Atheism is a profitable subject these days, having launched a number of bestsellers—and not only by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Dr. Richard Dawkins; the notoriety of their books has created corresponding interest in books by Dr. Alister McGrath (The Dawkins Delusion) and the Rev. Tim Keller (The Reason for God), among others. Indeed, the Rev. Keller’s book currently stands at #18 on the New York Times bestseller list and #56 overall on Amazon.com, which wouldn’t have happened without the conversation Dr. Dawkins et al. began. There is more of a market for serious apologetics in this country than there has been probably in decades, and we owe it all to enemies of the faith.
As I stop to consider that fact, I can’t help thinking that for all the outrage from some quarters directed at folks like Hitchens, Dr. Dawkins, Sam Harris and Dr. Daniel Dennett, the end result of their efforts may well be to boost the church rather than atheism. I’ve protested before the intellectual shoddiness of the “new atheists” in their engagement with theology, philosophy and history; what I hadn’t noticed was how shoddy their atheism itself is. Georgetown’s John F. Haught, writing in The Christian Century, points out that they essentially want to throw out God but keep all the trappings; Marx would have called them incurably bourgeois, and there’s no doubt that they lack either the insight (into what they’re really asking) or the courage (to face that insight) of older atheists like Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre. Hitchens and his confréres think their critique of religion is original and radical, and are quite impressed with themselves for it (as indeed they seem to be in general); but the truth is, compared to Nietzsche in particular, they’re pikers. Their atheism, far from being the evidence of maturity they appear to believe it to be, is essentially adolescent in character, founded less on a serious engagement with the world than on a visceral rejection of things they don’t like. On an intellectual level, it simply doesn’t measure up to the wealth of Christian apologetics; and if reading God Is Not Great or The God Delusion spurs people to go on to read The Dawkins Delusion or The Reason for God, I can’t help thinking that the church will come out best of it in the end.
Samuel Skinner
Congradulations- you’ve commited the “true atheism” fallacy. There is no “true” atheism- everyone who doesn’t believe in god is a “true” atheist.
For arguements over why nihlism and atheism aren’t necesarily inked just look at- but wait, you don”t consider them true atheists… you see the flaw in your thinking.
Doubting gods existance is adolesant? Have you read Freud? Believing in God is infantile. So that would make atheism a step up. Adulthood would probably be rationalism and becoming a moral person.
Nice rant. A bit short on content, however, and shorter yet on understanding of what I actually said. I never denied that Hitchens, Dr. Dawkins, Dr. Dennett, and Harris are “true” atheists; rather, I said that their thinking on the subject is shoddy. I certainly grant that shoddy thinking doesn’t make them any less atheists.
To correct one other aspect of your thinking: no, I didn’t say that doubting God as such is adolescent (though I will say that the appeal to Freud isn’t much beyond that; Freud didn’t prove nearly as much as he thought he had). What I said, rather, is that the particular thinking of these particular people is adolescent. Which is not, btw, because they’re atheists, though I do think it’s part of the reason they’re atheists; I would never dream, for instance, of calling Nietzsche or Camus adolescent in their atheism. They plainly weren’t. The likes of Sam Harris don’t rise to their stature.
I would suggest, btw, if you can get that knee jerk under control, that you read Haught’s piece, and the one by R. R. Reno on Nietzsche, and interact with them seriously. I don’t expect you to change what you believe, but I think it would do you well to think about some of these things with a bit more of an open mind.
Samuel Skinner
Here is the thing about theism- you don’t need to provide a substitution for the claims it makes- you only need to show it isn’t true. Atheists have done so.
As for not thinking out the implications, they have. None of them believe that they will get any after life or in any transendant purpose- they all, as Satre put it “made their own purpose”. Harris tries to figure out how the brain works and how to make it work better, Dawkins lives life for himself, his family and others he cares about, Hutchens seems to relish arguing and Dennet seems to be commited to being a scholar. As for myself- I talk to fools such as yourself trying to make them see the light. It is a thankless job, but someone has to do it.
