Showing posts with label Naturalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Naturalism. Show all posts
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Naturalism, Questioned.
1. If Naturalism is true, then every event that ever occurs in the universe is a product of, and can in theory be explained by reference to, natural laws and natural forces.
2. Universally across human cultures, in all places and times, people have reported the existence of events that seem to contravene the natural order and have reported experiences that seem to connect them with something beyond the bare, natural state of affairs.
3. If any of these events did contravene the natural order or if any of those experiences did connect someone with anything beyond the bare, natural state of affairs then naturalism is false.
4. It is likely that at least one of these events did contravene natural laws and/or that at least one of the experiences did connect them with something beyond the bare, natural state of affairs.
5. Therefore, it is likely that naturalism is false.
The key premise here is clearly number 4. The whole question is really about whether or not premise 4 is true. The other premises really just exist to explain the situation and provide a sequential framework for making this argument to question naturalism. The basic, undeveloped, intuitive idea on which the step by step argument is based, is this: It seems more likely that some miracles actually happened than it is to say that all of them didn't.
The appendix to this argument would be to list some of the examples of events that have been considered to be miracles and religious experiences. Craig Keener's book Miracles is one very comprehensive example of this.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The Biggest Bubble?
David Marshall made an interesting comment in the latest Apologetics 315 interview:
"I'm not a real big fan of inerrancy, because it's kind of like blowing up a big balloon and then asking the opponent to pop the Bubble, pop the balloon with a pin. Even if the Bible is without error, I wouldn't be a fan of the doctrine because I think it's bad strategy. The materialist, skeptics and atheists, they've blown up the biggest balloon of all and that balloon is materialism. They're saying that not one single miracle has ever happened in the history of the universe. Well I'm sorry but they do happen. And that's another contribution of missions. Working as a missionary in Asia, I found that God did sometimes answer prayer, sometimes the answers changed lives in amazing ways. Now of course there's all kinds of difficulties about proving that, and we can't use the scientific method to test a historical claim, but it's much more fun to make a positive argument for something than to defend against somebody else's attack".
There's two interesting comments here that are worth expanding on so I've highlighted them. One is the nature of historical events. By definition, Historical events happen once. And by definition, Science looks for repeatable patterns. So by mere definition, we can't expect historical events to meet the standards of scientific evidence. Does this mean that we can never have reliable evidence for Historical events? No, clearly not. Not unless you believe documents, writings, archaological findings, eye witness reports and all manner of historical data are all conceptually incapable of providing evidence for something.
The more interesting comment is the first bolded part where Marshall refers to Materialism as "The Biggest Bubble". Marshall is referring to what I call The Problem of Total Denial. To me, this is the single biggest problem for materialism and for naturalism. The problem is this: If they're consistent, Materialists and Naturalists must deny the many reported events and occurences in the world which do not fit into their paradigm. They must take many reports and then either deny that the event happened as it was described, or find a naturalistic explanation for it. I will write about this more in the future as I really want to develop my thinking on the issue. In the books I've read on Philosophy, Apologetics, the Historicity of Jesus etc, this is an issue that doesn't receive nearly enough coverage. It is truly underrated. I'm glad Marshall reminded me of it!
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Natural explanation of religious belief
RJS discusses Natural explanations of religious belief over at Jesus Creed.
This is an interesting topic, and the best discussion I've seen, to date, was by C Stephen Evans in his brilliant book Natural Signs and Knowledge of God.
One alternative angle that Justin Barrett brings to bear on this topic was discussed by RJS:
Theologians offer intellectual ways to reconcile doctrines such as free will and predestination, grace and merit but people will automatically fall into more “natural” ways of thinking. This is true even of many of those theologians when caught off guard. Such natural response can be studied by telling stories with gaps and recording how people fill in the gaps reflexively in real time.
It is fairly common for people to point out that belief is a “natural” phenomenon and to construct ways in which this tendency evolved – and then to assign religious belief as a (fictional) tag-along. My main point it that this conclusion is based on an assumption about the nature of reality. It is not an objective conclusion from the data.
If God is real, and if he created via evolutionary means, we would also expect a “natural” belief for the kind of reason I give in the post.
I would not argue that the naturalness of religion is evidence for the truth of religious belief, but neither is it an argument against the truth of religious belief. A little critical thinking will show that a metaphysical view shapes the choice of conclusion here.
(Boldings mine).
This is an example of how our philosophical presuppositions provide the foundation for how we interpret data. It is imperative to examine not only our own views, but our own presuppositions underlying those very views. In other words, always keeping one eye on the big picture.
This is an interesting topic, and the best discussion I've seen, to date, was by C Stephen Evans in his brilliant book Natural Signs and Knowledge of God.
