Thursday, March 24, 2011

Let us not underestimate...

Well!

I have been gone for a while now, and I apologize to all my readers.  My long break was brought on by an unusually painful sickness and prolonged by brainstorming about changes I might make to improve the blog (and laziness).  The once-a-week routine, however, will now resume.

I have been doing quite a bit of reading recently, and the entirety of this reading has had its feet firmly planted in a very faithfully theistic position.  While I miss agreeing with everything I'm reading, as well as learning more about arguments against theism (and its widely accepted moral superiority), I figured it was time to give the other side its turn.  This blog post, therefore, will not necessarily be an attack on theology but rather a commentary on the intellectual God/no God issue, as it has been presented to me by Team God.  

I assure you, I have not singled out the simpletons or intellectually lacking representatives of Team God (although I did recently engage in a reading of Ray Comfort's You Can Lead An Atheist To Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think, which was finished in one evening, and luckily so; I feared I may be losing intellectual integrity simply by exposing myself to such a book, which, given its title, I foolishly expected to actually present evidence- Comfort did no such thing).  Anyways, to serious matters.  Recently I have been reading the popular book, I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, by apologist extraordinaire Frank Turek.  Turek, despite his flaws, did hold his own very well against Christopher Hitchens in a 2010 debate- I might even say Turek did a better job on arguments for a deistic God.  Another recent book is The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski, who I haven't been following very much until the reading of his book.  Berlinski proclaims himself to be an agnostic- odd for someone who speaks with such conviction about the soul- but he enjoys going after the Four Horsemen and their scientist colleagues every bit as much as more religious critics of the New Atheism.  (Just a quick note here- I use the phrase "New Atheism" simply as a name; I do not think there is really anything "new" about this atheism, I simply believe that this is a new, and more popular, resurfacing of atheism.)  Josh McDowell, Dinesh D'Souza, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, and the always-enjoyable William Lane Craig are among the other New Atheism critics who I wish to say a few words to.  I have found a couple common sentiments among the counter-atheist movement that I feel I should address.

#1.  Do not single out halfway intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins and claim that they speak for the entire atheist movement.  Many atheists do not claim such dogmatic beliefs as Dawkins, and many do not fall for the false dichotomy of science versus religion.  Science is only opposed to religion when religion begins making claims that are scientifically verifiable, such as "God created the world 6,000 years ago."  This only addresses the generally silly fundamentalist view of a theistic God that most theologians cast aside once they have received ample education in both philosophy and science.

#2.  We do not have to disprove God.  You must prove God.  The existence of a theistic deity does not become the default belief by logic simply because it has been around for a long time.  By claiming that something like consciousness is not yet explained by science, and therefore it is the product of a deity, you are helping to reinforce this false science/religion dichotomy.  A question's answer is not "God until answered by science."  This is elementary logic.

#3.  Proving the necessary existence of an attribute commonly associated with God, if this is ever done, does not prove God.  Example: "The universe is contingent; it arose from nothing, contrary to the laws of nature; therefore, something outside the universe caused it- a supernatural, uncaused cause.  There, I have just proven God."  Problem: eternal/supernatural does NOT equal God.  These are commonly attributed to God; they are not, however, all that God is.  The property of eternity, for example, does not include the property of omnipotence by necessity.  I have yet to hear any reasonable, coherent philosophical argument for the existence of a being that necessitates omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or omniscience (although, of course, I cannot claim to have read all the great theologians in their entirety yet).

#4.  Redressing the "God of the gaps" argument does not lend it validity.  I just recently witnessed Turek doing just this in his latest book.  If current science cannot account for consciousness, then it cannot account for consciousness.  It is, as of now, a mystery.  Someday we may find the answer.  Until then, however, this mystery does not prove any sort of deity; in fact, the existence of a deity does not even come close to being a rational or remotely reasonable explanation for consciousness.  Let us not forget to use Occam's Razor.

#5.  Do not claim that science cannot say anything about God, and then proceed to say that there is evidence for God written throughout science.  Either there is physically observable evidence for God or there is not, but do not continue flip-flopping whenever it is convenient for your argument.

I must not get carried away here.  This is not simply a spiritual war; it is a cultural and political war as well.  Religion has a frighteningly large effect on politics; it has always had a large influence on culture in America.  As with any confrontation that involves human beings, neither side is perfect.  We should not ignore the flaws of Team No God.  There are some things I'd like to say to specific players on my side of the field.

#1.  Dawkins:  This issue is not as easy as you think.  It is not black and white.  Religion is not simple stupidity.  It cannot be displaced with science.  The teaching of religion to children cannot be labeled child abuse by default.  Above all, do not put science above logic and philosophy.  Logic and philosophy are what science is built upon.  I do agree with many of your conclusions; your methods, however, show a definite lack of philosophical education.