I know that in the end, everything is going to end by singularity or entropy (unless science gives us some really good toys- don’t keep your hopes up). I don’t care about that- why should it matter to me? The universe doesn’t care about me- why should I care about its opinions? Theism has built a whole host of BS questions that only it can answer, that aren’t essential questions at all.
And of course, you haven’t said how they are wrong. Even if their arguements are “shoody, unorigional, weak, etc…” you haven’t shown why the apologetics are right and the atheists are wrong. Don’t worry though- you only have to do so succesfully once!
Samuel Skinner
The reason I rant is I run into idiots like this who pass themselves off as intellectuals and who don’t even merit the rating of baffon.
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4497
And of course my “ranting reply”. Because if you accuse your opponents of being angry… why you can simply ignore their arguement!
http://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/wishy-washy-atheism/
Atheists have done so.
Anyone who thinks that is scarcely in any position to accuse anyone else of being a fool. Do you really think you’ve managed to prove a negative? The fact of it is, every chain of reasoning must begin somewhere, with a presupposition; and though those presuppositions can be, and indeed must be, rationally interrogated for intelligibility, internal consistency, etc., they are and remain faith commitments. Atheism is no more proven than any form of theism; it’s just as much a faith commitment as any of them. You might find it a more reasonable faith commitment; you might be right. That doesn’t make it any less a matter of faith.
Also, the fact that Harris et al. have found things they like doing doesn’t in the least mean they’ve even considered, let alone seriously addressed, the questions and issues raised by the likes of Nietzsche, Sartre and Camus–or, for that matter, that you have. Atheism that pretends it doesn’t need to really look into the abyss is an adolescent form of that faith.
As for getting into the case for Christianity vs. the case for atheism, you’re correct–I’m not doing that in this post. I’m doing something else instead. It is, after all, a blog post, not a book.
Samuel Skinner
First of you can prove universal negatives- there are no square circles for instance. You simply have to prove that it is incompatible with everything we know about reality. As for justifying the basic postulates, I don’t use faith- I use evidance. You may accuse me of having faith in evidence, but since evidence is “pieces of information about the real world” I don’t see how it is faith. After all looking at the rreal world tells us things about the real world. The only way to attack that is to go into extreme skepticism.
Or you could take the simplier route of declaring that “supernatural” is a nonsense term (it is when you think about it) and hence all things justified with it don’t exist in the real world, only in people’s imaginations.
Or you could state that this universe does not look like a designed universe and use fiction for example.
Or you could use the problem of evil and unbelief.
Or… you get the idea.
As for looking into the Abyss… don’t know exactly what you mean. Do you mean relizing that everything you do will eventually be futile and that you will permanently die and the like? I’ve done it and Dawkins writes he has done it (Don’t know about the rest). Not reacting the way you think we should? Tough. It doesn’t matter to me that there is no great plan or that my life is finite. Many other atheists don’t care either. Some do. But we all live with it (at least all rationalist and materialists do…).
After all looking at the rreal world tells us things about the real world.
Are you perhaps familiar with modern philosophy? (“Modern” being defined, in this case, as anything from Descartes forward–which is to say, the last 375 years or so.) You ought, at any rate, to know that that statement has proven to be a startlingly difficult one to uphold on a purely rational/scientific basis. It’s a faith statement, not something which has been proven by reason from evidence.
Or you could take the simplier route of declaring that “supernatural” is a nonsense term (it is when you think about it) and hence all things justified with it don’t exist in the real world, only in people’s imaginations.
Declare, yes. But can you support that declaration? Or do you believe in argument by fiat?
Or you could state that this universe does not look like a designed universe and use fiction for example.
You could indeed state that; but for your statement to carry any weight, you need to be able to support your idea of what a designed universe ought to look like, and to be able to demonstrate the superiority of your idea to that of others, since your definition will not be universal.
Or you could use the problem of evil and unbelief.
