More Atheist-Bashing
by Vlad Todor
Philosopher of science Michael Ruse is quoted on the cover of Alister McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion as saying that Richard Dawkins’ eponymous book made him “embarrassed to be an atheist.” I was reminded of this when I heard of a more recent book ‘answering’ the current secular movement, The Last Superstition, where Dawkins is again taken to task. Why is this preeminent scientist getting so little respect, even from his godless ilk?
The first thing to say about Ruse’s embarrassment is that when you’re used to navigating the labyrinths of philosophical argument nearly every statement that isn’t written in logical notation just isn’t quite good enough. Let’s remember that very intelligent people are being swayed by Dawkins’ apologetic. But it’s quite true that in the trade, or among those who have cut their teeth on philosophy of religion, Dawkins isn’t a worthy standard bearer to follow Bertrand Russell or Antony Flew. Keep in mind, too, that the spokesmen for “New Atheism” are not interested in debating within the University, but without, appealing to a broader public that have otherwise been ignored by the atheist intelligentsia. Their works are, naturally, on a much more accessable level. Four hundred pages of The God Delusion takes as long as reading one hundred pages of Flew.
Nonetheless, even accounting for a different audience, why are Dawkins’ arguments so shallow by comparison? One’s ability to speak intelligently, learnedly, about a subject is directly proportional to the amount of time spent thinking deeply about it. Dawkins is exceptionally good at talking about evolution—he’s spent a lifetime at the cutting edge of theoretical biology. But he has not thought much on religion, despite writing such a popular book about it. His only deliberation has been about how evil religion is and how unscientific. That’s simply not enough. Serious thinking involves working the problem from multiple sides, questioning your own work, and taking others’ arguments at their best. I have no doubt that when he published his many other critically-acclaimed books Professor Dawkins sent proofs to the smartest people he knew that disagreed with him. I don’t think he did so with his atheist manifesto. Even since its publication it seems he has not listened to the criticisms of Oxford colleagues Alister McGrath and John Lennox, nor strictures from within his own camp (see “godless ilk” above).
The upside for those on the side of the angels is that popular atheism has absorbed, as one would expect, only the easiest bits of Dawkins, and the “religion is stupid” argument need not bother them. The downside is that “religion is stupid” is so easy it’s ubiquitous, and this intellectual crutch for those who are atheist irrespective of the arguments can lock the theists into a similarly infantile response. The atheist position can seem so poor, relying on sheer loudness, that the believer comes to think that there is no argument.
The theist can make the same mistake that stumbles Dawkins: not taking the other side seriously. So committed is the believer to his worldview (no more or less than Dawkins) that no credit can be given the opposition without feeling one’s knees buckle, as if every argument not immediately dismissed brings one closer to the precipice of unbelief. This can make for an impoverished faith. There is no weakness in admitting a good argument, and doing so doesn’t mean accepting it as entirely convincing. Instead of stones for stumbling, they can be steps to a more introspective and ultimately more robust theism.
Dawkins’ problem is assuming that there can’t possibly be a reason for thinking any differently than he does. Easy mistake to make.
I realize that I may be falling into the category of people that don't take the "other side seriously", but there are some things about atheists that I flat just don't understand. Why all the discussion? If you don't think God exists, okay. After you give the reason(s) for your non-belief, there is nothing else to talk about, is there? I understand ongoing debate and dialogue between those interested in theology / divinity / religious studies…these subjects can take you just about anywhere for all sorts of reasons .
The only thing atheists have to discuss is:
1. what they don't believe in
2. theists' devotion to "superstitions."
This being the case, they seem to have invented a godless, nonreligious belief system that is every bit as dogmatic and truculent as anything I've seen in the sphere of theism. Okay, I'm rambling…
I realize that I may be falling into the category of people that don't take the "other side seriously", but there are some things about atheists that I flat just don't understand. Why all the discussion? If you don't think God exists, okay. After you give the reason(s) for your non-belief, there is nothing else to talk about, is there? I understand ongoing debate and dialogue between believers, especially those that explore said belief through a study of theology / divinity / religious studies…these subjects can take you just about anywhere for all sorts of reasons .