One alternative angle that Justin Barrett brings to bear on this topic was discussed by RJS:
Theologians offer intellectual ways to reconcile doctrines such as free will and predestination, grace and merit but people will automatically fall into more “natural” ways of thinking. This is true even of many of those theologians when caught off guard. Such natural response can be studied by telling stories with gaps and recording how people fill in the gaps reflexively in real time.
RJS made a comment in response to Scot McKnight which was good:The gap between these two conceptions is theological correctness. Like political correctness, when our intellectual guard is up, we use the ideas we know we are supposed to use; different ideas than those that come naturally. The further ideas deviate from Natural Religion, the harder they are to use reflexively in real-time situations. (p. 326)
It is fairly common for people to point out that belief is a “natural” phenomenon and to construct ways in which this tendency evolved – and then to assign religious belief as a (fictional) tag-along. My main point it that this conclusion is based on an assumption about the nature of reality. It is not an objective conclusion from the data.
If God is real, and if he created via evolutionary means, we would also expect a “natural” belief for the kind of reason I give in the post.
I would not argue that the naturalness of religion is evidence for the truth of religious belief, but neither is it an argument against the truth of religious belief. A little critical thinking will show that a metaphysical view shapes the choice of conclusion here.
(Boldings mine).
This is an example of how our philosophical presuppositions provide the foundation for how we interpret data. It is imperative to examine not only our own views, but our own presuppositions underlying those very views. In other words, always keeping one eye on the big picture.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The Problem with "Universal" Values
Atheists regularly claim that they support "Universal values". This claim is often made in the context of a Christian arguing that they support "Christian values" like love, goodwill and caring for each other. The atheist will reply with something like this: "How dare you claim those as Christian values! I support those values too, and they've been around since before your ridiculous religion even got started". Sound familiar? The implication here is that those values fit just as comfortably within the atheist's way of thinking as they do within the Christian's way of thinking. I would like to challenge that implication.
Here I think we have a problem that we could call the social conditioning problem. We are all conditioned, to some degree by the time and place in which we live, and the influences of our society do impact on the lens with which we view the world. Everyone who lives in a Western Country lives in a location whose heritage has been strongly influenced by Christianity. So atheists have been socially conditioned to accept values that we take for granted in our Western way of thinking, which has historically been influenced by Christianity. In other words, a large part of the reason why the atheist claims that Christian values fit in with their way of thinking is because their way of thinking has been indirectly influenced by...you guessed it, Christianity. Even Richard Dawkins has referred to himself as a "cultural christian". Professor Edwin Judge makes the following comments in an interview entitled Christianity and the 21st Century:
"In Australia, very many of the ideals of the general culture, Australian values so-called, clearly come from that tradition (Edit note- ie: Christian tradition), and what the churches need to do, and what indeed the public needs to do is to inform itself better of the true sources of these things. The matter should be studied historically"
"We stand in this dual heritage from Greece and Israel but people have lost awareness of the sources of it".
"We must make the study of the Biblical tradition available to everybody, not just under church auspices but part of the commitment of our culture as a whole to the historical study of it not as a matter of personal belief but as a matter of explanation for why our values are such as they are. We should not accept that they can be declared, as people do, to be secular values".
He concludes:
"The true source of the value system needs to be clear. Everybody needs to know that, particularly people who have no church connection".
The atheist must account for the origin or basis of their values- do they have a consistent basis within their own worldview for exclusively supporting those values? Christians certainly do. The entire Bible has a consistent theme of putting others first and loving others, right through from the ten commandments to Jesus and through to the writings of Paul in the New Testament (for example see Romans 12: 9-21). When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he replied with the following:
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40).
But what about the atheist? Can the atheist naturalist honestly claim a similar consistent basis for their values within their own view of the world? I'm inclined to agree with John Dickson, who says the following:
if human beings are only accidents in an unknowing universe, how can this choice be anything more than a mere preference, a product of ‘feelings’ as atheist Bertrand Russell famously acknowledged? On what grounds can the atheist speak rationally of the high and equal value of the poor or the weak or the asylum seeker?
Dickson concludes:
only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism.
So do the values of love, compassion and goodwill really fit just as comfortably within the atheist's way of thinking as they do within the Christian's way of thinking? History and common sense would suggest otherwise.
