous Mind) a person employing ‘motivated reasoning’ will simply grope for but one reason, no matter how flimsy, in order to give himself the psychological permission not to believe what he does not wish to believe, and so we should not be surprising that atheists do exactly that.


One thought on “Thought on the Atheists, the Kalam, and Defence Lawyers

  1. The Kalam is not an argument against atheism. It is an argument for theism.

    Defence lawyers are meant to find reasonable doubt.

    There is plenty of room for doubt in the Kalam cosmological argument.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s