Should Christians Engage in Natural Theology?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2H5dQ84Oc


C Stephen Evans

Hayward Lectures 2012, Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University Nova Scotia.

Lecture 1:

Should Christians engage in Natural Theology?

 And if so, how do we go about it?

God has always called some to defend him: Ancient World. Atheists (rejection of local Gods), superstitious- Miracles, subverters due to social stances. Justin Martyr.

1 Peter 3:15- Give reason- faith is reasonable.

New Atheists: Four Horsemen- Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris.

• -          Distinguishing Factor: Religion is not just wrong but it is dangerous.
• -          None of them have much experience, knowledge or awareness of philosophy of religion.
• -          Some atheists are embarrassed by them.

Dawkins has a novel argument: Designer must be more complex.

• -          But: Divine simplicity.
• -          There is no real reason to believe this premise.

Brash confidence:

• -          They want to write best sellers.
• -          Religion is not just wrong but Ethically and socially harmful.
• -          Questioning the idea of religious tolerance.
• -          Reversal of previous thoughts. Previously, people thought LACK of religious belief was so bad that we should be wary of it. Could be harmful. Now, have we gone full circle?
• -          Baptists stood up for religious freedom in this environment.

So, how should we respond?

• -          Theologians and Biblical Scholars should point out the flows in how they read the Bible in wooden ways.
• -          Plantinga, John Polkinghorne, Collins etc (Recommended) have shown the science and religion are compatible.
• -          Christian doctrine of sin shows that ethical failures of Christians shouldn’t be surprising.
• -          But New Atheist analysis of ethical actions of Christians is one sided. They exaggerate wrongs but don’t give credit where it is due.
• -          Justice, rights and wrongs: Wolsterstorff. Doctrine of human rights stems from Biblical faith and nowadays there is no adequetae replacement for Biblical vision.
• -          Jeffrey Burton Russell: Clearing the air, exposing the myths about Christianity.
• -          Stark: The Victory of Reason. May go too far in answering. Starks analysis may be unbalanced towards the other side! But, makes a convincing historical case- science etc stem from faith, not from some secular ideas. 
• -          Good to point out their weaknesses in social analysis/ethics etc. However, at a basic intellectual level we must show why a reasonable person can believe in Christianity. Failure to clearly articulate this simply plays into the New Atheists’s hands. 
• -          First sin of religious believers in their eyes is not to follow reason.
• -          A central idea of Christianity (and some other faiths) is: God exists.
• -          Response from Christians has been Natural Theology. Eg: Mere Christianity.
• -          Philosophers have done Natural Theology. However, it is not prominent in theology. Some view it with suspicion.
• -          This has given NA’s some ground. They see religious belief as Zero grounds, all faith which means no evidence. Eg: Dawkins at Cambridge.
• -          “Defined themselves into epistemological safe ground”. No public voice makes it appear that no serious case can be made. “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof” (Hitchens).
• -          NA’s are evidentialist in their epistemology.

How to respond?

• -          Attack their epistemology. Eg: Reformed epistemology. Sensus divinitas NOT belief by evidence. That kind of belief in God can be ”Properly basic”. It is a foundational belief. No argument or evidence? That’s ok.
• -          I am sympathetic towards it .Plantinga/Wolsterstorff. It’s simple contentions are correct. But, it shouldn’t be our whole response. To argue that religious belief can be grounded without arguments or evidence is not the same as arguing that there are no good arguments or evidence.
• -          There is both propositional and non propositional evidence.
• -          Views of RE’s can be re stated.
• -          However in simple terms it looks like confirmation of NA claims. Ie: There is no evidence (if we say “religious belief can be grounded without).
• -          2 stage apologetics- One: Reasons why faith in God can be rational THEN two- reasons why revelation rational.
• -          Why NT not prominent amongst protestant theologians?
• -          Perhaps enlightenment views have debilitated NT.
• -          Other reasons: Widespread suspicion that it undermines centrality of revalation.
• -          But NT is revelation too. But, “Special” revelation from General revelation. Karl Barth. I am sympathetic to some of his reasons against NT.
• -          “Transcendence” and above us. We will end up creating God in our own image.
• -          Paul Moser has criticised. NT leads to thin theism. Abstract metaphysical claims. IF there’s a God, he isn’t interested in us knowing propositions, rather he is personal and wants us to know him. Spectator Evidence doesn’t cut the mustard of personal transformation.
• -          (TDE Note: Craig response to evil borrows heavily from this).
• -          We submit to God’s terms not vice versa.