The only thing atheists have to discuss is:
1. what they don't believe in
2. theists' devotion to "superstitions."
This being the case, they seem to have invented a godless, nonreligious belief system that is every bit as dogmatic and truculent as anything I've seen in the sphere of theism. Okay, I'm rambling…
I think it's more of a rhetorical question, but they evangelize for the same reasons Christians do. In fact, that's what's separating the current atheist movement from those in the past. The previous generation of atheist intellectuals (a)theologized from their ivory towers, confident that religion was slowly going away. The modern atheist apologists are dumbfounded and frightened that it's still here (the seminal works came out after 9/11/2001).
I really like the second to last paragraph. What is faith if it is never tested? Faith is easy to maintain if we place ourselves in a bubble where everything is designed to support our viewpoint. How tempting it can be to do just that when many churches offer opportunities for participation at the church every day/night of the week.
For me, I find the search into all things can temper the less well considered aspects of my spiritual walk while also reinforcing those things that I hold fast to because they are shown to be true no matter how I test them.
Like you say, refusing to step outside the bubble can lead to almost a fear of what consequences there are for a person's faith should they listen to a different opinion.
A strong faith doesn't fear that anything can tear its foundations down. A humble faith delights in the opportunity to discover how it can be refined beyond the imperfection of its own human perception.
IMO.
Some atheists puzzle me. I get a lecture on the irrationality of religion then find I'm being lumped in as a potential David Koresh along with anyone else who once tried to firebomb an abortion clinic. Besides such generalisations being far from academic or rational in themselves, I wonder what the endgame is for atheists trying to push all the moderates and extremists together into a group.
We could construct a dialogue on the parts of public policy and ethics where we agree, and also uniting to proclaim extreme tenets of any philosophy as minorities on the margins rather than representatives of the whole. But they would rather create an environment of antagonism. Although this behaviour isn't limited to the atheist community, see behaviour across religious lines as well.
I really wish that those of us towards the moderate middles could learn to meet there more often to at least work towards goals that we share. I've been disappointed in the past by atheists who share some of my desires for a more equal distribution of social wealth, but are so suspicious of me because of my religion that they won't open up to dialog lest I slip some evangelist material in.
Mind you, for some 'stepping outside the bubble' has meant a crisis of faith, or the end of it. I'm not entirely sure what makes the difference. For some of us it's exhilarating, for other devastating.
Which again is interesting. Because religion isn't going away any time soon. But you'd think that the most rational response to superstition is education, yet it's the missionaries who are going out there to build schools, among other projects.
If it was me on the other side I'd be looking to how we could mobilise our best, brightest, and most loaded to start putting schools in places where others are trying to put Bibles or Qur'ans. Helping the poorer masses out there get an education and make themselves upwardly mobile would be, to me, the best antidote for any fear of the foothold that religion has in the world.
Although China is an interesting counterpoint, where I feel like nationalism is slowly becoming its own sort of religion, and can be well maintained even as the populace receives education.
I have a question…when Antony Flew made it public that he was no longer an atheist, were there "shockwaves" sent throught the atheist intelligentsia? I would think there had to have been, considering so many outspoken athiests relied so heavily on his anti-God arguments. How did Flew's disciples respond when "the world's most notorious atheist" jump ship, especially when he did so based on what seem to be well thought out philosophical and scientific consideration?
I have a question…when Antony Flew made it public that he was no longer an atheist, were there "shockwaves" sent throughout the atheist intelligentsia? I would think there had to have been, considering so many outspoken atheists relied so heavily on his anti-God arguments. How did Flew's disciples respond when "the world's most notorious atheist" jump ship, especially when he did so based on what seem to be well thought out philosophical and scientific consideration? Did they feel "betrayed" for lack of a better term?
Outwardly there was little reaction as far as I can tell. It's not the kind of publicity they would have wanted to encourage, and it was the AP who broke the story. If they said much publicly one likely could not hear it over the din of the theists. I'm looking at the second 2004 volume of Philosophia Christi, and it seems that a number of insiders had already gotten wind of Flew's change of mind, likely as he consulted others about the arguments he was finding convincing and as he was preparing to re-publish his classic text, God and Philosophy. In the introduction of that book (2005) the publisher does a bit of back-pedaling.