#2.  Hitchens:  People's actions do not disprove God.  People do terrible things because of religion; however, to truly argue against the proposition of God, we need to enter the realms of logic and philosophy.  Arguing from people's misdeeds is simply an appeal to emotion.

#3.  Myers:  Do not attempt to give greater meaning to the term "atheism".  We are still trying to dispel misconceptions about its actual definition; this will only result in more confusion.  If atheists choose to hold particular beliefs, they may use other words for such beliefs.  Atheism should continue to be nothing but the lack of a belief in God.

A general observation:  In this issue of utmost importance, neither side seems to be taking the other one seriously.  The popular New Atheists seem to think religion is incredibly silly, stupid, and to be regarded with complete impunity, and that anyone who believes it is either stupid or crazy.  Berlinski, Turek, Dembski, and their ilk seem to think that atheism is nothing but scientific arrogance and a rejection of good philosophy that leads to social Darwinism and Nazi-esque eugenics.  Both sides need to be taken seriously and examined more closely.  I'd love to see more atheist discussion of Aquinas or Kierkegaard, and I'd love to see more theist discussion of serious atheist literature such as Jason Sobel's Theism And Logic.  Let us get a little more philosophical; it's quite the question to wax philosophical about.

14 comments:

  1. "A general observation: In this issue of utmost importance, neither side seems to be taking the other one seriously."

    Ok, so assuming atheism is true, why is ANYTHING of importance?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Leo Behe:

    'This is not simply a spiritual war; it is a cultural and political war as well. Religion has a frighteningly large effect on politics; it has always had a large influence on culture in America.'


    I actually find this to be an important observation on your part. Interestingly, if by theism we are talking about strictly a Chiristian Theism and I believe this is the usual target of these discussions, it is indeed their own Holy Book which condemns them as opposed to anything exposed as condemnatory behavior provided by the Atheist's side. The Biblical commentary demands that these believers remain separate from the world, which would include ALL it's politics. One has to wonder why they pursue earthly political solutions as opposed to the supposed Heavenly solution provided by the God's Kingdom solution promoted by their leader Jesus Christ. In fact, discussions and arguements on creationism and most of the other modern day debate subject material were never touched upon by Jesus Christ's Ministry.

    One would have to ponder about why, when and how all of this changed centuries later after his death and the first 100 years of early Christianity?

    Now having said this, it should be also honestly acknowledged that Atheism itself has also had a profound effect on culture and politics with the same catastrophic effects that any religion has had globally over the centuries. My personal observation is that the leadership of both sides(Theists/Atheists) are more interested in furthering their careers as celebrity figures who gather followers and obtaining wealth and social status as opposed to getting straight down to the actual truth of the matters in debate. Battles are won in the minds of both sides, but the ongoing continuing War does nothing more than leave collateral damage in it's wake with no one actually coming off as winners, only losers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Timeless wrote:

    "The Biblical commentary demands that these believers remain separate from the world, which would include ALL it's politics."

    Sorry, but this is not even wrong.

    Christians are to be IN the world but not OF the world.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unfortunately, Leo appears to have made up his mind to be an atheist, and is now in search of reasons to justify his new faith.

    What ever happened to following the evidence where it leads?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Live Wire:

    'Christians are to be IN the world but not OF the world.'


    Obviously that would and should be true 'Live_Wire', since this is exactly what the Bible says. However history shows that for centuries this has not been the case. Had the majority of Christendom followed what you just proclaimed, men like Adolf Hitler would never have come to power. Not only did this creep embrace Darwinian concepts as a justification for his twisted perverted Ideology, but Christendom embraced he and his racist ideas and thanked God for sending him to be Savior of Germany.

    That's about as part of the World as you can get and they bare a heavier bloodguilt than others for their participation in the Final Solution. This actually makes them(Christendom) equal to many of the Atheists who also supported such National Socialistism and later Communistic regimes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hitler killed atheists. The entire German left, not just the communists, were wiped out, either in Germany or in Spain where the remnant of the German left fought against Hitler's proxies in Franco's army. The claim that atheists supported Hitler is false. The fact is, atheists did not support Hitler, and Hitler persecuted atheists. If Satan is the Father of the Lie, Christians who continue to promote this trope are Satan's children.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Marion Delgado:

    'The fact is, atheists did not support Hitler, and Hitler persecuted atheists.'

    This is almost a classic typical religious denial of trying to absolve oneself or to free one's philosophical ideology from guilt or blame or their consequences. Atheists share the same bloodguilt as any other religious entity. You might try reading the life story of Hitler's second in command, Martin Bormann who was an adamant atheist who hated all the churches back then. In fact he became Germany's Führer after Hitler commited suicide.

    Marion Delgado:

    'If Satan is the Father of the Lie, Christians who continue to promote this trope are Satan's children.'