Anti Naturalism

• -          We can accet all of these claims and STILL see value in NT response to New Atheism.
• -          Value can be in “Anti naturalism”.
• -          Imagine not religious believer, what shou;d they think? Is the most reasonable view of our universe, naturalism? “Nature is all there is”? Should reasonabke non believers be atheists? No. There are problems with naturalism. There are difficulties. We reconceive NT as a defense of anti naturalism. Point to aspects of our natural world that point beyond nature. Natural Signs. Points towards a profound mystery. NT articulates questions that a reasonable person ought to ask. Even if N theologians cant adequetyl answer them, NT will point us in the direction of being open to the kinds of Answers that Barth and Moser would like.
• -          I deny that naturalism is the most reasonable view of reality that one can take, even if they aren’t a believer.
• -          Epistemic situation of someone who is confronting the reasonableness of naturalism vs rivals.
• -          Where does burden of proof lie? What kind of evidence would we expect there to be if God exists and wants a relationship with us?

Burden of Proof

• -          Flew’s the presumption of atheism.
• -          They think of God as if he were one more thing in the universe. Eg “We all agree the universe contains dogs, cats, quarks, black holes”. Theist goes beyond this basic common ground. Like believing in the Loch Ness monster.
• -          If this were the case YES believer would have a burden.
• -          It’s about does the universe have a certain character or not? Is there a sustaining power behind it all?
• -          Is there a purpose? Or does everything exist on it’s own? Is the universe one big brute fact among many brute facts??
• -          Theist and naturalist don’t just disagree about God, they disagree about everything.
• -          Atheist mistake: Confuse commitment to naturalism (metaphysical) with commitment to science. But, theists and atheists don’t disagree about scientific facts and data!
• -          Question of naturalism: Is nature all there is?
• -          Science investigates the natural world, but it is not fit to investigate whether there is more than the natural world.
• -          Theist holds that scientific laws hold because of God’s creative activity. Atheist has no explanation. But, ultimately the question of whether there is more is a philosophical question. Like most philosophical question,s this can’t be strictly proven either way. If by prove we mean an argument that no reasonable person could doubt.
• -          God’s existence cnnot be proven. But neither can naturalism. Proof in this sense is an ideal.
• -          What is reasonable is asking which rival worldview makes the most sense?

Evidence

• -          What kind of evidence should we expect to find, if God did exist.
• -          If God is a hypothesis, we should ask what consequences would follow if that hypothesis was true.
• -          Some kind of knowledge would be available and widely available. It would be bizarre if you had to have a phd in philosophy or understand quantum physics to have a knowledge of God. We’d expect it to be fairly pervasive and easy to find.
• -          Christianty theology assumes a certain kind of r’ship: Freely, motivated by God’s goodness not coercion or fear. If God’s existence was too obvious, that would not make sense of this. It would have to be dismissable. Ambigious. Able to be explained away. Easily resistible.
• -          Pascal Pensees quote. Signs seen by those who seek but not by those who deny.
• -          WAP and ERP. Two Pascallian constraints on evidence for God’s existence.

