An Atheist Answers "Atheism on Trial" from Philosophy Now Magazine

In the August/September 2015 issue of Philosophy now, Stephen Anderson explores Atheism by putting the concept on trial.  While the author thinks it is a clever way to write an article, the meat of the article is lacking; it is all style, no substance.  I love reading Philosophy Now magazine and I implore you to read Atheism on Trial for yourself in its entirety preferably before or even after you read this article.  I will not reproduce the entire Philosophy Now article here, as I usually do, but rather I will pull out quotes from the article and respond.  Feel free to put any questions you have or inaccuracies you find in the comments below.

There was a time – some years ago – when to profess disbelief in a Supreme Being could be hazardous to one’s health. You could get hacked to pieces with a scimitar or boiled in oil. Neither the public nor the authorities had much tolerance.

This is called the Middle East, and it is NOW!  Anderson is, of course, talking about Medieval Europe, and Christianity, but killing apostates and Atheists still happens, and by followers of the same Abrahamic god.

 Today, atheism has taken its comfortable seat by the fire and has its feet up. It has de facto control of education, the universities, and the academic press. It is the go-to position of our media and the controlling assumption of political discourse. Popular atheist authors have no trouble churning out bestsellers and culling invitations to speak. Atheism has never been so respectable. 

Anderson must be from a Scandinavian country.  In the US, most people have no qualms about reminding Atheists about their not-so-comfortable seat IN the fire.  The US was built as a secular government so all religions would have equal protection under the law.  Yet, we have god on our currency and our patrol cars.  11 States have statutes that bar Atheists from holding public office and celebrities such a Oprah and Steve Harvey publicly declare that Atheists cannot have morals because they have no god-belief. The only place in America where Atheists are treated respectably are in academia, which itself is a very small percentage of the population.

Maybe the really daring thing today is not being an atheist, but challenging atheism. It can certainly be risky, and can provoke a whole lot of knee-jerk animus, even if one supplies good arguments to back one’s case.

Anderson must be a Christian.  Why do I say that?  In two sentences he tries to build the case that being non-Atheist means being persecuted.  I run into this all the time with Christians.  At first I thought it was just a rhetorical tactic, and for some it is, but for most Christians it is because they've never had their core beliefs challenged on such a fundamental level.  Theists place a great deal of their identity in their god and their religion.  To claim it is all fairy-tales is to claim they are living a lie.  Such a notion causes great cognitive dissonance within the theistic mind.

But Anderson is saying something else too.  It's subtle until you see it.  He is right off saying that Atheist counter-arguments to his theistic assertions are merely "knee-jerk animus" despite what Anderson considers a good argument.  Mr. Anderson, if your argument has a soul-crushing (as it were) counter-argument, then it is by definition NOT a good argument.

Before we begin the trial, perhaps we ought to clarify the case. What is ‘atheism’?

Good start, we must always define what we are to argue against not only to clarify and elucidate our exact position, but to also so counter-points can be honestly made.

In answering, let us observe the principle of charity.

I smell a trap.

This means we ought to address an opposing view in its strongest and most representative form, rather than in any of its weaker or less representative forms. In charity, then, we must ask ourselves, ‘What is the strongest form of atheism?’

 And here is the first mistake.  Catch it?

To begin with, we could consider a basic definition. ‘Atheism’ is clearly ‘a-’ plus ‘theism’. Theism is from the Greek for God (or gods), of course; and the ‘a-’ prefix is the Greek negation of whatever it’s prefixing. Thus atheism means simply ‘no God’. It claims there exists no kind of god.
That’s basic. But we might ask, ‘Is it really necessary to understand atheism as so  

Here is Anderson's mistake: The Fallacy of Equivocation.  What Anderson is equivocating is Strong Atheism with run-of-the-mill Atheism.  In itself, Atheism simply means a lack of belief in any gods. In Strong Atheism, not only are the various gods not believed in, but the Atheist takes the position that it is more likely that proofs against the gods is stronger than proofs for the gods.  Strong Atheism is not held by all atheists.  In fact, Strong Atheists are a minority in the Atheist community.  Why? I don't know. What I think to be the case is that Strong Atheists tend to be exceptionally skeptical and rational and were once theists. However, it was their skepticism and reason that saved their mind. Most Atheists in the world were never indoctrinated to begin with.  Most Atheists in the US realized at some point that it was all hogwash and that was that, their Sundays are now free.

Anderson makes his equivocation so he may commit on of the most basic of logical fallacies.  He is trying to set up a straw man. By using Atheism in a highly specific, and inaccurate, way, Anderson can use arguments specific to a certain position even though those arguments do not work on the basic position as a whole.  The reason for this is that, to Anderson, it will be easier to show that Strong Atheism is a weak position, without addressing Atheism as a whole.  Remember, Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods, so even if the theist can show that there might be some sort of deity floating out in space, the Atheist can always fall back on asking which one.  That then puts the theist on the defensive as they then have to prove that their specific deity is the correct one. Apparently, Anderson has made that mistake before and does not want to repeat it.

I will spare the quote, but Anderson brings in agnosticism into the mix and tries to muddy the waters by saying that agnostics want to believe, they just have no proof.  Of course he then goes on to say that Atheists do not want to include agnostics because that would make believing in a god a personal thing, and not a statement of reality.  I won't say much on this other than Anderson confuses agnosticism with atheism.  Agnosticism meant "I don't know".  If someone says they are agnostic it means that they don't know if there is a god or gods.  That is a statement of reality.  Most Atheists are agnostic Atheists meaning that they don't know if there are any gods and they do not believe in them. A Strong Atheist is more of a gnostic Atheist, meaning they find arguments against the gods convincing and do not believe in any gods.  By itself, Atheism is a personal statement, but then so is theism!  Belief is a personal thing.  However, most theists are gnostic theists, meaning they know the god they believe in exists. But their religion requires it.  Atheism has no such requirement.

Anderson then goes on some asinine comments about whether or not he should believe that Denmark is a real place or not. What he is trying to do is get the reader thinking that his denial of evidence to the existence of Denmark is of equal value to Atheistic skepticism of supernatural deities.  This is done to make the point that an Atheist wouldn't want his agnostic friends coming along for the trial. Again, most Atheists are agnostics, so still, it is only a minority of Atheists that Anderson is willing to put on trial.

Again, the principle of charity must come into play. In ancient Rome, Christians were persecuted as ‘atheists’ because they failed to believe in enough gods. But I doubt very much that sort of characterization of their position would satisfy modern atheists. So we must be clear: do atheists wish to deny only one God, or two gods, or the entire spectrum of possible gods?

I think it must be all. I don’t know of any atheist who would be happy to think that Zeus doesn’t exist but Ares does; that Thor and Loki don’t exist but Allah does; that Yahweh doesn’t exist but the pantheon of Hindu gods is real. For a true atheist, I think all gods, no matter of what name or nature, have to be out: and I think I’m staying in the true atheist spirit in saying so.

Well, at least Anderson gets something right.  Christians are still atheistic about all but one god. Atheists just disbelieve in more more god than Christians.

But if this is true, then this thorough-going atheism can no longer get any support from one of the New Atheist’s favourite objections; namely, that things in this world are messed up, and this negates any possibility of there being a good God. For the apparent disorder of the world could rather be evidence of an evil or uncaring God. But these possibilities cannot matter here, since atheism has to deny the existence of even an indifferent or evil Supreme Being. 

Ah, the specter of New Atheism!  Again, equivocation.  To be fair, most, if not all New Atheists are Strong Atheists, but New Atheism is and Anti-Theist movement.  Anti-Theism holds that religion itself is a bad thing. No good religion has done cannot also be done by secular means.  However, religion - or more specifically faith-based belief and the absolute obedience righteousness requires - can make good people do the most evil things. That is a far different position than simply not believing in any gods.

 This makes the famous ‘Argument from Evil’ so beloved by New Atheists simply off topic: the existence of evil or injustice does not count as evidence against gods of every possible kind, and leaves harsh, judgmental or indifferent gods as possible. (Though maybe it can even be answered with some explanation that allows for a benevolent God, such as the argument from free human will).

Quite the contrary!  I love invoking the problem of evil to Christians and Muslims.  They hold their god as a loving god, yet cannot morally reconcile the flood story or even that of Sodam and Gamora, or the plagues of Egypt.  As far as free will goes, the concept of free will further muddies the waters of morality (the last topic in the video here) and free will itself is a wonky concept especially when applied to religion (the first topic in the video here).

So atheists say that no god of any kind exists. But we must now ask, do they do so merely out of raw will, or fear, or personal preference, or private taste, or do they sincerely hope to do this on an evidentiary basis? The atheists I meet say, “We disbelieve because of the evidence.” Usually, they insist that something like history, science, truth or logic is on their side; and that something like credulity, superstition, and foolishness is essentially on the other side. But here, we need to pause to consider rather than assume the nature of appropriate evidence.

Quite right, most Strong Atheists are skeptics.  In fact, it is skepticism that led to Atheism to begin with!  So, what does Anderson want to do?  Attack skepticism.  Funny that skepticism was one of the terms he eliminated at the beginning, yet his first real attack on Atheism is an attack on skepticism. Intellectual battles, like that of the god question often encompass far more than the immediate topic. Today is no exception. However, I should say that the intellectual battle that Anderson is readying his analytical knife for hinges on whether or not it is better to not believe until evidence supports such a belief, OR should we believe first and try to reconcile that belief with the current body of knowledge until evidence shows the belief cannot be true.  The latter was the mode of thinking during the Dark Ages, the latter was developed by Rene Descartes to show that reality is real and that there is a benevolent god.  Ironically, it is Descartes who re-birthed skepticism and gave Atheists one of their strongest tools; the doctrine of doubt.  This is the basis not only for modern skepticism, but for science as well.  I won't go too much into it here and I've already covered all of this in addressing R.R. Reno's desire to dumb down our education system.

Anderson sets up his next attack by eloquently (at least far more so than myself) bringing in evidence for finding the rate of gravity on earth and then saying that (rightly enough) that the strength and type of evidence depends on the subject and depth of the question.

 For atheism, the statement is that “Evidence shows that there is no God.” 

And here it is. Why Anderson spent the introduction to his piece  defining Atheism in general as Strong Atheism.  Most Atheists hold that there is no evidence for gods, NOT there is evidence of no god.  See the difference?  In the first case, the burden of proof rests solely on the theist because the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim.  When you hear positive claim, it means the claim the evidence is FOR.  A negative claims is what the evidence is AGAINST something.  Negative claims happen all the time; as it turns out, you can prove a negative. Most atheists hold a null hypothesis, meaning that they recognize no proofs for the existence of gods, and do not recognize, or bother with, proofs against the gods yet refuse to believe in any gods until at least one is proven. The soft Atheist position is the hardest to assail, so Anderson leaves them alone. Instead he attacks the Strong Atheist position as he thinks (wrongly) that it is easier.

Many theists believe God is eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent. They also believe that He transcends the limits of time and space. They believe He has existed historically, and will continue to exist indefinitely; and so on. We must ask, then, “What is sufficient evidence to rule out the existence of such a being?”

Ah, the ever-impossible Abrahamic god.

As with the gravity example, one would have to conduct an investigation that fits the scope of the subject. It would certainly not be enough to decide the matter on the basis of personal preference or taste. Nor would it do to make a perfunctory personal search of the local terrain, and then declare victory. For an evidentiary denial of the God concept implies much more substantial proof. One would need to rule out every reasonable possibility of positive evidence for his existence.

Or we could take a short cut and rule out classes that meet the requirements. If god is outside time and space, then we can rule out all tests that measure time and space. But then if we do that, we've eliminated everything that would indicate any involvement of a deity on the universe.  We should also eliminate personal tastes, preferences as they are purely emotional in nature, and have no bearing on reality outside the person experiencing the emotions.  We should also eliminate any and all personal accounts because not only are eye-witnesses notoriously inaccurate in their recollections, but because any way to test their claims is eliminated by the space-time non-test-ability.

If indeed a description of God includes the sort of attributes I listed, then the atheists’ claim of evidence against His existence is completely unfounded.

This is a subtle attempt to throw in the Ontological Argument for god. While Anderson does not do so explicitly, the specter of ontology is brought up as a matter of fact, not as something itself that is disputable, which it is very much so.

Adequate evidence for atheism would require the observer to go everywhere, at all times, see everything, test everything, and eliminate all possibilities – then, having found that God was neither here nor there, neither in time nor in any dimension of space, neither on earth or anywhere around the universe, not in history and not in eternity – only then could he or she justifiably claim to have sufficient evidence to warrant atheism! 

We've already eliminated this, by holding god to be outside time and space. To say that an Atheist must physically look everywhere is to make a sort of reverse god of the gaps argument.  To say that every physical place must be observed is to hold that god was just where you weren't looking.  We can make the same argument with gravity.  No one can observe gravity.  Look under every rock, on every planet, in every galaxy and never find gravity.  This is because gravity is a concept to explain a certain phenomenon. While the phenomenon itself cannot be observed, its effects can. So what would the effects of a god be? Life? Something rather than nothing? we have to ask the right questions, and not look for the smell of the color two.

Now ask yourself: what sort of evidence will be necessary if I am to win? It’s not impossible. I will have to travel to all the places where an okapi could be found – the deep jungles, the grassy plains, the mountain valleys, and perhaps as well the zoos, the private collections and the illegal markets for animals. Having done all that, I could say, “I was right; no okapi exists.” Now, in contrast, ask yourself this: what would my colleagues, the okapi-believers have to do? How far would they have to go, and how many okapis would they have to locate in order to falsify my skepticism? That’s right: one. One single, solid, verifiable counter-case would be sufficient to bring my whole okapi-skepticism down.

Anderson is playing at sophistry here.  I am becoming convinced that he is a Sophist, and not a philosopher. What Anderson illustrates in the above paragraph is quite correct.  Without producing an okapi (or a yeti, or a unicorn) the skeptic mind would not believe in it.  And producing just one would suffice to provide belief.  Would that make the skeptic wrong?  nope, he would just reserve belief until evidence shows otherwise.  This is the position of most Atheist towards the gods.  However, Anderson is wailing not against Atheism as a whole but rather the Strong Atheist position.

In this case, Anderson is being disingenuous with his analogy.  In fact he is making a false analogy. it is false because because okapi are just another species of deer, or elk, or something similar. While they may be so rare that zoologists took forever in finding them led to skepticism of their existence, their existence was always held to be possible.  A more accurate analogy would be with unicorns. While there may be, or once have been, a horse with a single horn protruding from its head, it is not possible that such a creature existed that had magical powers.

You see, by positioning themselves as defending a negative, atheists have put themselves at a horrible disadvantage. If it should turn out to be the case that just one of the various sources of religious revelation claimed by the many varieties of theists should turn out to be true, if even one of the many phenomena attributed to the Supreme Being should turn out to be genuine, or if just one of the people on the earth had ever had a real experience with God, then atheism would be decisively defeated. And this explains yet another reason why atheists are forced to pretend they’ve rationally eliminated the possibility God exists – they are terribly vulnerable to disproof. Only if all religions are bunkum, only if all believers are deluded, only if all Gods are eliminated is atheism secure.

Even the most stringent of Strong Atheists are still waiting for this proof. If just ONE verifiable case of the supernatural (let alone any gods) were to present itself, then the Atheist would reevaluate his or her claims. If that supernatural phenomenon can be conclusively linked to a supreme being, then the Atheist would change his or her world view.  At least I hope they would, that would be the only intellectually honest thing to do.  After all, the only game changer to human outlook than aliens stopping by to say hi, would be to find proof of Odin or Zeus!  Yet we are still waiting for that evidence.

I am not saying that just because atheism is irrational we must all become theists immediately – various forms of agnosticism are still viable. It is however true that we have already detected significant vulnerabilities in these alternatives, and that is why we did not burden atheists with them in the first place. This has spared atheism instant humiliation, perhaps; but we have not been able to save it. Atheism simply isn’t a rational choice.

Oh this'll be good.  let me guess, we're in for some presuppositional apologetics. It's a tiresome approach because of the mental somersaults needed to go through to arrive at the conclusion that presuppositional apologetics is basically one of the most convoluted arguments out there. So, on to the nest paragraph and let's begin.

Its chief proponents know it. I can think of no atheist of recent times more celebrated than the late Antony Flew. But he died a Deist, leaving an account of his transformation titled, There is No A God. What about contemporary atheism’s most famous proponent, Richard Dawkins? He’s not much help: he’s realized the problem and publicly declared himself a ‘convinced agnostic.’ (Witness it for yourself: youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4). This, of course, raises the question why, on other occasions, Professor Dawkins still allows himself to be called an atheist. Perhaps he senses that agnosticism simply cannot offer the kind of serious resistance to the idea of God that he wants to promote; and as a rhetorical flourish, atheism makes better press. But whenever he is pressed on the irrationality of that term, you can see that he lapses into calling himself a ‘convinced agnostic’ instead.

Really?  Seriously? Anderson offers not an argument but rather the word-salad above that amounts to nothing more than an argument from authority fallacy? I had to look up Antony Flew, I had never heard of him before. That he turned to Deism late in life is no surprise, he was dying.  It is more comforting to believe in something after death than nothing.  And the comment on Dawkins, sure, he said that, but the joke is on Anderson.  remember an Atheist simply does not believe in a deity, an agnostic finds no evidence for or against the existence of a deity.  He allows that a god may be possible, but not in any way that is meaningful to humans, and definitely not the Abrahamic god!

Yet the strength of Anderson's claim that Atheism is irrational is not in presuppositional apologetics, but in that he produced a case where one influential Atheist turned into a theist, and another considers himself more of a hard agnostic than an atheist. Mr. Anderson, listen very carefully: in the Atheistic community, we do not recognise authority in ideas.  Expertise, yes, but not authority.  Just because someone says something, does not make it so. Just take a look at the Richard Dawkins Facebook fan page, when ever he says or tweets something a bit off, like the fiasco about aborting a Down's Syndrome baby and starting again, we call him out on it!  No one in the Atheist community speaks with authority, which is how it is in the science community.  It is the strength of WHAT is posited that is evaluated, not WHO said it.

The Verdict

Why then, we might ask, is atheism so popular? Why does it enjoy so much grace in the public eye, and why is it so often the default position in the academy? The motives cannot be philosophical, for atheism is not a position that can be compelled or sustained by logic. It is perhaps tempting to observe that something more visceral is at work. Ignorance? Evasion? Faddism? Or posturing? (After all, there is a considerable difference between wanting to appear intellectual and actually being intellectual). Whatever the case, it’s hard not to see that reason has left the building.

As for the Supreme Being, if He has seemed reticent to weigh in on this debate, it is not too surprising. Those who claim to know something about Him have often insisted that God is particularly uninterested in bowing to the demands of the hard-hearted cynic. As the Tanakh says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” That looks justified. Even by our most charitable account, we have seen that atheism is a disingenuous, bombastic claim to certainty, one without evidence or logic. What then can one call it but foolishness?

Oy vey!  Here is Anderson's closing in its entirety. Is Atheism popular? No, not at all, but religious "nones" are growing in America. It is not at all popular, even a death sentence in the Middle East and in parts of Africa and the Far East.  Is it illogical?  Mr. Anderson, you claimed to be able to show that it is, but failed in a most basic way. In failing to do so, you must resort to intellectual name calling. Calling someone a fool for failing to hold your particular god-belief is just that, name calling. Is it just me or does anyone else find it interesting that Anderson posits that those "in the know" about the gods say that their god will not "[bow] to the demands of the hard-hearted cynic." A cynic? That's a word that gets thrown around a lot, so let's look at it:

cyn·icˈsinik/
noun1.
a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.
"some cynics thought that the controversy was all a publicity stunt" 2.
a member of a school of ancient Greek philosophers founded by Antisthenes, marked by an ostentatious contempt for ease and pleasure. The movement flourished in the 3rd century BC and revived in the 1st century AD.

So which is it? Is Anderson saying that Atheists view others as motivated solely by self interest, or that we follow a 2000 year old Greek aesthetic lifestyle?   I think he means skeptic which is simply to doubt until evidence shows otherwise. But even then, that is skepticism, not Atheism. I shall resign myself from name calling; or at least any further name calling. I will not make fun of this article that one would normally expect from a first-year philosophy minor.  The kind of work that said student would re-read two years later and laugh at his own naivety.  We can be comfortable in the knowledge that Mr. Anderson  tried to run with the adults, but he came in last and must go back to what ever church he preaches at in the kiddie pool.

© Dr Stephen L. Anderson 2015
Stephen Anderson is a philosophy teacher in London, Ontario.

Oh.  Doctor?  Teaches philosophy?  I couldn't find any further credentials for Anderson, so I don't know if he is a medical doctor, has a doctorate in divinity, theology, astrology or other flim-flam, or if he has a legitimate doctorate.  Nor could I find out if he teaches on the street corner or at a university.  Oh well, he calls himself a doctor, but still, unless this whole piece was satire, and I missed it (I really hope that is the case) or he should get a refund on his degree.

A rebuttal to "Answering the Skeptic: Is the Bible a Myth?"

The following is from the ComeReason ministries found at www.comereason.org.  The exact address of the article can be found at http://www.comereason.org/skeptic-bible.asp

The original post is in plain text, my comments are in itallics.

Answering the Skeptic: Is the Bible a Myth?

Recently, I received some e-mail from an avowed skeptic that repeatedly made the following claims:

"Is not the bible simply a book of parables and mythology, written by men for men? Is not the parable simply a short story, never intended to be taken literally? With the events of September the eleventh behind us, is it not reasonable for humanity to take another look at religion and it's contribution to the chaos in the world?"

Such a sentiment is common. So many people today think that belief in the Bible is for the simple-minded of the past whereas we are now "enlightened" through science and discovery. However, in that view lies some unfounded assumptions - making the position as unreasonable as that which they object to.

Assumes Myth With No Good Reason

When a skeptic asserts that the Bible is merely a collection of myths, he must put forth evidence to bolster his claim. This is a misuse of burden of evidence.  It is true that those making the POSITIVE claim must put forth evidence.  Thus if I say that there are unicorns living in my shoes, I must provide evidence to that effect.  The skeptic's position is a negative.  All stories are fiction unless shown to be otherwise.  But if we are to compare the Biblical texts against other ancient documents, we find a marked difference. The Bible speaks about real people, places and events and dates many of those events within an historical framework.  A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens also is about people, events etc.  But it is fiction.  If you notice, the original author sneaks the world real into his list without explaining how he determined they are real.   The New Testament especially reads not like myth at all, but like recorded history. This statement means nothing.  How something "reads" has nothing to do with if it is true or not.  And, no, I've read the bible several times and it most certainly does not read like a history book. In fact, if we use the rules of textual criticism consistently across all ancient documents, we find the Bible to be some of the most reliable historical documents of antiquity. Again, the author makes a claim that is absolutely false.  I'll even give him an out: what rules are you talking about?  List them and explain how they apply.