Apparently a good portion of them responded by saying his mental capacity has diminished and that other people do his writing for him now.
Conspiracy theories. How ironic.
Exactly…so basically they launched these conspiracy theories in an attempt to cop pleas and save face because their leader, for whatever reason, started paying attention to empirical proof.
Science and religion are not compatible. Religion works on faith, which is belief in things that have no empirical data to support them. The reason science seems to be against religion is because religion tries to compete with science when it should stick to what it is made for.
Science is meant to explain facts about things we know. Religion is meant to explain things we don't know. The problem is when science finds out things that were previously unknown and touched on by religion. Religion becomes very defensive and tries to get into the area of science.
Scientists get upset with religious people because religion tends to make skeptics toward science, and they have plenty of skeptics of their own that use actual facts to support their skepticism.
Religious people get upset with science because science tends to make skeptics toward religion, and most religions have set themselves up so that questioning what they say is essentially evil.
Science has the high ground here though because they use observable reality instead of speculative, subjective, supernatural hope mongering. Religion should just stay out of science altogether.
Clearly you've read Dawkins. Thanks. Apropos of nothing, but I sure wish a version of this argument could be articulated without defining the terms to one's own advantage. How do irreligious people know what my religion is meant to do?
I'd like to see it articulated without such broad (and misleading) generalities; it's not as if 'science' and 'religion' are unified bodies that agree on everything.
I'd have to disagree. What you describe as faith is more accurately credulity. The line of reasoning (if you can call it that) that says I believe just b/c I do. However, that is not what God asks of us. Faith needs to have a basis to truly be called such. When you say to a person, "I have faith in you", it's typically based on some type of track record. Your parents tell you that they will buy you a bike; you have faith that they will b/c of all the previous things they've done. You have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow b/c it did yesterday and the day before that. Faith defined at Hebrews 11:1 is "the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." God is the same way. Again, God wants us to ask questions. He says to "test him out". I was recently reading the book of Deuteronomy and found something very interesting that is fitting here. It says in chapter 11, v. 1-7 . "And you must love Jehovah your God and keep your obligation to him and his statutes and his judicial decisions and his commandments always. 2 And YOU well know today (for [I do] not [address] YOUR sons who have not known and who have not seen the discipline of Jehovah YOUR God, his greatness, his strong hand and his outstretched arm . . . for YOUR eyes were the ones seeing all the great deeds of Jehovah that he did." That passage clearly bears out that God is not a God of "because I said so." Requirements set were based on eye-witness and personal experience.
And while the Bible is not a scientific textbook, it is wholly accurate where it comments on matters of science. For example, in Bible times there were many theories about the shape of the earth and how it was supported. Some thought it was held up by a huge turtle. Others taught that the Titan, Atlas, held it in place. What does the Bible say? “[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing.” It also says about the shape of the earth: “There is One [God] who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.”—Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22. Another instance where the Bible is largely in agreement with modern science is in the handling of disease. Of course, in the days when the Bible was written the medicines that are available today were unknown. But within the limitations of the times, God’s Word protected his worshipers from the worst effects of sickness. In the days of Moses, for example, leprosy was a serious threat. The Bible gives detailed instructions that many modern doctors would agree with about how to quarantine someone suspected of having leprosy, and so keep the rest of the nation clean. (Leviticus 13:1–14:57) In fact this part of the Bible contains many laws about cleanliness that suggest a knowledge of sanitary principles far in advance of that early time. This, of course, is what we would expect when we remember that it was God who gave them these laws.
In addition, the sweeping statement "religious people get so upset" is a pretty broad generalization. That's like when people ask me ,"what do Black people think about Subject X." Just as I can't speak for all Black people, nor can someone make the assumption that "religious people" react a certain way. I firmly believe, that if you truly have faith and not just a religion (which let's face it, for the vast majority is no more than a label they inherited), there's no need to get upset. One is only afraid of questions when he/she does not know the answers or where to find them.