To do NT, we must have three things right:

• 1.       Anti naturalism, rather than positive, complete knowledge of God. It’s goal is to tell us that there’s something beyond the natural world.
• 2.       Burden or proof must be right. No presumption of atheism. All rival worldviews are accountable to reason.
• 3.       Right view of the kind of evidence that it is reasonable to seek.
•  

Questions

Constantly changing evidence. Don’t wanna hitch our wagon to the latest scientific evidence. Eg: If we had to wait until modern physics was finalised to know whether there was a God. Eg: Fine Tuning argument which is based on relatively recent science. There may be value a nd something in these arguments but ultimately We would expect universal aspects of human experience. WAP principle. BUT Can still be “defeater” against WAP. So defeaters must be considered. Defeaters of signs must be considered. My view is that the signs are neither supported by nor threatened by scientific evidence.

NA a fad? Probably not. It has a cultural influence and impact. It’s stretched far. Atheists joining together.

Affecting families? Yes. Need to show not just intellectual but understand the attraction of their writing etc. Stuents with fundamentalist readings or no knowledge or bible can be easy pickings.

Calvinism- no need for apologetics? Do the Pascallian constraints lend themselves to this kind of thinking?

Evidence doesn’t have to be propositional. Signs can have an immediate impact. Sign becomes focus of reflection and we articulate them. That’s where the arguments come from. Don’t impact everybody but always retain appeal.

Common Sense Realism George Marsden. Are you opening yourself up to the dangers that this kind of thinking opened itself up to.

Quotable

Rarely are truer words spoken than these:

The most signal failure of the atheist project is not that it insists on analysing religion in narrowly scientific terms, or that it cherry picks history in support of its case. It is that with its evasions and its incuriosity, its sloppy arguments and its unwillingness to question its own assumptions, it debases the currency of rational inquiry that it so claims to champion.

In doing so, its exponents shoot themselves in the foot while backing the wrong horse. This might make for a diverting YouTube video, but as a basis for public debate it is as empty as the heavens above.

From Here "The Failure of the atheist project" by Angus Macdonald

Those who advocate the extension of marriage to same sex couples have been very strong on the value of equality but almost silent on the nature of marriage they want equal access to. Whereas those who defend marriage as it is currently defined seem unable to say exactly what its value and worth is and why the institution would suffer from extension to same sex couples. A meaningful discussion about the value and purpose of the institution of marriage itself has not taken place.

From Marriage Equality or The Destruction of Difference? by Scruton and Blond


These kinds of issues will inevitably remain vexed. Public opinion decides what is offensive, and public opinion is always changing. Some of today's acceptable comments are tomorrow's taboos and vice versa. So as standards change there will always be those who are out of step with the rest.


- Me, on people taking offense at the comments of others. 

My hope for atheists

Last weekend the Global Atheist Convention rolled into Melbourne. Atheism has become, for at least some atheists, a movement. Increasingly atheists are gathering together in public places, as we've seen with the Washington DC Reason Rally and the Global Atheist Convention. To be fair, the Global Atheist Convention attracted 5,000 people which is reportedly a quarter of the [i]weekly[/i] attendance of [i]one[/i] Australian church so we shouldn't get carried away when talking about the levels of gathering. Nonetheless, it is increasing.

But, what to make of this? One thing that's interesting to note is how far the atheist movement is straying from pure atheism.

On the one hand, atheists like to claim that atheism commits them to nothing. They're just committed to denying the existence of God, or so they like to say. And this is entirely true on one level. But by reading about the atheist convention, and glancing over the twitter accounts of internet atheists and atheist groups, and you would get a vastly different impression!

They love talking about gay marriage and child abuse and terrorism and tax exemptions and AIDS in Africa. It's almost like they're really doing their best to muddy the waters and fool everyone into thinking that being an atheist is about joining a reactionary political movement.

Many thinking atheists do realise that terrorism and wars have more to do with politics, sociology and human nature than they do with religion. They realise that you cannot judge a belief system by it's worst proponents who distort the original message. They realise that churches primarily have a social purpose rather than a profit making intention, and thus cannot be labelled businesses in any meaningful sense, and nor should they be paying income tax.

