The so-called "New Atheists" have inundated the publishing, speaking and debating world with a vengeance aimed at undermining the role of faith and religion in the public square. But how does their rhetoric match reality or the philosophical issues they claim to take on?
Bob has been blogging at the True Horizon Blog since early 2006. You can find an extensive, searchable archive of posts on numerous topics there. Only critiques and commentaries about the "New Atheists" will appear here.
The “skeptical” materialist Michael Shermer recently offered the following as a description of his atheism:
“There’s no, like, central set of tenets that we adhere to or believe in, or anything like … a Christian or a Jew or whatever. We don’t have anything like that, because there is nothing. It’s just simply we just don’t believe.”*
Shermer’s denial of any adherence to religious belief is instructive in light of the widely heralded claims he and others make about the legitimacy of Christian input to the marketplace of ideas. A “religion,” let us remember, is nothing more than a template by which one understands and responds to the world. Everybody has one. Shermer’s religion is simply informed by a belief that God does not exist. But that assertion does not allow him to escape the fact that he holds to a systematic view of the world. He has simply tried to construct his understanding of ethics, truth and ultimate reality on the non-existence of God. The question is not about who holds religious views. The question is which of those views correspond best with reality.
Acknowledging this materialist religiosity is not just a clever way to make a trivial point – not when we have been trained to believe that legitimate dialogue starts with the tacit acceptance of naturalistic assumptions in any discussion about what really matters. Any view that questions that mindset is categorically dismissed as a matter of personal opinion that need not be taken seriously. It is within such a paradigm that only scientists may offer us “proof.” Our scientific culture ordains scientists as the source of all wisdom and authority.
If Naturalism is true, this all makes sense. If the physical world is all that is real; if every phenomenon must be understood as a consequence of molecules in motion; if material causes are the only kind we are allowed to invoke, it stands to reason that science – the study of the natural world – is the only explanatory game in town. If science holds all truth, our belief in science – scientism – is our greatest hope.
But if science is the only appropriate defender of the Naturalistic worldview, it seems fair to ask how science can analyze things that, under the presuppositions of Naturalism, are not possible even in principle? How do the priests of scientism propose to explain away non-natural realities?
Take for instance the often-repeated declaration that “science has disproved God.” This is an odd claim to say the least. For one thing, it must simultaneously address the mutually exclusive truths that: 1) science is the study of the physical universe and, 2) no credible theist has ever claimed that God is part of the physical universe. This detail seems to be lost on the priests of scientism – especially on those who espouse their disbelief in the deity with a smug wave of the hand and a demand for “evidence.”
They insist that the Christian theist offer acceptable physical evidence for a non-physical entity that the scientific clergy has already dismissed by mere presupposition. Do they not see the circularity in their reasoning? Without it, the entire scaffolding of scientism collapses under the weight of its own criteria for identifying truth.
It is wildly ironic that the priests of scientism seem ignorant of the language of their faith. Science depends on mathematics to make its case. Moreover, this mathematical structure has been described by naturalistic scientists themselves as “an abstract, immutable entity existing outside space and time” that allows for the orderliness and invariant properties we observe in nature. It is “something bordering on the mysterious” that has “an eerily real feel” to it and satisfies “a central criterion of objective existence.”* Stephen Hawking wonders where such characteristics as mathematics, and the laws of physics and chemistry could have originated. Even atheist Bertrand Russell once remarked that mathematics holds both “truth and supreme beauty.”*
Mathematics is the language of science – the vocabulary of those who deny non-physical reality – yet mathematics itself is the combination of numbers and concepts, neither of which are physical but both of which are undeniably real.
It is through mathematics that scientists engage in the quantum metaphysics by which they try to evade the clear causal inference of Big Bang cosmology. They profess that our universe really required no cause at all and that they know this because the otherwise inexplicable degree of fine-tuning in this universe implies that we must just be living among an infinite number of other ones. As cosmologist Max Tegmark has put it, this “idea … seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations.”* Of course, the fact that these alternate universes are, by definition, unobservable is never addressed by those who demand “evidence” from the theist whose “blind faith” is considered a target for their derision.
Agent causation. Life from non-life. Mind from matter. Non-material objective reality. Each of these actualities is part of our common human experience, yet each is foundationally inconsistent with a naturalistic view of the world.
This is not to say that the scientific enterprise is misguided. Far from it. The point is that, on Christian theism, science is understood in context as the rational method whereby we discover and understand the order and majesty of God’s creative work. Seen that way, each of these conundrums vanishes inside the more comprehensive view that nature is not a full description of reality. It turns out that Christianity’s explanatory power far exceeds the naturalistic alternative.