    Do you actually know why he was called the Father of the Lie? Do you actually know what that lie was all about? Both your side and most religions actually practice that lie of self determination whether they admit it or not.

    Marion Delgado:

    "'The entire German left, not just the communists, were wiped out'

    Funny, the Left Communists as you champion them went on after WWII to commit ten times the amount of atrocities as any of their previous Right Counterparts. There were no winners Marion. Mankind has suffered horribly by both the Conventional Religous and new religious Atheists alike.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "We do not have to disprove God. You must prove God. The existence of a theistic deity does not become the default belief by logic simply because it has been around for a long time."

    The existence of a deity isn't the default belief, but atheism is neither. A neutral default belief could be to say "I don't know yet, I'll see where the evidence is pointing."

    The theist doesn't need to _prove_ that god exists, he needs to show that there are better reasons to believe the proposition "There is at least one deity" than "There are no deities".

    "By claiming that something like consciousness is not yet explained by science, and therefore it is the product of a deity, you are helping to reinforce this false science/religion dichotomy. A question's answer is not "God until answered by science." This is elementary logic."

    As I've seen this argument, the conclusion isn't "consciousness is not yet explained by science", but instead "consciousness can not in principle be explained by science." After this conclusion the implication isn't "so therefore goddidit", but instead something like "A universe where consciousness is fundamental explains the existence of conscious experience better than a universe where unconscious material particles are fundamental."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I know this is old, but still...

      Otto said:

      The existence of a deity isn't the default belief, but atheism is neither. A neutral default belief could be to say "I don't know yet, I'll see where the evidence is pointing."


      "I don't know yet" would be an agnostic position. It can't be an alternative to theism / atheism which is about belief or lack thereof. You can be an agnostic theist (I don't know, but I believe) or an agnostic atheist (I don't know but I don't believe)

      There's no escaping the question of what is the default between believing and not believing by misrepresenting what (a)theism means. I mean come on, Leo spent 2 previous posts explaining that. This is so religion debate 101: if you think theism is the default position, then you have to believe in all the unproven mythologies by default too. The only alternative is atheism as a default position. I bet you're an atheist to many more gods that you're a theist to, so ask yourself if atheism is not your default position considering you only believe in one of the myriad of gods out there.

      Otto said:

      The theist doesn't need to _prove_ that god exists, he needs to show that there are better reasons to believe the proposition "There is at least one deity" than "There are no deities"."

      As I've seen this argument, the conclusion isn't "consciousness is not yet explained by science", but instead "consciousness can not in principle be explained by science." After this conclusion the implication isn't "so therefore goddidit", but instead something like "A universe where consciousness is fundamental explains the existence of conscious experience better than a universe where unconscious material particles are fundamental."


      This is in line with what William Lane Craig has been arguing in some debates. But where does the idea of "the best available explanation" come from? Science. Science is open ended in that it never assumes any explanation (theory) is perfect, complete or irrefutable.
      What WLC does here is another example of either the ignorance or dishonesty of these apologists. They take a concept out of context and manipulate it to produce some result. Why is that in this case? Because in science an "explanation" is not only good because it sounds ok. In science a good explanation is a full blown theory. Yes, a theory, and not "just a theory" which is a thorough explanation of the processes, the more it explains the better, and of course must be falsifiable and substantiated by empirical data and observation.

      It's a lame attempt at getting rid of the burden of proof by misusing a scientific term.

      It's actually the line of thought of old politheistic cultures... "Why does the sea go wild sometimes?: The god of the seas gone mad, obviously" the best explanation, right?

      "consciousness can not in principle be explained by science."
      Who says in a thousand years we won't have the knowledge and technology to put together a valid theory for it and test it for validity?
      This argumentation has two problems, you need to make sure science can't do anything about it: science stopper.
      Then misuse a scientific concept to claim you have the best explanation, even though you can't define what that "superconsciousness" is like, how it can create "subconsciousness", when it happened and doesn't even shed any light on how consciousness works at all. Almost forgot: it's completely unfalsifiable.

      It's not that it isn't the best explanation, it's NO EXPLANATION AT ALL because it doesn't tell us anything about how it happened and only adds an infinite level of untouchable complexity to the problem.

      Delete
    3. Otto said:

      "A universe where consciousness is fundamental explains the existence of conscious experience better than a universe where unconscious material particles are fundamental."


      Why base it all on consciousness? Consciousness represents a tiny fraction of what there is in the universe both in time and space. Why not dark matter / energy instead? It's always been there and represents a 96% of the matter & energy of the universe. The universe can and will keep going without us forever for all we know. How is consciousness fundamental for the universe? And how is a universe where dark energy and dark matter are a lot more fundamental is explained going by your logic?

      Delete
    4. One last thing. If the reference to science bothers anyone, I believe even from a logical / philosophical standpoint, the argument for a fundamental consciousness based on the existence of consciousness here is a blatant fallacy of composition

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete