Thinking Christian

Kate Muir, writing in The Times (London) positively fawns over Richard Dawkins, as he is releasing his new three-part series Dawkins on Darwin on British TV. I fairly fell over when I read this—even though I was sitting down:

In these barren, thoughtless times, Dawkins gives people something substantial to chew on.

[Link: Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup - Times Online]

Something substantial to chew on? Hardly. In The God Delusion he doesn’t address—doesn’t even demonstrate awareness of—genuine theistic scholarship. Instead he serves up for himself easy, empty arguments about a vaporous version of God that he himself invented. Then, having savored and swallowed them, he burps them back up, pronounces himself satisfied, and expects us all to feel the same. Challenged on his utter avoidance of opposing scholarship (here, for example), he takes up P.Z. Myers’s “Courtier’s Reply” and insists it would be silly to give genuine theistic thinking any more attention than he has.

Is this indeed a corrective for barren, thoughtless times? I think not. There are better assessments out there; this one, for example, from Not Even Modern:

I think I mentioned the [Courtier's Reply] argument before. I detest it, because it is basically a license to intellectual laziness….

The “Courtier’s reply” move is astonishingly poor, to the extent that it’s baffling that Dawkins is actually using it. As it is, it is equally open to rhetorical deployment by Creationists (why read anything about biological evolution, as it’s nonsense anyway?), Flat Earthers, and so on. I really think there’s a hubris thing going on here. To wade into an area which has more than two thousand years of extremely bright believers making cautious and complex arguments and extremely bright disbelievers making equally cautious and complex arguments, and to think all one has to do is to ignore all that and point out the emperor is naked, one needs a pretty high opinion of oneself.

In a similar vein, David Heddle says,

The Courtier’s Reply is license to wallow in ignorance–in fact it justifies, rationalizes, condones, encourages, celebrates, and rewards ignorance, simply by declaring the subject at hand (theology) is not worthy of study. I see that as laziness, not brilliance.

In a masterpiece of oblivious self-parody, Dawkins himself, in his interview with the Times, explains the problem with the Courtier’s Reply. The topic is different but the principle is the same:

“I don’t like giving [Darwin skeptics] the oxygen of respectability, the feeling that if they’re up on a platform debating with a scientist, there must be real disagreement. One side of the debate is wholly ignorant. It would be as though you knew nothing of physics and were passionately arguing against Einstein’s theory of relativity.”

Knowing nothing of real theology, yet being quite content in his ignorance, nevertheless he passionately argues against God.

Such intellectual laziness is apparently all too fitting for our day. Consider this from Karen Muir in the same Times article:

For final proof that Dawkins, rather than God, is everywhere, you need only to have seen the most recent series of Doctor Who, in which Dawkins played a cameo as himself.

Need I spell it out? Am I being ungracious, or does that not speak for itself of “these barren, thoughtless times”?

Now, I will grant her points for this nifty bit of verbiage: “slaps creationists into the primordial soup.” That’s a real nice piece of imagery. We writers congratulate ourselves when we come up with lines like that. It’s a fine example of her own graciousness, too….

Hat Tip: Barry Carey, Al Mohler

“You’re really just about as atheistic as I am,” says the debater to the Christian. “The non-Christian religions believe in maybe fourteen million different gods. You’re atheistic about all those fourteen million. I’m atheistic about fourteen million and one. What’s the big deal difference?”

The question has a certain zing to it. What indeed is the big deal difference? Think of it in percentage terms–what’s one in fourteen million? I call it the Arithmetical Atheism Argument. (If it has another name I’m not aware of it.) I’ve heard this question from at least from at least half a dozen sources, including Dr. Bill Cooke in the Craig-Cooke debate. As I recall, the crowd laughed when he asked it. It’s the kind of cute question that makes people chuckle. Phrased the way it is, it’s rather an interesting puzzler.

Phrased the way it is, that is. It reminds me of another question with a similar zing to it, one that bothered me a bit when I first heard it: “Why does a mirror reverse left-and-right but not up-and-down?” That’s kind of a tough one, you know. How does it know the difference?