More importantly, it is evident that the authors of the Bible intended for the readers to take them literally.  That still has no bearing of whether the stories are true or not. Luke begins his gospel by explicitly stating, that he has carefully investigated the accounts of Jesus from the eyewitnesses and he seeks to write out "the exact truth about the things you have been taught." To claim that this was intended as a parable or myth is wholly without merit. If a freshman in high school were to use book A as proof to the claim that book A is true, the teacher would patiently explain that you cannot use a source to prove that source true.  IF that student were a freshman in college, the professor would be less patient, and probably mutter something about the failing of the US educational system.  If a senior in college made that mistake, the professor would tell the student that he should look at trade school as an option.  Why?  It is called begging the question.  Begging the question is a fallacy where the truth of a proposition is assumed in its evidence.  In layman's terms it means that a piece of evidence you present is only viable if the conclusion (point you're trying to make) is true.  Here, the book of Luke is assumed to be true based on the evidence that the book of Luke says it is true.

Assumes The Evil In The World Is Attributable To Religion

The more prevalent assertion today is that religion is at the root of much of the world's evils. Some anti-theists do make this claim. However, it is not a "skeptic" position.  A skeptic is someone who demands evidence to accept a proposition, and will hold that proposition until evidence indicates otherwise. Here, the author is mixing terms.   Skeptics will argue that a serious belief in Christianity promotes a type of fanaticism that causes more harm than good. History has shown this to be the case. But it is not JUST Christianity, but ANY form of faith based belief.  This includes Christianity, Islam, Roman Polytheism, Scientology, Babylonian Polytheism, Mayan Polytheism, and the Cult of Personalities found around such people as Vladimir Lenin, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, Joseph Stalin, Joseph Smith, Charles Manson and the list goes on.   Again this assumes much, but provides little support. Where are the facts? The Inquisition, Slavery in the US, the Twin Towers, ISIS, the Salem Witch Trials, Jim Baker.  Just to name a few. Exactly what evils are we talking about and from where are they drawing your data?

If faced with having to provide proof for the above claim, most skeptics tend to either reassert their assertion or shrink into anecdotal tales of a particular event (such as the Crusades.) Anecdotal evidence is hearsay of one highly specific incident. For example, Alice tells Bob that smoking is linked to lung cancer.  Bob replies that his second cousin on his mother's side smoked all his life and never got lung cancer.  Bob is giving an anecdotal account.   A skeptic wouldn't offer anecdotal evidence, at least not a good skeptic.  The bible is nothing BUT anecdotal evidence.  And for the record, the Crusades are most definitely not anecdotal evidence.  There is an archeological record, and corroborating accounts of the Crusades. However, it is illogical to argue from a particular to a general. Actually, not at all. There is a whole field of logic that does exactly this: it is called inductive logic.  Everything we use today is the result of it.  Computers, cars, wine glasses, tracking game through the woods, all owe their existence, as it were, it inductive logic.  Therefore, the skeptic's claim dismissed as irrational.

The One Question

The main problem with both these objections is that the skeptic assumes Christianity to be false a priori. Again, it is the Christian making the POSITIVE claim, not the skeptic.  The default position is that something isn't. In other words, they are coming from an anti-Christian bias and then trying to muster support for their position. The use of anti-Christian is what is called a weasel word.  The author is trying to play on the fears of his intended audience (Christians) to strengthen their resolve against reason.  The skeptic is not anti-Christian, just as the skeptic is not anti-Unicorn.   But this is neither fair nor rational. It is both actually. If a skeptic were to say there IS NO god, then they would be making a positive claim.  But that is not the skeptic position.  The skeptic position, is that they will not BELIEVE in a god, until one is proven to exist.  A sincere seeker of truth would look for just that - truth. We all have biases and we all start examining truth-claims leaning in one direction or another. But if we're honest, we will study all positions with an open mind until they have proven themselves to be not true. Not at all.  It is the reverse.  Positive positions must be shown to be true, or at least shown to be the most plausible position.  Keeping an open mind does not mean believing, or giving credence to any old idea.  Keeping an open mind means to weigh the evidence for claims and give them credence based on that evidence.

The most reasonable stance to take on any position is the one that is true. If the Bible records history accurately and it portrays Jesus' life, death and resurrection as history, then it follows that Christianity is true. If Christianity is true it becomes the only rational position to hold. In rejecting Christianity out of hand, one runs the risk of rejecting the truth - and to reject the truth is the most illogical thing someone could do.  Again, the author implies that the bible is true, yet has not provided any evidence to that effect.  He is trying to shift the burden of proof to the negative claim of the skeptic, which is unfair.  Why is it unfair?  Because negatives cannot be proven!  Prove that unicorns do not exist.  Prove that aliens did not impregnate the Virgin Mary.  Prove that George Bush was not responsible for the Twin Towers. 

The skeptic position is the same as the Missouri State motto:  Show me.

ARGUMENTS FOR GOD PART 5: The Case Against God

Finally!
This is my final video concerning the existence of God.
In this video I lay out arguments over the three main concepts of god-heads and how they cannot be.
I hope you enjoy:

Bigotry is Finally Losing Ground in the US.

This past week has been a political whirlwind.  One the equality front civil liberties are winning, but on the economic front, the nation took a blow.  The New York Times has covered the Trans-Pacific Partnership quite well.  You can read about it here.  

This week has been more positive than negative, and I would rather write about that.

This week the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) has issued two rulings that change the face of America. The first was upholding the Affordable Care Act's subsidies which allow millions of Americans to keep their health care.  This is also the final hurdle (I think) for the Affordable Care Act.  Now it joins the ranks of Social Security and Medicare, political suicide for those who try to repeal them.  The Washington Post has a great article on it here.

The biggest predictor for success in school, and life as well, is the socioeconomic background of a student.  Part of the reason is that the poor often have poor nutrition and poor health care.  SNAP benefits help, but go nowhere near eliminating, the nutrition aspect.  Proper health care goes a step further.  This ruling levels the health playing field between the rich and the poor.  Or rather the children of the rich and the poor.