But then the moronic atheists come along screaming "RELIGION IS EVIL! 9/11 shows the problems with irrational thinking and superstition. Ergo, all religion should be wiped out. Duh! Religions are just money making scams anyway. Pass the plate around and watch them all get RICH! Oh and btw, the important issue of Gay marriage is even more evidence of the problems religion is causing society! Jesus probably didn't even exist so why would anyone follow him!" .... and the calm reflection of the thinking atheists is drowned out amidst the ruckus.

Here are all these people claiming to be rational, evidence based thinkers and they come up with nonsense like this- emotional stupidity, reacting to religion with the very same intolerant irrationalism that they accuse religion of being about.

So in the end there's a tension that's caused by all of this. You've got human nature which encourages people to join social groups. The internet has brought the world together and we're seeing atheists come out of their basements and attend reason rallies and atheist conventions and the like. But, there must be some cognitive dissonance happening when some attendees hear the sorts of comments I wrote above - which seriously, are not too far away from the beliefs of many of those who are attending these atheist events- and then realise how utterly stupid they are. "Hang on, I thought we were supposed to be the rational, clear thinking ones! What's going on here!?".

I hope this will help them realise firstly that no single belief/lack of belief, movement or group has a monopoly on thinking. And secondly, that respectful discussion is better than ridicule. But, that might turn out to be a dream. Still, I can dream, can't I?

The Rally for Nothing in Particular

Larry Taunton wonders what an atheist world would really be like.

Christianity, whatever the faults of its adherents, has a rich intellectual tradition that has a comprehensive view of life. It has given rise to the West as we know it. Our laws, arts, governments, and the very framework of our thought find their meaning in Christianity. Take for example the central premise of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal.”

As Indian philosopher and social reformer Vishal Mangalwadi points out, there is nothing self-evidential about the equality of men.

But in comparison what is atheism and what is it's history?

Atheism, by contrast, has no creed, no principles, no philosophy, and can give no guidance. It is but to have a settled disposition on a single question: is there a God?

As my friend the late atheist and journalist Christopher Hitchens conceded, “atheism is nothing in itself.”

That not withstanding, atheism does have a history—a bad history. By conservative estimates, the twentieth century, an experiment in secular governance, witnessed the deaths of more than 100 million people. That is more than all the religious wars in all previous centuries combined.

It gets worse...

Proponents of a society free from religious influence can point to no nation or civilization that was founded upon atheism that we might call even remotely good. The story of those regimes is well documented and may be summarized in a word—murderous.

What they can point to are secular societies that are still running off of their accumulated Christian capital. But beware. When the fumes in that tank are spent, tyranny cannot be far away.

In his farewell address, George Washington offered a sober warning: “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” This he deduced without the benefit of seeing the twentieth century. The eighteenth, it seems, was enough.

So as the rally for nothingness meets to celebrate, well, nothing in particular, reflect for a moment on the world they would give us. One need not imagine it. It has been done.

Larry Taunton, well said.

In a tweet he posted a day before the reason rally, Taunton issued a challenge.

The Reason Rally's stated purpose is to "promote secular values." Other than no God, I challenge atheists to name one of these "values."

As I've discussed before, it is reasonable to wonder whether there is even such thing as "secular values" or whether secularists are just hijacking values that were imported into modern day culture by Christianity and then claiming those values as their own.

It's also clear that many atheists have a rosy view of atheism and secularism, such that they fail to confront potential logical inferences arising from their own views, instead choosing to promote a version of secularism that is more in line with Christian thought. Julian Baggini is one such example. John Dickson's comment in his brilliant essay on religious violence, that I have quoted before, is worth repeating. In fact Dickson himself recently re-tweeted it.

Only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism.

Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Notes from.....

Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? The Smith Lecture 2011. 