Only if you can grapple with the work of folks like Henri Blocher (Evil and the Cross) and N. T. Wright (Evil and the Justice of God), and for that matter John Stackhouse (Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil).
All of which is to say, yes, I get the idea; do you? These conversations aren’t new, you realize–nor are they unanswerable.
As for looking into the Abyss… don’t know exactly what you mean. Do you mean relizing that everything you do will eventually be futile and that you will permanently die and the like?
No; or rather, only in (small) part. Have you really not read Nietzsche?
Finally, what you define as “universal negatives” have been better called “intrinsic impossibilities”–i.e., things which are self-contradictory. (“What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?” As Asimov noted, the answer is, “An inconceivable event.”) Proving something self-contradictory isn’t the same as proving a negative.
Samuel Skinner
Let me get this straight- saying the real world will tell us about the real world is a faith statement?
Let me guess- you can’t prove the reality of the real world? Do you think I bother- or care? Simply change the statement- the world we percieve will give us more information about the world we percieve. Gets around the question of “does the world exist”.
Sure I can support it. Natural is everything in the universe. People declare something supernatural because it can’t exist in reality- okay, what we percieve as reality. So it needs a special location. Since there is no reason that a special category should exist for thing that have no real evidence and so changed the rules. It is known as pseudoscience. If it can’t live up to the rules of science (evidence) than it isn’t true.
Yes they are. You know why I say that? Because if they really were valid answers I probably would have heard then by now. People tend to give answers and explanations on the next (basic knowledge of human behavior). I don’t reject out of hand- I just ask myself- If it is such a knock out punch why isn’t anyone using it?
If it is self contradictory it can’t exist in reality- therefore it isn’t real. Simple if you think about it.
In other words, it’s so because you say so. Color me unimpressed. Come back when you feel like dealing with the issues rather than simply waving them away on your own authority.
Samuel Skinner
Be specific- I have no idea what you are talking about know.
I’m going to assume you are talking about “external reality and it is what we see”. I mentioned the first way to deal with it- ignore the problem. If what we see isn’t external reality, but studying it allows us to learn about it and take advantage of it, than it is rather irrelevant.
The other method would simply say that external reality is a theory. So you can use external reality in this example but you have to list how it is falsible.
The other possibility is you are refering to my insistance on evidance. Why is it that by using information about something we have information about something. Basically at the bottom we have a tautology. Information about something is information about something. So evidance which is information about reality, gives us information about reality. You can attack that, but I don’t see how…
No, actually, I’m talking about your entire approach. You talk about insisting on evidence, but offer nothing but assertions.
Let me guess- you can’t prove the reality of the real world? Do you think I bother- or care?
This is an admission that your position is founded on faith.
Simply change the statement- the world we percieve will give us more information about the world we percieve. Gets around the question of “does the world exist”.
This is a faith statement which is asserted rather than proven.
Natural is everything in the universe.
This is a faith statement which is asserted rather than proven (unless, of course, you leave the definition of “natural” open-ended).
Information about something is information about something.
How do you establish that it is in fact information, and that it is in fact about something? What are your grounds for that belief?
I mentioned the first way to deal with it- ignore the problem.
You are of course free to do that; but if you do, you have to abandon any pretense that your beliefs are rational and rationally supported.
Because if they really were valid answers I probably would have heard then by now.
This is arrogance of an adolescent quality. There is more that you do not know than you realize, one; and two, just because you do not consider an answer valid doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t.
The bottom line here is, one, that you aren’t actually engaging that which you oppose, merely dismissing it; and two, you still haven’t come to the point of realizing that all belief systems rest on premises which cannot be proven by reason but are ultimately faith commitments–atheism no less than theism.
Samuel Skinner
No- the first is mocking you.
