Four Premises and a Refutation of the Primary Atheist Philosophies

Premise 1: There are three major competing worldviews in Western civilization today which are ethical monotheism, postmodernism, and naturalism.

Premise 2: Due to the fact that there appear to be no major nuerological differences between the people within these three philosophical camps, the fact that the representatives of each philosophy are able to debate with each other in a coherent way which suggests that they are able to understand each other's arguments, and the fact that the three philosphies regularly exchange converts, we may conclude that all rational human beings have the capacity to understand the claims of each philosophy.

Premise 3: Each worldview has different claims about what is real as well as what kind of knowledge is available to us. Postmodernism holds that we all have our own truth but any knowledge of an absolute moral or spiritual truth is unnatainable and perhaps even nonexistent. Some forms of postmodernism also hold that absolute scientific knowledge is unavailable. Naturalism holds that the physical sciences are the absolute standard of knowledge and that anything which cannot be scientifically tested (this means morality, the soul, God, free will, and other such matters) cannot be known and does not exist. Ethical monotheism holds that we are capable of having basic knowledge of both moral and physical truth simply by being sane human beings who regularly interract with the world around us and that we can have more advanced spiritual knowledge by means of divine revelation.

Premise 4: The fourth premise is that if there is a basic philosophy which is embedded in the psyches of all rational human beings, the worldview which is in closest proximity to it must be the one which presents the broadest range of knowable truths. Now, when I speak of a "basic philosophy" I am speaking of a sort of combination of our inherent capacities for knowledge and our inherent knowledge. When I say "inherent capacities for knowledge" I am speaking of what we are able to know and it is important to note that there are things which we have absolutely no capacity for knowledge of. For instance, I do not have the capacity to imagine a round square because it is what I call an object of nonsense; it is a logical impossibility and what little I can imagine and know about it is a result of my capacity for knowing squares and circles. Therefore, knowledge of nonsense (by this I do not mean the concept of nonsense which is the flipside of reason but the great mass of things which that concept describes) is outside of my capacities. As for "inherent knowledge", this is an idea that comes from particularist epistemology, a view that teaches we can know things without being able to explain how we know them. Often there is an explanation for such knowledge which we simply are not aware of but there is also knowledge which we possess simply by virtue of being rational creatures. It is knowledge of the second kind which I refer to when speaking of "inherent knowledge" and this includes the laws of logic as well as basic moral commands. There is one more aspect of this basic philosophy which could be considered inherent knowledge but should still be recognized independently and that is our inherent reactivity to certain concepts. This final aspect may be thought of as ideas which are hidden in the inner workings of our minds and which, when presented to our conscious mind, we instinctively react to with positive emotions.

Conclusion: Ethical monotheism is the basic philosophy or else is the philosophy that best corresponds with the basic philosophy. Also, if we are to accept that we are rational beings in that our sense of logic is accurate (and if this is not true then philosophy is a hopeless topic anyway since all the conjecturing in the world will never bring us any nearer to an accurate worldview) then the basic philosophy is also almost certain to be the most accurate.

What does this mean for naturalism and postmodernism?

Ever since the Enlightenment there has been a growing attitude that any belief that involves the supernatural is inherently nonsensical and today naturalism and postmodernism, the two major atheist worldviews, have developed this belief to the point that they are widely considered to be inherently superior and rational when compared to any religious ideology even when the one comparing them has never before had any knowledge of any of the philosophies considered. The above argument does not on its own do away with either postmodernism or naturalism (there are countless arguments on both sides completely unrelated to what is stated above and any half-decent debater knows that they can't be ignored), but it is still easily enough to dispell their illusion of superiority.

If this is about asserting ethical monotheism, aren't there still plenty of other philosophies that cover an equal breadth of knowledge?

To be perfectly honest: no. In addition to some other minor religions, the term ethical monotheism covers the three Abrahamic religions-- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The remaining two out of the five major religions are Buddhism and Hinduism and these fail to stand up to their competitors because in Hinduism, which claims that God is in all things, there can be no condemnation for sickness, disasters, or even sinful thoughts and in Buddhism the doctrine of self-denial for its own sake (as opposed to self-denial for the sake of overcoming a sinful excess) obliterates the common knowledge that a moderate enjoyment of pleasure is a good thing. In both cases there is a renunciation of what is accepted as common knowledge without the appeal to a higher principle of common knowledge. Moreover, no ideology which does not believe in an inifinitely wise and ethical God can have any adequate basis for moral truth and no ideology which does not believe in such a God who also actively interracts with humanity can have any adequate grounds for obtaining moral knowledge.

What does this mean for ethical monotheists?

This means that our faith is not simply a matter of private opinion. Indeed it means that we have the authority to know and dispense truth on a level that is not only equal to but perhaps even superior to our secular neighbours. It means that we have the power to be active and influential participants in the world around us. Most importantly, it means that we can have firm and justified confidence in our faith as a true philosophy and a righteous cause.