The answer to the question is that it’s the wrong question. It misdirects you entirely. My son is an amateur magician, and from him I’ve learned the importance of misdirection in magic tricks: get the audience’s eyes off of what’s really going on, and you can fool them every time.

The mirror question is worded to get your mind off of what’s really going on. Why does a mirror reverse things one way and not another? Well, it doesn’t reverse either way. It doesn’t reverse anything at all! It reflects what it’s shown. Take a book to the mirror, and you’ll undoubtedly see the letters appearing reversed left-and-right; but that’s just because of the way we usually hold books. You could have turned it toward the mirror by flipping it top to bottom instead. Then the letters would be in their perfectly normal left-to-right order, but they would be reversed up-and-down instead.

The atheist’s question here does a similar thing: it misdirects the argument, in two ways. First, there is the misdirection employed in the word “atheistic.” The question tries to get you to nodding your head, agreeing that you’re an atheist about fourteen million different gods. Don’t fall for it; don’t nod your head. If you’re a Christian you are not atheistic about any gods, because you are not atheistic at all. Atheism is not, “I don’t agree with this or that particular idea of God.” It is, “I believe there is no God.” If you accept the premise that your questioner and you are both atheists, only in different degrees, you’re falling for the misdirection: you’re failing to see what’s really going on.

Second, it misdirects through trying to make the question about arithmetic. What, indeed, is the big deal difference in the ratio of one to fourteen million? Well, it’s not a matter of quantity in the first place. Theists view the universe in one way, and atheists another. Theists view it as an intentionally caused creation, the product of a personal mind, having a purpose and goal, an intended reason for existing, and much more of the sort. Atheists accept none of that. This is not a matter of number; it is an absolute difference in what we take to be the essence or quality of what exists.

Here’s a rule of reasoning that applies to the mirror question, the arithmetical argument, and many other similar puzzles, I’m sure, like the famous algebraic proof that 1=2. Count on it: the cuter an argument is, the more likely it is there’s a trick in it, a misdirection. Take a good look at the question: is there something in there leading your mind away from what’s really going on?

The Arithmetical Atheism Argument is a prime example of misdirection.

I gave this 30 minute talk at Colonial Harbor in York County, Virginia on June 15, 2008. The point is simple: Jesus Christ is the most awesome person of history. To be specific: people in all times since he walked this earth have had to deal with him. Many have tried to mold him into an image that fit their desires, or felt comfortable to them. He has always been uniquely who he has been, however. Never, no matter what the pressure applied to him, did he conform to what others wished he would be, for he knew his identity and his mission. And yet in spite of this solid stature, he always served others.

July 6, 2008 note: I’ve updated this talk on another blog entry.

One of the podcasts I enjoy listening to is the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, a science-oriented, religiously skeptical discussion conducted out of the New England Skeptical Society. The shows run long, so I can’t listen to all of them, but I’ve heard a couple of them, featuring Michael Shermer and John Rennie. You can learn a lot of science and unlearn a lot of myth from these discussions.

When they wander onto religious territory, however, their skepticism tends to take a strange turn. I have noted in the past that Michael Shermer’s skepticism does not range as far as it ought. His magazine, The Skeptical Inquirer, approvingly cited a discredited article purporting to show that Christianity has negative social effects. He would have done well to treat that study with more caution.

In an article in current Touchstone magazine, titled ”The Skeptical Inquirer,” Edward Tingley takes this question of self-proclaimed skeptics’ skepticism to a far broader and deeper level. The article’s subtitle tells more than the title: it is, If Only Atheists Were the Skeptics They Think They Are. Tingley, a philosopher at Augustine College in Ottawa, launches a strong counter-assault on what he considers an erroneous conception: that today’s atheists and agnostics are the virtuous thinkers who never jump to conclusions ahead of the evidence.

He begins provocatively:

Unbelievers think that skepticism is their special virtue, the key virtue believers lack. Bolstered by bestselling authors, they see the skeptical and scientific mind as muscular thinking, which the believer has failed to develop. He could bulk up if he wished to, by thinking like a scientist, and wind up at the “agnosticism” of a Dawkins or the atheism of a Dennett—but that is just what he doesn’t want, so at every threat to his commitments he shuns science.