This does not diminish science. It simply acknowledges that materialism’s idolization of science is a futile ritual meant to account for realities the worldview itself denies. “Be patient,” we are told, “science may not have explained these things yet, but it will. Just give it time.” Though meant to persuade, this pious exhortation serves only to confirm the materialist’s religious zeal.
The priests, it seems, also fancy themselves as prophets.
When I flew jets in the military, one of the most important aspects of the briefing we received before any mission we flew was on what we called the Rules of Engagement (ROE). These rules included everything from how we would handle our return to friendly skies, after our excursions into "bad guy" territory, to the kinds of methods we would use to label unidentified aircraft as "friend-or-foe," to the maneuvers, headings, altitudes we would use to properly identify ourselves as being the "good guys," to the kinds of ways we were allowed to engage our opponents.
There are two reasons I bring this up. First, we were the ones who established ROE for operational, safety, and political reasons. ROE made mission planning simpler and more efficient. Because the ROE allowed us to know exactly what our teammates were going to do before they did it, we could literally plan and fly missions including hundreds of airplanes without ever speaking a word to one another on the radios. This was important not only to avoid communication jamming and confusion, but also because it would make those who were not complying with the ROE instantly recognizable as a threat. It also helped us avoid the political ramifications that would come with shooting at the wrong guys (good or bad) in the wrong place or at the wrong time. ROE, in other words, were limits we imposed on ourselves in order to ensure a professional, safe and effective deployment of our assets. Secondly, ROE was a hindrance to us because of our opponents' ability to exploit our civilized engagement with them.
This aspect of ROE is in play today maybe more than ever before. Like the guerrilla war tactics employed by the Viet Cong during the Viet Nam War, today's terrorists know our rules and how they can hide behind them. This is what allows terrorists to shoot at our troops from inside mosques, knowing that our ROE will not allow them to respond.
My point is that ROE are necessary restraints on our own operational freedom that we accept even though we know it allows our opponents to take advantage of us. So what does this have to do with apologetics? As I listened to the Koukl-Shermer debate (transcript here), I realize that ROE is one of the most important points to remember any time you are engaged in a discussion with someone who holds to a naturalistic view of the world. And I am talking about two kinds of ROE.
The first is the general principle we derive from the 1 Peter 3:15 passage all apologists reference to defend the faith. Our apologetic does not just end with making the case; it also includes the admonition to make that case with "gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscious, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."
These are ROE we impose on ourselves for good reason. Greg Koukl has mastered the art of the ambassador in this way. And I was also pleasantly surprised at Michael Shermer's cordiality. It made for a pleasant and helpful exchange that listeners could learn something from.
But there was also a second kind of ROE in play in this debate. It concerns ROE that come into play not just with the issues of morality that were at here, but any time a Naturalist/Darwinist attempts to introduce scientific evidence into the discussion. Let's call it a presuppositional ROE.
There are two definitions of science at work in these types of discussions. One is the definition that we have all been taught since grade school. It is an operational definition that we have come to recognize as The Scientific Method. There is no need to repeat it here, but this definition is helpful in keeping scientific inquiry honest. It demands adherence to rigid guidelines that put boundaries on the ways in which we approach the scientific endeavor. Nothing about this needs to be controversial.
But there is also another definition of science at work. This one is not methodological. It is philosophical. This definition is imposed on the evidence and conclusions we are allowed to draw from that evidence. It is a demand that any explanation we deduce from our practice of the scientific method must, by definition, lead us to a naturalistic cause for whatever phenomenon we are studying. But notice that this definition of science imposes limits on the conclusions we are allowed to draw before we examine the data. This is a definition that cannot be supported by the scientific method. It rests on a belief that only physical causes are valid because agent causation is not an acceptable solution to explain any natural event. It is Scientism: a belief that science is the only way to find answers to our questions, and it is a subset of the Naturalistic worldview.
This is the ROE that allows the Naturalist to claim that "science has disproved God" when science cannot, even in principle, do such a thing. These are the ROE that allow Darwinists to deride Intelligent Design as a "remade neo-creationism" that has no place in a scientific discussion.
The takeaway is that ROE are things we impose on ourselves for noble reasons. What we cannot allow is for an opponent to impose ROE on us for philosophical reasons that serve not to civilize the engagement, but to avoid having it altogether.
Check out this debate between my friend, Frank Turek, of CrossExamined.org and the infamous Christopher Hitchens on the topic: "What Best Explains Reality: Theism or Atheism." I think you will find it fascinating to watch and I will return to comment on it over the next few posts. Enjoy ...
For those who watched the debate video, I want to offer an honest critique: When it comes to the substance of the debate, Frank Turek destroyed Hitchens by offering ample, strong, positive evidence for his case.
Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, was his usual dry, witty, sarcastic self. He offered little, if any, actual evidence for his case and most of what he did offer was either weak or irrelevant. That said, and with the audience reaction and cultural conditioning of those who witnessed it in mind, my assessment is as follows:
Hitchens wins.