Hello from Russia!
Can I quote a post in your blog with the link to you?
I can make a general statement about the majority of religious people. For example, approximately 2/3 of Christians in the US do not believe in evolution. I can paint with a broad brush there.
As for the accuracy of the Bible, should we talk about previous positions taken based on the Bible that are completely congruent with the words? How about we talk about a flat earth, a geocentric universe, interracial marriage, and now evolution. What happens when abiogenesis gets better support, or when people get intelligent enough to understand how the universe can be created out of nothing with the current knowledge that the energy of the universe is a net zero.
Religion is always shown to be on the wrong side of reality when it comes to science. There is no reason to believe that will ever change.
I'd like you to point out the scriptures to me that support a flat earth, geocentric universe, or problems with interracial marriage. I think the problem is not with the Bible and what it says. Rather, the problem comes from widespread misapplication.
I knew we needed some Christian-bashing to balance out the atheist-bashing!
Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;
There is no mountain high enough to see the entire world.
Daniel 4:10-11
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
Again, there is no way to have a tree tall enough to be seen to the end of the whole earth.
Job 28:24
For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.
Where are the ends of the earth?
Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
Makes no sense if the earth was spherical. Only makes sense if it is a flat circle. There are dozens of scriptures that make no sense unless they are talking about a flat earth. The dozens of places where it speaks of the 4 corners of the earth for example. It makes no sense except to understand that until the 4th century BC, everyone thought the earth was flat, and a spherical earth wasn't even fully believed until Columbus' time. It only makes sense if the Bible was written by bronze aged people, not a god.
1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.
Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."
These last three are where Christians got the geocentric universe from.
As for the interracial marriage thing, I think that the Bible never did say that mixing races was wrong, It isn't what I perceive the bible to say, it is the fact that the Bible is used to justify such things. People that would now say the bible says slavery was wrong don't accept the places where it condones slavery.
If you want to claim that certain phrases in the Bible were not in fact metaphors you need to demonstrate that by recourse to the language and culture, not your intuition about what was and was not metaphor. In any case, even today we talk about sunrise, even though we know full well it is apparent motion only. By your logic, people investigating our culture 1000 years from now would think we had a geocentric view of the universe.
Believers may well assume too much, but so do you.
It is well accepted that until 330 BC, nobody understood the earth to be spherical. In order to take the bible seriously, we would have to believe that historians are all wrong, just on this one issue. Furthermore, the tree that could be seen all over the earth because it was so tall and the mountain that is high enough that you can see the whole earth? These are not metaphors, they are bronze age people making statements about things that can't happen. We know the earth is a sphere now, and there is nobody claiming that if you went high enough you could see the entire earth, not even in metaphor. If it were merely metaphor, you would think that at least once there would be evidence of a claim of the earth being spherical. It is just silly to believe it's a metaphor, and you will never accept it because you have an emotional attachment to your belief system.
Was all the talk of killing all men and keeping all virgins for yourselves a metaphor too, or does God condone sex slaves? You will never find any evidence that the Jews ever believed in a spherical earth prior to 330 BC.
Please read more carefully. I won't bother going back over terrain I already covered. And I think you have an emotional attachment to your belief system, too. Wow, what a great argument I just made.
Well, you haven't just covered anything. Maybe you should read more carefully. If you are talking about your totally unfounded statement about sunrise and sunset, I figured I would not make you look foolish by bringing up the fact that there is plenty of evidence that we do not believe the sun revolves the earth, and very little that says we do.
Maybe you're talking about your other post where you misinterpret chuwgh or chugh. If that is the the case, you are still wrong, and I replied to it.
If you made some profound statement that I didn't see, you may need to point it out. Otherwise, I can only assume that you are overlooking an entire forest of evidence and holding on to a single tree.
Are you seriously claiming that I said that we do believe the sun revolves around the earth? I think something got lost on translation.
And yet you somehow overlook the references to the "circle" of the earth (Hebrew chugh, translation sphere) that ARE MENTIONED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. So if we say things only b/c they are in the Bible, what did people who lived at times that the Bible was penned refer to for language and phraseology? That's an asinine conclusion.