John Dickson. Available at Koorong Bookstores

(Points emphasised by Dickson, or considered by me to be worthy of note, are bolded. Headings organised as Dickson laid out his talk. Quotes are in italics and are generally paraphrased)

Title of the lecture taken from a debate held in 2008.  

Christianity overwhemingly lost both counts- beginning and end of the night. The motion "we would be better off without religion" won convincingly. Christianity was the focus of the debate. Made Dickson realise: Christians used to be criticised as moralistic, self righteous. Now it is becoming just as popular to label Christians as immoral, evil and poisonous. 9/11 played a part, sociologically.

Only 2 groups consider 9/11 to be a purely religious phenomenon:

-Wahabi Islam

- New Atheists

New Atheism makes Christianity their main target. This has affected people and filtered into the common psyche- it has become a far more popular criticism of religion to claim that religion is evil, poisonous and responsible for violence.

1. How Serious this claim is

The religion causes violence argument has shot from top ten, to the number two reason for rejecting Christianity in recent times.

Dickson recounts story from dinner party- successful, self made businessman was convinced that ‘Christianity started most of the wars of history’.

Hitchens quote- Ethical life can be lived without religion. Corollary- Religion has given people permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel keeper/ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. (Paraphrase).

Hitchens Quote- Ireland- Killing and Torturing – simply for membership of another confession. (Paraphrase)

This claim is partly right- as a student of history, confronted with primary sources. Christians HAVE done terrible things in the name of Christ .

Protestant problem, not just Catholic:

-          Luther: 1543 The Jews and their lies. Vile document.

-          Calvin: Pressed for someone’s execution for having wrong view of trinity.

Christians have failed to live up to Christ’s standards. Christians should have no problem admitting this, however, because they are the only ones left who do not hold to the view that we are inherently good, through and through.

2. What is wrong or incomplete about the claim

2.1   Retellings of the evils of Christendom frequently involve gross exaggerations.

DB hart. in Atheist Delusions demonstrates how each era retells the story of the previous era in a way which makes itself look really good, by making the past look really bad in comparison. This happened in the 18^th century with popularisation of the term “Dark Ages”. Enlightenment vs Dark Ages. The tale told by enlightened popularisers is “false in every identifiable detail”. The tale of the birth of the modern world and deliverance from the age of faith to the age of reason has "disappeared from respected academic journals and now principally survives at the level of folklore, intellectual journalism and vulgar legend". This is true, no one refers to "Dark Ages" in academic journals and nor should they.

Examples:

-          Spanish Inquisition. Elizabeth Farrelly “Millions” of secular martyrs.  Fact? 350 years, 6000 deaths. Edward Peters.

-          Nth Ireland 30 year conflict. Lets assume this was entirely religious (a debated point), 30 years, 3,500 people dead. Compare to French Revolution- 1793-94 great terror. 3,500. 1 year fighting for secular liberties vs 30 years warring religious parties.

 Any death in the name of Christ or over theological belief is blasphemy, but the question is: How did these become viewed as the pinnacle of the ferocity of Christianity?

2.2   Misses significant point: The violence of Christendom is dwarfed by the bloodshed of non-religious or irreligious conflicts.  

World War 1- 8 mil. World War 2- 35 million. Neither in any way religious conflicts.  How can anyone say most of the wars or deaths in history were caused by Christianity?

20^th century atheist regimes were not improvements on Christendom:

-        Stalin’s project killed 20 million. 6,000 a week. More in a week than the Spanish Inquisition killed in 350 years. Mao- between 10 and 50 million. Pol Pot was responsible for the deaths of 2 million of the 8 million population.  

-         Atheists respond to the claim that atheism leads to bloodshed with two objections. 1. Stalins atheism was a grand ideology, therefore religious in nature. This is an ingenius avoidance strategy. 2. Stalin’s violence was unrelated to his atheism. Hitler was a vegetarian, after all, this does not mean vegetarianism is responsible for the holocaust. This is disinegenous. To say that Stalin’s ardent conviction that religion is false and regressive was unrelated to his systematic eradication of religion people is taking things too fr. Stretching credulity.