It pains me to type those words but I will do my best to explain ... Remember that the topic being debated was "What Best Explains Reality: Theism or Atheism?" If you listened to the debate, you know that Frank Turek, talking in his "150 mph Jersey" delivery, was hard pressed to cram all the supporting facts and evidence into his opening presentation. Because of that delivery, his argument seemed rushed, and several of his points were swamped in the process. A little too much unfamiliar jargon found its way into the presentation and he was forced to skip or skim over some very important points. Frank Turek offered an outline of his argument in the acronym C. O. S. M. O. S. that he said leads us to the conclusion that there must be a "spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, moral, personal, intelligent Creator."Turek's evidence ...
Cosmological Argument: states that, if the universe had a beginning, it must also have a beginner. Events cannot cause themselves to occur. There is ample evidence from: the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the expansion of the universe (discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929), the radiation afterglow from the Big Bang event (discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1978), the seeds of galactic formation in that radiation signature (discovered by COBE in 1992 and verified to 1 part in 100,000), and the unprecedented confirmation of Einstein's General Relativity Theory that has been produced over the last 80 years. Each of these confirms the fact that the universe (all matter, energy, space and time) came into existence at a single instant in the finite past -- and must therefore have been the effect of some powerful cause the resides outside the physical universe.
Order: The enormous fine-tuning we find in the laws of physics, chemistry etc. demonstrate a level of design that is unfathomable to consider and without which life would not be possible anywhere within the universe.
Specified Complexity is the aspect of the information content in DNA that makes it correspond exactly to what we know about messages and the work of intelligent agents.
Moral reality is not an explanation for why we think things are right or wrong, but the recognition that the existence of such a thing as good or evil, right or wrong, cannot be explained apart from the existence of a moral lawgiver who grounds that reality.
Objectivity in the laws of logic, mathematics and science. These are not things that can be avoided or bypassed. These are immaterial realities that we all recognize and are beholden to.
Solitary Life of Jesus of Nazareth and the worldwide impact that he had on generations of people defies explanation apart from the truth of his claims and the historicity of actions -- most notably his self-resurrection.
Each of these serves to undergird the case for theism -- which was the question up for debate. Note that Turek's greatest shortcoming was that the vast amount of information he had to support his case could not be crammed into his 20 minute opening remarks.
In short, Turek suffered from an inability to shoehorn all the evidence he had into his allotted time, even though he greatly accelerated the speed of his delivery to do so. Hitchens, on the other hand, felt no similar sense of urgency to prove his point -- probably because he didn't have one beyond the usual "religion and religious people are evil and do bad things; therefore, God does not exist." He rambled through a few notes, made a few sexual references (he is known for this) and generally treated his disdain for religion and religious people as an argument against the existence of God. He began his opening statement by declaring what he does not believe and what he could not know -- but failed to offer the least bit of evidence for what he did claim to know or believe. He spent most of his time explaining why he did not accept Turek's argument and why we "pattern seeking mammals" felt the need to believe in such a thing as 'god'. In short, Hitchens repeatedly offered different critiques of Turek's case. He refused to give direct answers to direct questions during the Q&A section and he provided absolutely no evidence to support the idea that atheism was a better explanation of reality.
None.
But ... Hitchens was funny. He had quick, hard hitting, one-liners in reply to Turek's comments during the back-and-forth portion of the debate. He had witty (but substance-free) answers to questions from the audience. Many of Turek's attempts at humor fell flat. One of the most telling and uncomfortable moments came (at 74:00 minutes) when Hitchens asked Turek, regarding the spread of Christianity, if it was due to the truth of Christianity itself or the fact that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
"Which, in your view, contributed more to the spread of the faith?"
Turek (after an uncomfortable pause): "Uh ... The Holy Spirit."
Hitchens: "I rest my case."
While Turek's response was theologically correct, the impression it left was that his answer rested on a baseless appeal to a superstitious religion. The audience chuckled.
Unfortunately, this is the kind of unsubstantial "argumentation" that works well in a culture that bases its beliefs in sound bites and video clips while, in many cases, refusing to follow a logical line of reasoning or offering positive evidence to support the ideas it claims to embrace.
We love emotional appeals. We despise moral culpability. We like to laugh. I believe Frank Turek offered not only the best explanation for reality, he was the only one who offered any such explanation in this debate. That said, you could tell by the audience reaction in several places that Hitchens won the crowd. This might be because of the nature of the audience (more hostile to theism than warm) but it is also because of the nature of the culture this audience represents. On that standard, Hitchens won. But I, like Frank Turek, would rather be a winsome, respectable defender of justifiably truthful evidence than merely the guy who won the debate.
