In my last column in this space, I invited Malcolm the Cynic, and any other reader who cared to contribute, to debate the fascinating issue of whether atheism logically necessitates to nihilism. The challenge was either to prove or disprove that a non-nihilist atheist was a logical contradiction in terms.
To my immense surprise, not one, but many contributor began debating an unrelated issue, (and one I personally find deadly dull) namely, whether reductionist materialism, also called panphysicalism, necessitates nihilism.
I will not take the time to answer any such arguments now.
The topic, for me, was years ago sapped of all joy, and the philosophical curiosity of my buoyant yet naive youth beaten slowly yet cruelly out of my aching brain by an endlessly repeated blows of sheer hooey and dreary nonsense while I very slowly and very painfully discovered that panphysicalism is not really a legitimate and thoughtful position held by legitimate and thoughtful people, but a messy ashcan of random slogans, lame excuses, utter blither, and general crackpottery held by neurotics who cannot follow a simple syllogism of three steps.
I admit the possibility that perhaps somewhere a sane panphysicalist exists, a man who can give a rational argument defending the position, but I have yet to meet him, or read his words.
Until I meet such a chimera, I place panphysicalism, as a metaphysical theory, in the same category Marxism occupies for economic theory: that is, a mere insolent denial of the very discipline allegedly being investigated.
Those interested in a detailed, absurdly detailed, examination of my thoughts and reasoning on the matter are invited to examine as much of the record as they can stomach.
Below is the list.
I post the list to show that the topic has been sufficiently discussed to the point where I see no need to revisit the question until, if ever, a new argument is introduced. Or I should say, a line of argument.
If someone wishes to prove that atheism in and of itself necessitates panphysicalism, he is welcome to produce the proof and show the steps of his reasoning.
Until then, I reject any identification of atheist, which is an honorable, if mistaken, philosophical posture, with panphysicalism, which is self-refuting Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass nonsense, akin to a man saying he can prove his own non-existence, right after he proves that proofs never work and that words have no meaning.
I am not asking anyone to help me refute panphysicalism. I have done so over fifty times.
Then I started to discuss the matter in depth:
Perhaps someday these essays can be gathered into a book like one of those described by Robert W Chambers or HP Lovecraft, dreary yet inhumanly horrible, in order to stun insomniacs, punish those not covered by the Geneva Conventions on humane treatment of enemies, or open a dread gate to Yuggoth on the Rim.