In a comment on "Richard Dawkins Dispells Improbabilities", Anthony L. writes:

I found your site with a Quixtar Sucks search on Google. I'm staying because the rest of your blog rocks.

As for the post ... do you think the self-refuting nature of atheism, especially of the Dawkins kinds, could be seen as proof of a god?

First: thanks for the kind words, Anthony!

Second, regarding your question: Proof? No. Evidence? Yes, I think so.

It's true that some self-refuting statements prove the opposite. For example, if you accept the validity of logic, it's easy to prove their are some absolute truths. Simply start by asserting (as so many do) "There are no absolutes", and notice that you've already arrived at a contraction (since that statement itself asserts an absolute, why denying none can exist). Thus you've done a "proof by negation", and proved that some absolutes do exist.

But there are other kinds of arguments which are simply flawed: they don't prove what they were meant to prove, but also don't prove the opposite either. "Juries are always right. A jury convicted Charles Manson of murder. Therefore, he did it." Well, juries aren't always right: but my error doesn't prove Manson was innocent either.

So do errors by atheists offer evidence for God's existence?

And wouldn't it be fair to ask the opposite: would errors by theists prove the opposite, too?

It's been my observation that people usually make logical errors when (1) they just aren't familliar with the basics of logic or that subject, and/or (2) they have an unresolved internal conflict they're unwilling to face. You have to look at the person to try to figure out which case is which.

When I get spam from someone in my church, containing the urban legend which asserts NASA computers somehow proved a miracle in the bible, I usually assume they're just ignorant: They're not much into astronomy or computers, so the story could sound plausable to them. They're probably not hiding something deliberately: they don't know any better.

But when Richard Dawkins, who is the "Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science", offers a "scientific" argument about God -- and it's not even disprovable -- I know something is quite wrong.

It's utterly implausible to argue Dawkins doesn't understand genetics, or the importance of disprovability in scientific hypotheses. But if he suddenly appears to suffer amenesia concerning both these? We're then left concluding that there's something much more important to him than either.

So it seems likely Dawkins might actually worry God does exist: nobody falsifies evidence (consciously or unconsciously -- and I believe Dawkins does this unconsciously) when they completely believe the truth supports them.

The situation, I believe, is analgous to a cop who was caught planting evidence to frame a suspect. It doesn't prove the suspect is innocent. Nor does it prove the cop is guilty of the crime. But it does prove that the cop's motives aren't, shall we say, fully on the side of the truth -- and should make any sane person regard that cop with suspicion. And it does reveal that the cop knows the evidence for his position was weak -- otherwise he wouldn't need to fudge.

Finally, if you see one cop acting this way, it might just be a rogue case. But I notice that people who act this way tend to cluster. And, sad to say, I *have* noticed this tendency among "angry" atheists. Not all atheists, mind you -- there are some wonderful, kind, and extremely logical atheists out there (Keith Burgess-Jackson, for example) but the "angry" atheists almost seem to be testimony for the opposite position.