Unfortunately you have it wrong. It literally means either circle or to encompass. To encompass doesn't apply to the shape of the earth since the earth does not encompass anything, so circle is the only thing it can mean. The ancient Jews were surrounded by the Egyptians to the south, and the Babylonians to the north, and both believed in a flat earth. In fact the Egyptians believed the earth was square. On top of it, the passage in Isaiah says he spreads out the heavens like a tent. A tent does not rest on a sphere, but it could cover a circle.
All things can be explained rather simply as a bronze age writer of the bible making bronze age mistakes.
I should have given reference for my comment.
From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the definition of Chuwg:
1. circle, circuit, compass
2. (BDB) vault (of the heavens)
Neither of which suggests spherical.
Just a quick note about this…I've done very little research, but I'm wondering: is there even a Hebrew or Aramaic word for "sphere"? There is "duwr" which is translated "ball" in Isaiah 22:18 but Strong's doesn't include sphere in the scope of its definitions either. I can't help but wonder what word an ancient Jew might have used upon seeing a large spherical object. That having been said, though, I don't know that anyone here is suggesting the ancient Jews believed in a spherical earth, only that The Bible isn't contradicting science in this case. The Jews probably didn't believe that certain insects, dead bodies and contaminated water carried diseases; they just followed the law as stated at Leviticus 11 and were protected. These weren't intended as scientific statements, but the science and research that spelled out the benefits of this behavior came thousands of years later.
Yes, the 'circle of the earth' thing doesn't really tell us anything. I don't know what word would have been used, or appropriated, for a spherical earth, but I wouldn't expect to see that anymore than I would expect the Hebrew Bible to describe the structure of the atom.
No, you stated that in 1000 years people may think that we thought the sun revolved around the earth. I was talking about why that is not a good analogy since there is much more evidence that we don't believe that than we do.
First, how do you know how much evidence would survive of this culture? Summon some intellectual integrity and don't tip the scales in your favor at each opportunity. My point was that even today we use metaphors that "contradict" science.
Again, if you wish to dismiss these 'non-metaphors,' it must be by recourse to the original languages and culture, not your vehement insistence on my emotions and foolishness.
I absolutely take into account the original language and culture. The fact is, the original culture believed in a flat earth. The language clearly shows that. I know confirmation bias plays well with believers, but it is by no means a way to look at evidence.
One of the most useful looks at how ancient Jews looked at the world is the book of 1 Enoch. Although non-canonical except for in Ethiopian Orthodoxy, it is possible to see exactly how the world was viewed by contemporary Jews.
"I went to the extreme ends of the earth and saw there huge beasts, each different from the other and different birds (also) differing from one another in appearance, beauty, and voice. And to the east of those beasts, I saw the ultimate ends of the earth which rests on the heaven. And the gates of heaven were open, and I saw how the stars of heaven come out…(1 Enoch 33:1-2)"
"I went in the direction of the north, to the extreme ends of the earth, and there at the extreme end of the whole world I saw a great and glorious seat. There (also) I saw three open gates of heaven; when it blows cold, hail, frost, snow, dew, and rain, through each one of the (gates) the winds proceed in the northwesterly direction (1 Enoch 34:1-2)."
It is clear that he believed that at the ends of the earth, the dome of heaven touched the earth. This is entirely in concordance with the bible.
It is clearly not metaphor that they believed the earth was flat, but the contrary is abundantly obvious.
If you look at the evidence objectively, without bias toward an unerring biblical text, you can see the obviousness of my point. You would never look at any other ancient text with similar evidence and say the people who wrote it didn't believe the earth was flat. There is only one reason you would believe that about the Bible though.
By saying "the language clearly shows that" you are begging the question. 1 Enoch is apocalyptic, and has little bearing on the point, even if it were canonical.
In any case, if you would be the least bit interested in communication rather than tired and well-worn apologetic, you would see that the issue I raised was a broad one of metaphor in the Bible, not flat-earth geocenticism in particular. You have done nothing to address the linguistic question of metaphor.
Thanks for the obviousness of your points, but we're far passed the article, which, incidentally, you would be well-advised to consider.