Secondly, marriage is now recognized as a basic right.  Today, Friday June 26th, 2015 SCOTUS has ruled same-sex marriage cannot be denied by the States, they have to honor and allow gay marriage. The last paragraph of the Majority Opinion is below.  It is not only a powerful statement on equal rights, but it is also a masterpiece of prose.

Of course the religious right is up in arms over the ruling. Everything from the ruling opening the doors to polygamy and bestiality, to God judging America (according to Franklin Graham) and bringing about the Apocalypse.  Naturally, many Christians regard this as "Christian persecution", which is a claim that's always good for a laugh.  You cannot claim persecution when the only thing you are restricted from is restricting others in practicing what the believe.  

Being beheaded by ISIS because you wear a cross and mumble to the sky is persecution.  Not allowing you to force others to mumble to the sky, or allowing you to display your symbols and only your symbols on public property is not persecution.  It is keeping the political sphere neutral to personal beliefs.  Sure we can bring those beliefs to the table, but they are no better than their adherence to reason.  Which is no different than anyone else.

This ties in with the third bit of good news: we may be seeing less of the American version of the swastika, the "Confederate" flag.  I have to admit that it is a little hard for me to write about this.  Only because The Dukes of Hazzard was one of my favorite shoes growing up.  Yes, I remember when it was on prime time.  I still have a fond place for the General Lee, the name of the Duke boys' orange 1969 Dodge Charger. Yes, it had the Confederate Flag on the roof, but this car would freaking FLY at least once per episode.

But I digress.  I didn't want to write about nostalgia, but about a blow for social equal rights.  The story of the "Confederate" flag flown today begins decades before the Civil War.  Slavery was a dividing issue between the States since the Articles of Confederation.  However, the national government had no basis for abolition under the Articles.  When the Constitution was written, Slavery was such a hot issue, it was tabled for twenty years so the rest of the document could be hammered out.  However, the call for abolition was on the rise after the signing of the Constitution. At that time, Christianity had to contend with not only Freethinkers, but Deists as well.  Both groups tended to be rabid abolitionists, and influential.  Then the second Great Awakening happened. America had a religious revival and with it, opposition to abolition grew.  In fact the Southern Baptist Church grew out of a pro-slavery movement in the South.  

The Reverend Dr. Richard Furman was a highly influential Baptist in the early and mid 1800s.  His essay, Exposition of the Views of the Baptists, Relative to the Coloured Population is a letter to the then Governor of South Carolina on the importance of slavery to the State, and the divine-created inferiority of blacks.  The Holy Bible was the inspiration for the Willie Lynch Letter which expanded on the Bible's treatment of slaves.  Of course the Bible was also used to fight for abolition, but the passages used were taken out of context.  For instance, Exodus 21:16 "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." sounds like an anti-slavery verse, but the context is that the stolen man is in this case property, not a person. In other words, the bible prohibited stealing slaves, not owning them.

What does this have to do with the Stars and Bars?
It would be adopted by a Christian organization forty years after the Civil War.

During the Civil War, the "Confederate Flag" was just the battle flag for Northern Virginia.  It fell into obscurity until the 1920s when the Ku Klux Klan took it up as their flag.  At that moment, the "Confederate" flag went from a forgotten battle flag of a small region of the country, to the banner of Jim Crow.  And this is why the flag must be taken down.

Now the movement to remove it has begun.  Like the Cross, it is a symbol of oppression.  The flag will be removed, and furthermore religious symbols will follow the flag's demise from the public sphere.  Why?  The World Wide Web.

The Internet is the place where religion goes to die.  It is what is killing religion.  Why?  Humans have this annoying need to one-up each other.  The Internet was once ruled by geeks, that is until social media made it cool.  Concepts, like fallacies, were once the providence of a select few, a certain brand of geek.  Now everyone wants to get their geek on.  Yet we still yearn to one-up each other.  The Internet has done more to spread skepticism and logic more than anything all for intellectual battles that have raged in academia for millenia.  As religion becomes more irrelevant to American life, Civil Liberties will increase a la Humanism.

Now your average stay-at-home parent, liberal arts major, or plumber is a philosopher with a highly attuned bullshit detector.  

Religion is the highest form of bullshit.

That is why religion is out.

Reason is in.

ARGUMENTS FOR GOD PART 4: Apologetics Part 3

Apologetics Part Three is the last of my Apologetics trilogy. This video tackles Free Will, faith, God of the Gaps, and other apologetic arguments.

ARGUMENTS FOR GOD PART 4: Apologetics Part 2.

This is the second part of the Apologetic series.  I cover claims for God via genes, beauty and morality.
Enjoy!
Please feel free to respond below.

ARGUMENTS FOR GOD PART 4: Apologetics Video, Part One.

Here is the latest video for my religion series.  I am currently knee deep in Apologetics, and I've split the field into three videos.  In this first video, I will explore using the Bible to "prove" itself, cherry picking, prophecies and miracles.


I hope you like it!

A rebuttal to "Dawkins Debunked" by Dr. Norman J Lund PhD.

Below is an article by Dr. Norman J Lund of Oxford.  Lund purports to "debunk" Dawkins' God Delusion by exposing certain logical fallacies contained within the God Delusion.  I will dissect Lund's complaints as not all of them fit.  The original text is in italics, and my responses will be in normal text.

                                                    Dawkins Debunked:                                     

A Dozen Logical Fallacies in The God Delusion  Norman J. Lund, Ph. D.