Here I think we have a problem that we could call the social conditioning problem. We are all conditioned, to some degree by the time and place in which we live, and the influences of our society do impact on the lens with which we view the world. Everyone who lives in a Western Country lives in a location whose heritage has been strongly influenced by Christianity. So atheists have been socially conditioned to accept values that we take for granted in our Western way of thinking, which has historically been influenced by Christianity. In other words, a large part of the reason why the atheist claims that Christian values fit in with their way of thinking is because their way of thinking has been indirectly influenced by...you guessed it, Christianity. Even Richard Dawkins has referred to himself as a "cultural christian". Professor Edwin Judge makes the following comments in an interview entitled Christianity and the 21st Century:
"In Australia, very many of the ideals of the general culture, Australian values so-called, clearly come from that tradition (Edit note- ie: Christian tradition), and what the churches need to do, and what indeed the public needs to do is to inform itself better of the true sources of these things. The matter should be studied historically"
"We stand in this dual heritage from Greece and Israel but people have lost awareness of the sources of it".
"We must make the study of the Biblical tradition available to everybody, not just under church auspices but part of the commitment of our culture as a whole to the historical study of it not as a matter of personal belief but as a matter of explanation for why our values are such as they are. We should not accept that they can be declared, as people do, to be secular values".
He concludes:
"The true source of the value system needs to be clear. Everybody needs to know that, particularly people who have no church connection".
The atheist must account for the origin or basis of their values- do they have a consistent basis within their own worldview for exclusively supporting those values? Christians certainly do. The entire Bible has a consistent theme of putting others first and loving others, right through from the ten commandments to Jesus and through to the writings of Paul in the New Testament (for example see Romans 12: 9-21). When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he replied with the following:
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40).
But what about the atheist? Can the atheist naturalist honestly claim a similar consistent basis for their values within their own view of the world? I'm inclined to agree with John Dickson, who says the following:
if human beings are only accidents in an unknowing universe, how can this choice be anything more than a mere preference, a product of ‘feelings’ as atheist Bertrand Russell famously acknowledged? On what grounds can the atheist speak rationally of the high and equal value of the poor or the weak or the asylum seeker?
Dickson concludes:
only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism.
So do the values of love, compassion and goodwill really fit just as comfortably within the atheist's way of thinking as they do within the Christian's way of thinking? History and common sense would suggest otherwise.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
CS Lewis- Cosmic Milk Jugs and Comparative Religion
This morning I've found a couple of CS Lewis quotes which are worth posting. I'd seen both of them before, but they both make you stop and do some serious thinking so I'll post them here.
Firstly, from Victor Reppert's Dangerous Idea , he quotes CS Lewis on comparative religions. I won't paste the whole thing here, but I recommend you check it out. Basically Lewis argues that Christianity and Hinduism are the only two religions worth considering, more or less on the basis that they are the only ones which are all encompassing. I'm not sure what I think of the quote, but I always find it interesting hearing about how different people compare religions. The famous Mortimer J Adler, who converted to Catholicism after being somewhat of an agnostic for most of his life, argued for monotheism- he narrowed the field of play down to the three Abrahamic religions, putting them ahead of the Eastern ones. Unlike Lewis, he wrote Hinduism off alongside Buddhism. Sociologist Rodney Stark wrote a book called Discovering God where he argued for Christianity on the basis that it's the most complex revelation. I haven't read any of those books- Adler or Stark- but I've heard about their approaches and find it all very fascinating.
The Lewis quote came from a book titled God in the Dock, so I found that book and started skimming through on Google Books. It's a collection of essays and letters written by Lewis, mostly very short ones of a few pages each. Looks like it'll have to go on my ever increasing list of books to read. As I was scrolling through it and skimming the various essays I came across this quote, which I've seen quoted a multitude of times on various blogs (perhaps that's because a couple of the blogs I visit are written by CS Lewis affectionado's, and scholars of the Argument from Reason. Or perhaps it's just because Lewis seems to get quoted anywhere and everywhere. Nonetheless I digress....). Here it is:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents -- the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts -- i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy -- are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
Firstly, from Victor Reppert's Dangerous Idea , he quotes CS Lewis on comparative religions. I won't paste the whole thing here, but I recommend you check it out. Basically Lewis argues that Christianity and Hinduism are the only two religions worth considering, more or less on the basis that they are the only ones which are all encompassing. I'm not sure what I think of the quote, but I always find it interesting hearing about how different people compare religions. The famous Mortimer J Adler, who converted to Catholicism after being somewhat of an agnostic for most of his life, argued for monotheism- he narrowed the field of play down to the three Abrahamic religions, putting them ahead of the Eastern ones. Unlike Lewis, he wrote Hinduism off alongside Buddhism. Sociologist Rodney Stark wrote a book called Discovering God where he argued for Christianity on the basis that it's the most complex revelation. I haven't read any of those books- Adler or Stark- but I've heard about their approaches and find it all very fascinating.
