If we understand the nature of logic, we understand that we should not say that God does not exist, but that belief in God is irresponsible because there are simpler and therefore more likely explanations. The results of Hegel through Marx on the other side of the iron curtain have ossified the belief that dishonest and illogical thinking are more dangerous than was ever imagined. In our technological adolescence, there are few things of which each individual needs to be more conscious than why and how to believe responsibly. New Antitheism is a shift from the antitheist movement of New Atheism to an attack on irrationalism in all its forms and upholding the primacy of logic with deference to Occam’s Razor as the only responsible foundation for belief.
We need to understand that there is a strict dichotomy between rationalism and irrationalism that is blatant to the Abrahamic monotheists and anyone who believes in a perfect God. Can a perfect being create something so heavy that she cannot pick it up? There is no amount of bloviation and prevarication here that could obscure the revelation of this contradiction. Infinite power is paradoxical. This, along with the impossible in general, is a thing that categorically belongs to the all things that are possible for a perfect God. To maintain otherwise is to declare the Bible a deception and false advertisement. However, when logic is understood this is not the deathblow in this gigantomachy that some may assume. A lesson of Kant’s critique of pure reason was that logic cannot be applied to the metaphysic because different, but equally reasonable premises can reach opposing conclusions. In all stages, you must have or build towards an empirically evidenced position or accept contradiction.
Logic is premised on the notion that coherence is necessary as contradictions do not exist, but we ultimately have no empirical evidence that there are not what we would call contradictions exterior to our universe. As we know, the universe is not only queerer than we imagine but queerer than we can imagine. This applies absolutely beyond the borders of our cosmos. The metaphysic is purely inconceivable, and the only reasonable position is to disregard logic’s application here. It is plausible that contradictions are necessarily impossible, but there is no genuine foundation for confidence that our concepts are sufficiently robust as to apply beyond the physic. Here we return to the dichotomy. The miscegenation of faith and rationalism can only be accurately described as irrationalism, the negation of rationalism. You either believe through holistic rationalism, or you accept the validity of irrationalism and that you are an irrationalist. If you holistically accept this validity, there is nothing a logician could do to bring you back. There is no argument that could necessarily influence your knowledge. This is the basis of the two coherent beliefs on God.
Logic is the tool of the atheist. If it is used correctly and consistently then concluding that God is an irresponsible belief is the only result. The universe could have commenced without a higher power, and a higher power is necessarily more complicated than this universe. This necessitates greater explanation. The theory of a universe from nothing, analogously to evolution through natural selection, expounds complexity from simplicity. Appealing to greater complexity due to perceived complexity is an infinite regression that logicians must dismiss, and the eternal existence of God is second to the eternal existence of the universe by the standard of Occam’s Razor. More candidly, there is no other area where we apply the standards that we apply to belief about God. This idiosyncrasy means that consistent thinking demands rejection of God as an irresponsible belief.
Belief in God always returns to the leap of faith. This is a necessary component of theism. But if we understand that consistent logic will always reject belief in God and that logic cannot deal with that which is beyond the physic, we understand that rational argumentation leading to a leap of faith is an ignoble ersatz of both the bulletproof glass of the atheist and the genuine leap. It is an irrelevant and pointless language game that only serves to mollify those incapable of faith and belief in God who cannot accept their absence. It is a debased self-deceit bereft of dignity.
God can only be reached through spiritual conviction. This is not only a necessary but sufficient component of theism. To justify this position with logic vitiates spirituality and the act demanded by God. It is a clownish movement that improves upon only the vulgarity of Pascal’s Wager but is still missing the same point. Spiritual conviction is grounded in emotion. We have faith when we act on this conviction. We must turn to faith because logic rejects God. Emotions can either be satisfied or stultified. If we want religious satisfaction and dignity in this belief, we must embrace an absolute rejection of reason. We must believe absolutely.
As a logician, coherence in reasoning is paramount. The only two positions I can stomach are rationalism and the holistic rejection of logic found in fideism that is argued for above. If you comprehend what I have outlined you understand the weight of compromising logical thought and the irretrievability of those coherent in doing so. We have entered our technological adolescence, and the greatest single component of our existential risk is irrationalism. More so, perhaps now than at any other point in the existence of our species, we must understand that there is a single world and we must all inhabit the same one. Faith and all other forms of irrationalist belief must be abandoned. The direct moral value in doing so explicitly and publicly cannot be understated or predicted. To not do so or to oppose those who do inflames genuine risk of the destruction of humanity.