                                                     http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/

           NOTE: Richard Dawkins is a famous scientist from Oxford U. and a leading atheist.  He argues that there no more evidence for belief in God than for Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.  He says that “faith-heads” who believe in God are “ignorant, stupid, or insane.”  In this book, The God Delusion (Mariner ed., 2008), he claims to prove that religion is a “vice” based upon “indoctrination.”  Belief in God, according to Dawkins, is a “delusion”: “a persistent false belief held in the face of strong, contradictory evidence” (Preface, p. 28).  However, when his arguments are examined objectively, they prove to be riddled with fallacies.  A fallacy is an argument which appears plausible on the surface, but which is found to rest upon false or invalid assumptions.  As a single illness may involve many overlapping symptoms, the logical weaknesses in this book also involve many overlapping fallacies.  Rather than prove his point Mr. Dawkins instead provides an excellent teaching tool to demonstrate logical fallacies.

A. Fallacies of Irrelevance (Distraction)

    1. Ad baculum (veiled threat):  Mr. Dawkins threatens his opponents.  He implies that scientists who disagree with him can expect to pay a penalty from other atheists like him (e.g. to be scorned and shunned).  For example, he argues that no one who agrees with Mother Teresa about the sanctity of life should “be taken seriously on any topic, let alone be thought seriously worthy of a Nobel Prize” (p. 330).  This passage was taken out of context. Dawkin's remark on Mother Teresa was after explaining how she used the suffering of others to enrich her own spirituality and did little to actually ease the suffering of the sick in her hospitals.  Granted, Dawkin's remark walks a rhetorical line and if taken out of context it could be seen as a threat, but what he was getting at is that if someone was so blind to the suffering Teresea CAUSED, then one may not have the moral fortitude to earn a Nobel Prize.  The Prize in this case is the Peace Prize. This implied threat has been exposed as a real threat by Ben Stein in the documentary: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (http://www.expelledthemovie.com).  Stein interviews numerous scientists who have lost funding and even their jobs just for questioning Darwinism. Such threats and intimidation have no place in logical argument or legitimate science.  The scientists interviewed in Ben Stein's movie make a small minority of scientists who do not share the parsimonious view of their peers.  At first this may seem like an ideal under dog story, but science is not a democracy.  Facts are facts, it is not up for interpretation based on personal bias. E=MC²  no matter what any one person thinks. It is that data that is important, and if an educator wants to teach something that has no scientific consensus, then they are not teaching science.  To better illustrate the point, there are scientists that hold that the Earth is the center of the solar system. Why not teach that in schools? Because it does not fit the facts. Evolution and Global Climate Chance are just the latest iterations of the God of the Gaps. Just as geocentrists are scientific kooks, so are IDers and climate change deniers.

   2. Ad hominem (personal attack):  Personal ridicule is also out of order.  Nevertheless Dawkins shamelessly stigmatizes both individuals and organizations for their personal and religious convictions. Improper application of Ad Hominem.  Lund nearly defines an Ad Hominem in the first sentence, but immediately misapplies it. The definition of an Ad Hominem is not name calling, but attacking the arguer and not their argument.  Arguing against "convictions" (their conclusions) is what you are supposed to do in a philosophical debate. The point of someone's argument is what the debate is about!  Several eminent scientists who have been open about their traditional Christian beliefs are ridiculed as “a subject of amused bafflement to their peers in the academic community” (p. 125).Now this is a case of an Ad Hominem, for those who ridicule the PERSON in order to attack their views. But we must ask if the reason Dawkins put that in his book is to poke fun of the Christians, or to illustrate how their peers view them? In the name of fair sport, I'll let Lund keep this Ad Hominem, but please read up on it for yourself.  In the same vein, Moody Bible Institute is mocked as the “rock bottom” in the “hierarchy of American universities;” Wheaton College is “a little bit higher on the scale, but still the Alma Mater of Billy Graham” (p. 121). The fallacy is Ad Hominem, not Ad Organization.  It is a personal attack.  What Dawkins offered was a critique of the universities themselves, not an argument. Was he calling them names? Yes, he was, but calling someone a name is not the same as an Ad Hominem.  The person you're making fun of has to put forth an argument. What Dawkins is offering is his value judgement of the universities, not a counter to their point of view (which they do not offer). James Dobson is accused of “indoctrination” as the “founder of today’s infamous ‘Focus on the Family’ movement” (p. 206).  From a logical perspective, the expression of such personal biases is completely inappropriate.  Bigotry does not constitute logical argument or scientific evidence.  Behind these personal attacks and bigotry lies Dawkins’ repeated accusation that Christianity is a malignant and “corrosive force” which is fatal to the scientific enterprise (Technology, Entertainment and Design Conference: Feb., 2002; Posted: TED Archive: April, 2007).

In an essay entitled “Viruses of the Mind” (Free Inquiry, 1993), Dawkins argued that religion is an “accident of birth” and a mental “virus.”  Religious beliefs are “mind-parasites” which breed upon “mystery.”  According to Dawkins, the religious virus is adverse to reason and evidence.  In the God Delusion Dawkins applies this theme to children.  Dawkins declares that religion is the greatest danger facing children.  “Christianity,” he asserts, “just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioning faith is a virtue.  “You don’t have to make the case for what you believe,” he says (p. 346; cf. pp. 323, 347, 379).  Apart from isolated personal attacks like those mentioned above, Dawkins presents no serious evidence or justification for that accusation. This is not a personal attack at all.  This is actually the very heart of the matter in the argument between reason (be it philosophical or scientific) and religion.  Religion requires faith.  And what is faith?  it is belief without evidence.  This is not a virtue, but a catastrophe. To save space, I won't rehash what I've already written on the subject of faith.  You can read about it, or watch it HERE.  What  Lund ignored is an accusation made by Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens as well: the idea of original sin is child abuse.  Imagine this: If you overheard a parent tell their child that if the child doesn't do as the parent says, then the parent will throw the child into a pit of fire. Would you think them abusive?  Of course you would!  You're a moral person.  But Christian parents tell this to their kids every time they bring up getting saved: You have an evil that only Jesus can get rid of, and if you don't follow certain rules (they vary by denomination) then you will go to hell.  How is the threat of fire different when the doer is shifted to a godhead?  It is not.  It is abuse.   His accusation is categorically false.  His own university was established as a Christian institution for the sake of pursuing the truth.  The motto of Oxford is Dominus illuminatio mea: “The Lord is my light.”  The Natural History Museum, where Dawkins has debated, and most of the oldest colleges and universities in the world were established by Christians.  Harvard, the oldest and most revered of American schools, bears the motto: “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae” (“Truth for Christ and the Church”) on the official seal.  Students today may be surprised to learn that Harvard was originally established to train Christian ministers and that one of the founding “precepts” in 1646 was the belief that Jesus Christ is “the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.”  Typical of other American universities is Duke in Durham, North Carolina.  Founded in 1924, there is a plaque in the center of the campus which states: “The aims of Duke University are to assert a faith in the eternal union of knowledge and religion set forth in the teachings and character of Jesus Christ, the son of God.”  It’s not surprising.  Scripture exhorts Christians: “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15).  Dawkins’ ad hominems even extend to an astonishing assault upon the character of God as (among other things): “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak” (p. 51).  From a logical perspective, even if Dawkins’ outrageous comments were somehow true, it still wouldn’t address the issue of God’s existence. The above is basically one large red herring.  That universities founded in the 1600s or even the 1920s were founded by Christians is not relevant.  It would be like asserting that algebra was inspired by and proves the validity of Allah because it was invented by Muslims.  But perhaps Lund is getting paid by the word.