The second is a responce. It is one of the two responces I have- either deal with reality by saying “ultimate reality” doesn’t matter because we don’t come in contact with it OR say the idea of external reality is a theory and shall be treated like any other. The second works better, but the first is easier to understand. Neither require faith. To be fair the theory idea is the much better one. And before you attack that on the grounds “where did you get theory?”- it comes from reality- however the idea is that if you have checked something consistantly and it always has passed the tested, you can treat it like it is always true. The idea isn’t dependant on anything in the universe.
I’m arguing from definiton for most of this. Since the word natural means “everything that exists in reality”, than only natural things exist. Logical deduction really.
By ignore the problem I meant to say that you don’t concern yourself with “ultimate” reality, just the reality we come in contact with.
Information is also arguing from the definition. However there is a check we can make- if the information we glean allows use to successfully predict what happens next, than it is usually right. There are a bunch of other criteria we can use to insure that the information is valid.
Atheism doesn’t rest on unproven premises- it is naturalism you are attacking here. Dispite your word games you fail to reveal how science, which is based entirely on naturalism manages to work.
Heuristic- a rule of thumb. Generally used due to the fact that individuals only have a limited amount of time and must choose how to allot it. If there was a good arguement I would have heard it is an example.
Although it is true “just because you judge an arguement to be invalid, doesn’t mean it is invalid”, the fact is all the arguements for theism are flawed. I’ll run down the list (not all of them, just the ones on the top of my head).
Existance, life, morality and reason- arguing from ignorance
Existance- begging the question
Ontological- existance isn’t a property of an object
Life- see evolution and abeogenisis
Atheist dictators- see irrelevant, and faulty conclusion
Moral basis- see irrelevant and Micheavelli dilemma (simply put is religion makes people moral than everyone should have it. However leaders who aren’t religious will have beliefs that will better reflect reality and be more successful)
There are more- can’t think of them off the top of my head… all of them are flawed so far.
Again, you use a mix of tautology and flat assertion, with no real grasp of the actual arguments; which is on par with your posts on numerous other blogs. Your performance at FQI, More than Words, and other blogs makes clear the reason for the insouciance with which you declare that you haven’t heard any good arguments against atheism: you don’t listen. Whether that’s willfull, whether you honestly don’t understand the points people or trying to make, or whether you’re just that arrogant, I won’t attempt to determine.
Just to make (or reiterate) two final points: one, atheism rests on a premise which is not only unproven but unproveable, namely, the non-existence of God. You may conclude that God does not exist, but it’s irrational–or perhaps arational–to argue that because theists cannot prove the existence of God (a point with which I happen to agree, btw), therefore the existence of God is disproven.
Two, with regard to your argumentation, you might want to look up A. J. Ayer and logical positivism–and why no serious philosopher is anymore a logical positivist. (You might also, while you’re at it, want to read There Is a God, by Anthony Flew, and ponder the fact that the world’s best-known atheist is no longer an atheist.)
Intelligent design allows for a wide variety of differences within a kind it accepts natural selection and survival of the fittest. These are not in dispute. A variety of dogs doesn’t turn into a different animal, it remains a dog but perhaps loses genetic information along the way. An example of this is small dogs no longer having the genetic information to produce a large dog. No place in science has there been a case where there has been an addition of genetic information that didn’t come from an existing source . Even so called supper bugs have a net loss of genetic information not a net gain . If losing information is evidence of evolution then it has been poorly named and should rather be call devolution.
Interesting comment, though perhaps a bit of a tangent. My thanks for your contribution, but in future, please do identify yourself.
I will say further that the dogmatic insistence on neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and the refusal to listen to any critique of or challenge to that theory is one of the points at which we can clearly see that the new atheism is essentially fundamentalist. It is everything it denounces Christianity as, except with a different focus for its worship.
Rob… and Anonymous. Great conversation. I think a careful review says a lot for the rational validity of your respective positions. I put my truck with the Theists. But perhaps I’m lucky being not limited in my knowledge to what can be measured, bought and sold, though I remain deluded by Maya.
Atheists have at best a poor fund of knowledge, even on big dick days. It’s comical to read the arguments of the Atheists, but somewhat ironic because they seem to live within the same self-constructed mind prisons as the nut-jobs that claim religious justification for torture and murder.