The Lewis quote came from a book titled God in the Dock, so I found that book and started skimming through on Google Books. It's a collection of essays and letters written by Lewis, mostly very short ones of a few pages each. Looks like it'll have to go on my ever increasing list of books to read. As I was scrolling through it and skimming the various essays I came across this quote, which I've seen quoted a multitude of times on various blogs (perhaps that's because a couple of the blogs I visit are written by CS Lewis affectionado's, and scholars of the Argument from Reason. Or perhaps it's just because Lewis seems to get quoted anywhere and everywhere. Nonetheless I digress....). Here it is:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents -- the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts -- i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy -- are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Various News and Links- Vox Day, Reppert
I'll round out my first day of this blog by drawing attention to some good recent posts and information on some of the blogs I frequent:
Vox Day answers a readers questions by discussion probablity, the psychology of everyday people and evidence for the supernatural.
I liked this bit- Very astute and accurate perspective:
As for your observation that your fellow secular materialists have become increasingly vainglorious and narrow-minded, I believe it is because they have been misled into a false sense of security by a combination of Christian intellectual sloth and the increasing compartmentalization of Western society. Intelligent, self-satisfied atheists with post-graduate degrees think those who believe in the supernatural are all poorly educated dimwits out to oppress others for the same reason that wealthy, suburban Christians with beautiful families think those who don't believe in God are all miserable gay alcoholics out to commit suicide. Their paths very seldom cross, their assumptions are often confirmed by the extreme examples that come to their attention, and on the rare occasion that the intelligent, highly-educated Christian or the happy, well-adjusted atheist finds himself in the territory of "the other", he's usually going to be inclined to keep his mouth shut about his beliefs in order to avoid unnecessarily rocking the boat. This dynamic can be seen at work even on this blog, as with a few exceptions, the people known with certainty to be atheists tend to be the less intelligent, socially autistic variety, just as on campus the only identifiable Christians tend to be either the genuine saints or annoying evangelizing whackos.
Victor Reppert discusses a major problem for naturalism
I think he understates his case when he asks "isn't this whole thing more probable given theism than it is given ordinary naturalism.". Yes, a lot more probable.
Meanwhile on the forum at Reasonable Faith, posters are discussing a recent talk by Lawrence Krauss given at an Atheist event where he describes the physics of the universe coming from nothing. Upon further inspection, he's talking about Quantum Vacuum Fields and Tunnelling. Now I don't claim to know much at all about basic science much less high level cosmology, but it seems to me that whenever scientists talk about the origins of the universe, they often make a sleight of hand by talking about "nothing". To me, nothing means nothing. No energy, no quantum fields, no vacuum tunnels, no laws operating to activate these things, NOTHING. It seems to me that for our world's top scientists, nothing means.....something very complex.
Vox Day answers a readers questions by discussion probablity, the psychology of everyday people and evidence for the supernatural.
I liked this bit- Very astute and accurate perspective:
As for your observation that your fellow secular materialists have become increasingly vainglorious and narrow-minded, I believe it is because they have been misled into a false sense of security by a combination of Christian intellectual sloth and the increasing compartmentalization of Western society. Intelligent, self-satisfied atheists with post-graduate degrees think those who believe in the supernatural are all poorly educated dimwits out to oppress others for the same reason that wealthy, suburban Christians with beautiful families think those who don't believe in God are all miserable gay alcoholics out to commit suicide. Their paths very seldom cross, their assumptions are often confirmed by the extreme examples that come to their attention, and on the rare occasion that the intelligent, highly-educated Christian or the happy, well-adjusted atheist finds himself in the territory of "the other", he's usually going to be inclined to keep his mouth shut about his beliefs in order to avoid unnecessarily rocking the boat. This dynamic can be seen at work even on this blog, as with a few exceptions, the people known with certainty to be atheists tend to be the less intelligent, socially autistic variety, just as on campus the only identifiable Christians tend to be either the genuine saints or annoying evangelizing whackos.
Victor Reppert discusses a major problem for naturalism
I think he understates his case when he asks "isn't this whole thing more probable given theism than it is given ordinary naturalism.". Yes, a lot more probable.
Meanwhile on the forum at Reasonable Faith, posters are discussing a recent talk by Lawrence Krauss given at an Atheist event where he describes the physics of the universe coming from nothing. Upon further inspection, he's talking about Quantum Vacuum Fields and Tunnelling. Now I don't claim to know much at all about basic science much less high level cosmology, but it seems to me that whenever scientists talk about the origins of the universe, they often make a sleight of hand by talking about "nothing". To me, nothing means nothing. No energy, no quantum fields, no vacuum tunnels, no laws operating to activate these things, NOTHING. It seems to me that for our world's top scientists, nothing means.....something very complex.
In the Australian media- New Atheism
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)