Not saying that Atheism necessarily leads to violence. Both Atheism and Christianity can AND have led to violence. Religion or irreligion isn’t the problem. Problem is human heart in possession of a passion unrestrained: A passion for land, wealth or honour, amongst other things.

3.  Jesus's solution to the Problem

Jesus was relentless in his promotion of humble service and his rejection of the use of power. Luke 6, from the Q Document. Accepted front and centre by all mainstream historical Jesus experts- Love your enemies. Do unto others as you would have others do to you.
 
At most, the criticisms of the New Atheists could only prove that Christians haven’t been Christian enough. Christians admit this.

Dismissing Christianity due to a violent history is a bit like dismissing Johanna Sebastian Bach afer hearing a 5 year old attempt one of his Cello pieces. You have to distinguish between the original composition and it’s sometimes poor performance.
 
All historical Jesus experts agree that Jesus preached the love of enemies, hence, he played a beautiful composition. The solution to Christian evil is not less Christianity but more.

Albert Einstein in a letter to German nationalists: “Honour your master Jesus Christ. Not only in word and song but foremost in your deeds”.

Final concern with this issue, an extension of part 2: The arguments given concede nothing of the great good that Christianity has brought into the Western world.

-   Jerusalem Food Roster in the first year of Christianity.

-     Paul’s Ten Year collection in Turkey, for famine ravaged Judea. First recorded international aid project? 

-    Poverty Roll- 1500 ppl fed every day in an era where the Roman church was still illegal, persecuted and being killed. This made it the largest association in Ancient Rome.  

-    In time of great persecution during the first decade of 4^th century, authorities raided a church, expecting to steal it's treasure (like the banking systems found in Pagan temples). In this small church in Cirta (Libya) they actually found: 16 tunics, 82 dresses, 13 mens shoes, 47 womens shoes, storage room for poor, etc etc.

-    Emperior Julian Augustus (AD 331-363) was an opponent of Christianity, was worried they would “take over the world by the stealth of their good deeds”. In a letter to a Pagan priest, he demanded they institute a welfare system imitating the Christians. “Christian deeds have done the most to increase this atheism*”...”Disgraceful that they support not only their own poor but ours as well. All men see that our people lack aid from us”.  *ie: Christianity. Atheism from emperor’s perspective.

-    Human Rights- Canon Lawyers, working through the New Testament and it’s views on the rights of poor and aliens. This is where our modern HR language first developed.

-     Wilberforce- ended slavery out of his Christian evangelical convictions about men being equal and all made in the image of God.

-      Lord Shaftesbury.

-      Martin Luther King.

-      Desmond Tutu Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

-          “Research and philanthropy in Australia” report - Department of Families, community services and indigenous affairs, 2004. Found that the more religious a person is, the more giving they are.

-     According to 2005 data, 18 of the 22 largest charities in Australia by revenue are Christian.

This does not make Christians better people than atheists. Would not even be going down this path and giving this lecture were it not for the claim that they are worse. CS Lewis: Christians are not better than non Christians, they are just better than they would be without their Christianity.

A mass murderer and Mother Theresa can be Christians. But only 1 is logically compatible with Christianity. Only 1 is inspired by Christianity. Only 1 is continuing to sing the tune that Jesus sung.

Movement of 1 vote in the 2008 debate, towards the Christians. A young man told Dickson he’d changed his mind. Think of the one person you know who is really sincere about their faith, and ask if the world would be better off with or without their faith. He thought of his aunty, and the answer persuaded him. Challenge to spectators: Don’t just accept truisms from culture, instead see if it rings true in the lives of those around you. Challenge to Christians: Be the kind of person that changes minds on this question.

New Atheists ripped to pieces

Vox Day rips some of the New Atheists arguments to shreds in a succint powerpoint display here.

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.