That story is almost exactly the opposite of the truth.

He continues in that tone for a few paragraphs, and then moves into providing real support for his claims. It’s drawn primarily from Blaise Pascal:

There are skeptical theists; Pascal was one….

“I have wished a hundred times over that, if there is a God supporting nature, [nature] should unequivocally proclaim him, and that, if the signs in nature are deceptive, she should suppress them altogether”—but nature prefers to tease, so she “presents to me nothing which is not a matter of doubt” (429). “We desire truth and find in ourselves nothing but uncertainty” (401). “We are . . . incapable of knowing . . . whether he is” (418). This is where the modern person usually starts in his assault on the question, Is God real or imaginary?

This is base camp, above the tree-line of convincing reasons and knock-down arguments, at the far edge of things we can kick and see, and it is all uphill from here. Thus, it is astounding how many Dawkinses and Dennetts, undecideds and skeptical nay-sayers—that sea of “progressive” folk who claim to “think critically” about religion and either “take theism on” or claim they are “still looking”—who have not reached the year 1660 in their thinking. They almost never pay attention to what the skeptic Pascal said about this enquiry.

Could it be that it is the atheists and agnostics who have rushed to judgment? Have they missed 350 years (or more) of good thinking on the question of God? In what ways was Pascal a model skeptic? He recognized–did not shrink back from–our inability to judge the existence of God by our senses. Translated: our inability to judge the existence of God through science. The modern atheist says, “well, then, there’s no scientific evidence for God; thus there’s no God.” Tingley suspects more than a little of a rush to judgment in there! For Pascal,

There is still the reasoning of the heart.

The scientist Pascal claims to know a route that will take us over the ice to convincing discovery. It is the refusal to test his thinking that betrays the faith of atheists and agnostics.

No no, they will say, point to something material on which to base belief and then I will look at it. “Give us solid evidence!” They insist that every belief about reality must be accepted on the basis of evidence (“experience or logic”). On what basis do they accept that? Evidence? But there is none.

There is no evidence, that is, for the idea that every belief must be accepted on the basis of “experience or logic.”

But atheists and agnostics pick. They commit in the absence of evidence.

I have quoted enough here. The argument is Tingley’s not mine, so I will borrow no more of it. Don’t evaluate it, please, on the basis of these short excerpts; I present them here merely to stimulate you to go to the source and read it for yourself. Then we can talk about it here.

Related: “Though It Is Not Impossible To See God…”
and Evidence of the Heart: The Sense of God

Well, finally I’ve seen it. I loved it. It was entertaining, it was motivating, it was interesting, at times it was moving. That’s my short reaction.

From there, though, I’m going to say what I wish many others writing about this movie would say: I’m too engaged in it to try to write an objective review, so I’m not going to try. I have something to say, but we all know it’s coming from my acknowledged position as someone who supports Expelled’s general thesis. (This is not the time for me to support my position, by the way. I’ve done that before, I’ll do it again, but not now.)

First, I can easily tell why some people didn’t like it. If you disagree strongly with its thesis, you’re going to hate the film. Nothing else could be expected. Reviews by anti-ID writers claiming to be objective, and especially on the anti-ID blogs, need to be taken with a large grain of salt. (Reviews by anti-ID writers who haven’t even even seen the film will have to be swallowed with an entire salt-lick–or better yet, not ingested at all.)

Second, the Darwin-to-Nazism connection was not over-stated. Historical facts are historical facts.

Third, I appreciate the way some evolutionary scientists are recorded on film speaking the truth. Michael Ruse and Richard Dawkins said they don’t have a clue (well, Ruse has a clue, but not a very good one) how life originated. Will Provine said evolution means life is meaningless and free will does not exist. P.Z. Myers said one of his purposes as a scientist is to eliminate religion. This is not news to anyone who has been participating in this debate, but it will be to a lot of other viewers.

Fourth, I’m surprised I haven’t seen more noise raised about how religion is dwelt on in the film. There’s been some mention of it at Panda’s Thumb, and especially by Larry Arnhart, but I would have thought they would have been all over this. The relation between ID and religion keeps being over-simplified, and Expelled offers a ripe target for taunters who tend to do that: “See, it’s all about religion after all! Told you so!” I’ve encountered some of that, but having seen the film now I’m surprised there hasn’t been more.