The conflict between whistle-in-the-dark Atheism and Rational Theism is extremely significant. Why? Because the only way that the “West” will be able to counteract nut-job flesh bombers (claiming to be “Theists” although deluded by passion and ignorance) is through Rational Theism.
Atheists deluded by their belief that Science can comprehend God are helpful because they get Rational Theists fired up to defend their Faith in God – the Good, Just, and Supreme Controller. This Faith and understanding is necessary in order to fight evil and to protect the meek.
So, thank you, Anonymous.
Give my Regards to Broadway!
Regards,
Bob Torzynski, Rochester
Thanks for your comment; I should probably clarify that aside from the last “anonymous” (from whom I requested an introduction), the “anonymous” posts were all from one Samuel Skinner, an atheist who blogs parasitically for atheism (which is to say, solely on other people’s blogs). I notice you’re just getting your blog going; I’ll be interested to see how you define and defend “Rational Theism.” I certainly agree that no essentially or methodologically atheist approach will ever be able to comprehend, let alone effectively deal with, the jihadist ideology that currently threatens us. (That’s one reason why our State Department does such a bad job at it.)
Marie of Intelligent design
The Question of our beliefs has to do with the question of our origins what science does and does not prove , there are two schools of thinking . The first I will mention is one of creation the other evolution. They both have statements of origins, they both have a resulting belief systems. If you look at the science in an objective fashion, you will find that it agrees with one side more that the other. If you ask the question of what does science without a presupposition of one kind or another you find that objective science fits one model better than the other . One question must be asked when we view the finding of scientist. Does the scientist come to the conclusion based on a predetermined presupposition of what the answer should be? In many cases of looking at scientific findings I find that all too often the conclusions are based not on good scientific method but on a determination to backup the world view of the scientist in question . A good example of scientists coming to conclusions that don’t fit the science is oil . It is assumed that fossils are a result of a process that took place over millions of years, the truth of the matter is that scientists in china have discovered that fossilization can take place over a 7 year time span. If you debate what you believe to be a question of faith you must also debate what you believe to be scientific fact. Only a fool will argue without first asking his or herself if there is any evidence to the contrary of what they have held as a system belief without question. I would warn against allowing ones presuppositions to fog ones judgement.
I would be interested to see a citation on the Chinese findings you cite, since I’m not familiar with those. I certainly agree that scientists as a class are no more objective than any other class of people, and that they too feel a definite preference to believe what they prefer to be true.
The truth is (and maybe I should blog on this), as regards evolution, it’s not the hypothesis as such to which I object, but rather the dogma of evolutionism. Perhaps that’s in part because of Dr. Alvin Plantinga’s insight that evolution is a defeater for naturalism–evolutionary theory renders naturalism untenable as a belief system.
Which, contra Sam Skinner’s comment above, is in fact a direct attack on the philosophical plausibility of atheism; I don’t see how one could be an atheist and not a naturalist. (As for his assertion that I “fail to reveal how science, which is based entirely on naturalism manages to work,” he has it backwards; it’s science itself which has failed to reveal that. Personally, I would say–as others have tried to say to Mr. Skinner–that methodologically atheist science is simply spending the capital left to it by theism.)
So does that mean you oppose Intelligent Design?
No, not at all; I’m an advocate for it as a critique of naturalist scientific practice, and have been ever since I had the opportunity to study under Dr. Phillip Johnson. Rather, my point is that should the evidence support the conclusion that God used an evolutionary mechanism to differentiate living things into various species–which I don’t believe it does–I wouldn’t have a problem with that. The fundamental point is who, not how; and where ID is primarily of value (in my book, anyway) is in debunking the idea that creation can be explained away as a random event.
Marie
Bravo Rob!
Nice to see someone gets it .
