On Monday, Dr Dvir Abramovich published an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, amongst other places (Fairfax associated papers) where he argued against the New Atheism. His article has copped a raft of criticism, including an article in The Age yesterday by James Richmond. On another blog, I summarised the article as follows:
The general thrust (edit note: of the article) being that New Atheists are a bunch of hypocrites.That, I believe, would probably be the best way to summarise his point. Although, the article aimed to cover a lot of bases and so I'll happily concede that many rational people could have a different take on it.
By hypocrites, I mean the following: Dawkins chides fundamentalists, while at the same time showing himself to be a vitriolic fundamentalist, albeit of a different stripe. Dawkins also berates Evangelical Christians for ignoring the evidence surrounding evolution, but then he shows that he's completely ignorant of history, and hasn't a clue about theology or philosophy. In fact, ignorant is probably a relatively complementary term to describe his historical exploits, when you consider how his shockingly errant blunders have been shown in some detail. And on philosophy, his philosophical prowess has not only been questioned by Christians like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig, but it's also been discussed in VERY negative terms by atheists like Julian Baggini, Michael Ruse, Thomas Nagel and many more.
In a roundabout way, Abramovich aimed to show that the fundy new atheists are short sighted and can't see any point of view outside their own limited worldview. And I agree.
Here's a link to Abramovich's controversial piece.
I jotted down my thoughts in response and was dismayed to discover that there's a 300 word limit on comments! However, I posted the majority of it in smaller chunks. Here's my original thoughts:
This thoughtful article was a pleasure to read. I have a feeling I would have an interesting conversation with the author if we ever sat down for a coffee. Although I’m sure we’d still find a lot of disagreement, it’s clear he has a bright intellect and a questioning mind. Which is more than I can say for many of his readers, if the comments above me are any indication. It always amazes me how a scroll through blog comments on any religion related issue will always reveal so many militant secularists, who, despite proclaiming their own worldview on the basis of rationality, interestingly end up revealing the bitter irony that they are capable of such gross irrationality. Likewise, the regularity with which people show a knack for revealing ignorance beyond measure, straight after revealing their allegiance for the worldview that claims to be informed, really is quite sad.
I must disclose my partiality to the views put forward in this article. I find the worldview put forward by Hitchens and Dawkins to be a kind of non starter. It seems to lack the capability of answering some of the most basic questions of life. For me personally, explanatory power is something unavoidable. And naturalistic atheism (NA) provides none. I’ve never heard a coherent NA response to why I would consider them more valuable than a mouse, or a grain of sand. This is a serious question btw. I’m not making this up. To the NA readers out there, please, explain to me why I should consider YOU to be intrinsically or inherently valuable. Under NA, you are simply a bunch of atoms and molecules, and are therefore just as objectively valuable as the leaves on the trees in your back yard. So’s your spouse or significant other. Many have written this off as mere intuition, which is fine, but it seems a rather strong intuition to me. That is, I’d have to deny some of my VERY strong intuitions to even consider entertaining the NA worldview. Something about the human experiences of love and compassion and beauty suggest to me that, although humans may be physically made up of atoms and molecules, there is in fact more to us. And similarly whilst the universe is made up of atoms and molecules, there’s more to it than that.
The same applies when you consider the issue of morality. Under the NA worldview, there’s absolutely no objective reason to avoid evil. Imagine you had the chance to do something seriously evil, like rape someone for example, and this act would provide you with something very good (for example, a hot sexual encounter with a very attractive female). Now imagine you were 99% sure you’d never get caught out for doing this act (whatever it may be). NA provides absolutely no reason not to do it! NA basically reduces morals to the realm of the subjective- When you really break it down, choosing whether act X is wrong or right is really like choosing whether you want broccoli or carrots for your dinner. Again, feel free to write off this intuitive philosophical rubbish, but I can’t help thinking that there IS something inherently wrong with, for example, murdering or eating children.
There’s numerous other reasons to avoid taking up the worldview posited by Hitchens and Dawkins, but I’ve outlined some of of the strongest- ie: The denial of my basic intuitions.
I always find plenty of other food for fascinating thought when considering issues like this. NA’s generally love talking up the wonders of science, yet their worldview provides no reason for actually trusting science in the first place. The capabilities of the scientific method and the existence of an intelligible, mathematical universe are simply taken on faith- despite the arguable vast improbability of both! And yet, without fail, Dawkins will carry on about faith AD NAUSEUM as if it’s a concept which belongs only in the religious domain. What utter double standards, and what complete rubbish. No, in the end I’m inclined to agree with Richard Swinburne, who said: “I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains”. Yes, it seems that the very being NA’s despise so much is, in fact, the best known explanation for the thing NA’s love so much.
I was just about to post my comment when I found this gem from Alex of Melbourne @ 3:45pm, and so I’ll just quote this as an example of the ignorance of those who claim to hold the informed worldview of atheism:
“I'll happily point out that most of the philanthropy in the world is motivated by atheists, despite making up a small proportion of the population.”
That barely deserves a response other than ridicule, does it? Truthfully it doesn’t, but I’ll reply anyway. CS Lewis once said that good philosophy is needed because bad philosophy needs to be answered, and something analogous must surely be applicable here.
Shame on you, Alex from Melbourne. I pity you for your ignorance, and/or for the gullibility with which you’ve allowed yourself to be so easily misled. Go do some research. Your statement could literally not be further from the truth. Study after study after study has shown that religious believers are FAR more philanthropic with both time AND money than atheists, even when religious related giving is taken out of the equation. Not only that, but the vast majority of charitable organizations in the world were either A. Started by religious people and remain religiously affiliated somehow or B. Were started by religious people but have since become officially secular in the name of political correctness. I add that last category as there are some major international organisations who are in that boat.
[I had to add that last bit, simply because I was flabbergasted that someone would be ignorant enough to actually say that. Where did he get it from? Do people just make this stuff up?]
The Saga Continues
As I said, the saga continued with James Richmond writing an article titled "Atheists are good humans too" for The Age in Melbourne. Click here. Again I penned a response. But time constraints (and a knowledge of the fairfax 300 word limit!) meant that I confined myself to 300 words:
As a Christian, I happily concede that James’s article is well written and generally coherent, and that he has effectively countered many of Dr. Abramovich's points. However, there’s a couple of issues that need to be taken up.
Regarding morality, Jimbob is correct in pointing out the bigger issue underpinning James's discussion. If you are an atheist naturalist (AN), there's actually no such thing as objective evil. When you think through the AN worldview and it's logical consequences, you'll quickly realise that choosing between moral act X and moral act Y is as subjective as choosing between ice cream and yoghurt. It's ultimately of no consequence, other than whatever ramifications you may face for choosing whichever course of action suits you. To me, this undermines the credibility of the AN worldview because it undermines my deepest intuitions.
Secondly, James goes to pains to argue that the brain is purely the product of natural selection. There's a problem though. Natural selection, under AN, is part of a causally closed system of atoms and molecules. Yet, the scientific enterprise itself actually requires the existence of rational inference, and previously uncaused causation between mental events. In other words the mere existence of science undermines the idea that everything is physically causally closed. It seems to me that firstly, John Lennox was right when he suggested that all attempts to derive rationality from irrationality (or non-rationality) are ultimately doomed to fail and that secondly, CS Lewis (in Miracles) was correct in arguing that the AN worldview refutes itself. It cuts off the branches it claims to be sitting on.
The atheist naturalist worldview promoted by James in this article is both highly counter intuitive and logically self refuting. Hence, it should be rejected.
No comments:
Post a Comment