But then, that’s the aspect of this debate I’m most interested in. Our church’s youth group is going to see the film tomorrow, and since I’ll be leading them later on through some reflections on it, I’ll be going with them. I’ll have more to say about this religion connection after that.

The other burning question is, what will this movie contribute to the evolution-ID debate? From the evolutionist side, anger. For others, it’s the kind of thing that ought to whet an appetite for more information. It touched on the science just enough to show that ID has something going for it–mostly in terms of the origin of life, and in the massive complexity of the cell. To believe ID is valid just on the basis of the film, having done no other study, would be jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. (Their conclusion might be right, but their way of coming to it is inadequate.)

If on the other hand the film opens the door for more research–through increased academic freedom, and increasing interest in the topic–it will have a slow but very significant effect on the debate.

In the meantime, I strongly encourage you to see Expelled.

Two articles of mine posted on other websites today:

On BreakPoint.com: Handling a Hot Topic (how Christians ought to engage in controversies like the one over Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed).

And on the website for the Center for a Just Society, the first of two articles on the whether there was some connection between Darwinism and Nazism, as the movie claims. This first one looks at Richard Dawkins’s to the matter in his review of the movie Expelled. The second one, to be published around Monday, acknowledges that no legitimate philosophical link can be drawn from Darwinism to Hitler’s ethics. There’s another question, though: was there an historical connection regardless?

I must refer you also to Richard Weikart’s expert article on that topic, published yesterday.

Richard Dawkins is famously trying to convince the world that it’s abusive to raise children in a religious tradition–any religious tradition. It’s an ironically unscientific opinion, not just unsupported but actually contradicted by research. Mike Gene points to yet another instance of that:

Spirituality — defined as an inner belief system — accounted for eight to 17 per cent of the average child’s sense of happiness, the study showed.
By contrast, money, the marital status of parents and the child’s gender didn’t even register one per cent.
“It’s a whopping big effect…”

[From Calgary Herald, Finding out what makes kids happy]

This adds to an ongoing store of articles on spirituality and life outcomes. Please see that page for perspectives on interpreting such research.

First Things has published Anthony Sacramone’s review of Vox Day’s book, The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. It includes:

To take just one of many examples, a common trope among atheists is that religion is the No. 1 cause of wars in history. “If religion were an important element of warmaking, one would expect to find a great deal of text commenting upon it,” Day writes. But you don’t. After reading the great war theorists, from Sun Tzu to Von Clausewitz, Day found pages and pages about perseverance, spies, geometry, inspirational music—but virtually nothing about religion.

As for the nature of the wars themselves, talk about specific: Day found 123 wars that could validly be claimed to have religion at their heart—a grand total of 6.98 percent of all wars fought. “It’s also interesting to note that more than half of these religious wars, sixty-six in all, were waged by Islamic nations,” Day offers as an aside.

About 7% of identifiable wars in history war fought for religious reasons. Most of those were initiated by Muslims. This does not justify any war fought for the purpose of advancing Christianity. But it certainly puts the lie to beliefs that Christianity bears the blame for a large part of the violence in world history.

We might as well add this current item to the point, too: 150 million murdered in the 20th century–by whom?

Hat Tip: One Eternal Day

Updates have been posted on one of the best online theism/atheism debates: God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence

I missed some of this as it was going on. Thanks go to Fides Quarens Intellectum for the reminder. Not sure when I’ll get a chance to read this, though, since I’m in the middle of a couple very busy weeks at work.

Regarding “new atheists” who imagine a faith-less peaceful utopia:

“One would think that, given their insistence that faith and violence are inextricably linked, these authors would be a bit more circumspect about their own rhetoric. As it happens, one does not have to read too far into these books to see an underlying advocacy of violence animating their venom, an advocacy made most explicit in Sam Harris’s The End of Faith, which openly avows: ‘Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. . . . There is, in fact, no talking to some people. … We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.’”

[From FIRST THINGS: On the Square » Blog Archive » Atheism and Violence]