I believe that you will find a lot of good information on this web site. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
You will find science and scientific facts presented in a light that exposes the fraud that we as a society in north America {Mexico ,the United states of America, and Canada} have been shamelessly exposed to . A faith system in and of itself. A faith system masquerading as fact rater than cleaver fiction.
Why should one faith overshadow all others. Do we not have freedom to believe what we wish? The answer is being taught to our children in public schools. No system of faith but one. Evolutionism!
Yeah, I’m familiar with AiG. I’m not really in that camp (I line up more with folks like Hugh Ross), but I appreciate their faithfulness and energy in taking on the scientific establishment’s current dominant paradigm.
I have read through much, but not all of the comments through out this blog, and find them interesting and amazing. Interesting in the facts that they bring out, and amazing in the amount of arrogance that is sometimes displayed on either side of the banter.
If my history teachers were correct (and to say that they were correct would require faith on my part, wouldn’t it?), at one time most men believed that the world was flat, and that we were the center of the universe. Anyone who believed otherwise was deemed a nut or a heretic. Have we really become that much more knowledgable? If anything, science should teach us that there is still so much more that we have to learn. How much of the total truth of the universe do we really think we know? 50%? I doubt it. 10%? Maybe. Less than 1%? I favor this answer. Yet we act and treat others like we know 99% or more. Yes, I believe in God and in Intelligent Design. If we do know just 1% of what there is to know about our universe as humans, how much can I claim to know as just one of those humans, maybe less that 1% of 1%! So I will take that piece and say that it leads me to believe in order and a God. If your 1% of 1% leads you elsewhere, fine, but why do you feel the need to dictate to me that I am wrong? I think the largest difference is that I ADMIT that I take things on faith, while others are so afraid of that word that they would never say it. Bottom line for me is that your attack on faith just gives more fuel to my believe in the creator. After all, why would you so vehemently oppose those of faith if it were just a imaginary issue. But if something is at stake, then by all means, attack. So whether you know it or not, your attacks on faith only serve to strengthen that faith. Enough said for now. Have a wonderful and Blessed day.
For what it’s worth, most educated people in the West believed the world was round, because that’s what Ptolemy had said. Whether uneducated folks believed it was flat, I don’t know.
Thanks very much for your comment. In future, please do introduce yourself.
Don Says,
I apoligize for not leaving a name. I am fairly new to this whole idea of blogs.
The more I admit I do not know, the more I seem to understand.
I understand that when you say that current atheism appears to be more adolescent, you are not saying that atheism in itself is adolescent. Your comment is aimed at the appearance that current atheistic thought is more of a closed mindedness that it is a product of deductive reasoning. I believe this to be true because, again, in my opinion, atheism does not make sense in light of reason. At best, agnosticism might be acceptable. No matter how much you read or even observe, you still have to base conclusions based on faith in something. That something could be the research of scientists, the Word of God, instruction your parents, teachers, etc. To say that athesim is fact and any other response is not requires an arrogance that is not what I would call “adult behavior.” in fact, it reminds me of the kids who would threaten to take their toys home if they didn’t get their way. But lets be honest, atheists are not the only ones who display such closed minds. Many who claim to be on God’s team are just as adolescent!
Cynics look high and low for wisdom – and never find it;
the open minded find it right on their doorstep. (Proverbs)
If you reason with an arrogant cynic, you’ll get slapped in the face;
confront bad behavior and get a kick in the shins.
So don’t waste your time on a scoffer, all you’ll get for your pains is abuse. (Also Proverbs)
It really does not matter whose side they are on, a cynic is a cynic. It is only those who open their minds who can truly experience truth.
No need for apology. I would note, if you select “Name/URL” instead of “Anonymous,” you don’t actually need a URL–you can just enter your name–but that works somewhat better.
Many who claim to be on God’s team are just as adolescent!
Sad but true.
I would note, I don’t see Mr. Samuel Skinner as a cynic. More of a zealot, really.
Pingback: The atheism of presumption and the case for God | Wholly Living
Pingback: Adolescent atheism and the nihilistic impulse | Wholly Living