    3. Ad ignorantium (appeal to ignorance): This fallacy assumes that because something is unknown or seems unlikely, that fact can be used as evidence against its existence.  One form of this fallacy is called the argument from personal incredulity.  It looks like this: “If I can’t (or refuse) to believe this, then it can’t be true.”  Dawkins commits this fallacy throughout the book.  In the opening chapter he asserts his “commitment to naturalism.”  This means that he “believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe” (p. 35).  In other words, he announces an unwillingness to believe evidence which might not support his view.  This is not logical argument or scientific evidence.  It’s a philosophical presupposition and statement of personal bias.  No.  Lund is wrapping the problem of burden of proof within a misapplication of a fallacy.  In a court of law, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.  In science and philosophy the same principle is applied.  A proposition (the defendant) is considered false (innocent) until it is proven (given strong evidence for) true (guilty).  We can observe the material universe. The supernatural cannot be observed.  Thus it is a no-brainer to recognize the existence of what can be sensed, but not recognize what cannot must be demonstrated.

    4. Ad populum (popularity appeal):  The popularity of a belief isn’t relevant in science or logic.  Truth isn’t democratic.  It doesn’t depend on a majority vote.  Nevertheless, Dawkins implies that atheistic evolution Ugh!  I am so sick of seeing the term "atheistic evolution". Evolution is evolution, atheism is Atheism. the two have absolutely nothing to do with the other. must be true because of what he calls “the overwhelming preponderance of atheists” among Nobel Prize winners, and in the membership of prestigious groups like the Royal Society, the National Academy of Sciences, and Mensa (a group of people with high IQs) (p.126-130).  Even if Dawkins was right about intellectuals favoring atheism, it wouldn’t prove its truth.  One of Dawkins’ heroes, Bertrand Russell, confessed his own disillusionment with intellectuals: “I had supposed that intellectuals loved truth, but I found here again that not 10 per cent of them prefer truth to popularity” (Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: London, 1962; vol. 2, p.17; cited in Paul Johnson, Intellectuals: Harper, 1988, p. 202).  However, Dawkins’ statistics are questionable.  In 2003 the Pulitzer-prize winning sociologist, Rodney Stark, presented evidence that “levels of religiousness [among science professors] are relatively high” (p. 194).  After reviewing the current survey data, Stark concluded: ”But perhaps the most striking finding is that… faculty in the ‘hard’ sciences turn out to be far more likely to be religious than are their counterparts in the ‘softer’ social sciences: they attend church more regularly, are more likely to describe themselves as ‘deeply’ or ‘moderately’ religious [55-60 %] and to say they are ‘religiously conservative’” [34-40%], and are far more likely to claim religious affiliation” (For the Glory of God, Princeton U. Press: 2003, p. 195).  Dawkins doesn’t seem to have looked very far.  He omits many obvious names of eminent scientists who have been open about their religious convictions, including Henry Schaeffer III.  Dr. Schaeffer (Ph.D. Stanford) is one of the most distinguished chemists in the world (U.C. Berkeley, 1969-1987), a Fellow of the Royal Society (London, 2005), a five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize, and an out-spoken Christian (Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence, The Apollos Trust, 2003).  He is one of over five hundred doctoral-level scientists who have signed “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” which states: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life” (http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf).
Lund appropriately named this category.  The ad populum here, is Lund's though. He is appealing to the number of scientists who identify as theist as to imply that there is something to it.  But, truth is not democratic. How many people believe in it is irrelevant.
But the study Lund mentions above is suspect.  Another study by Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster covered 137 countries and found that 7% of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God, and only 3.3% of the fellows at the Royal Society believed in God (source).  But did you notice that the 7% figure is for those who believe in God, while Lund's figures give a claim of religious affiliation. Cannot one identify with a religion and not believe in God?  Many in the clergy are atheists, but that is neither here nor there.  How many people believe in something has nothing to do with the reality of it.

    5. Ad annis (chronological snobbery):  This fallacy assumes that the age of a belief determines its truth or falsity.  It can be argued in one of two ways: either that the antiquity of a belief (Appeal to Tradition) verifies its truth (since people have believed it for such a long time); or that the modernity of a belief (Appeal to Novelty) verifies its truth (since people today are so much more enlightened).  Dawkins employs the second version, the “appeal to novelty,” repeatedly.  For example, he dismisses the fact that Newton and most of the founders of science were “religious” as irrelevant because of the age in which they lived. Which is correct.  Theists can do science.  Doing science by itself does not necessarily clash with religion. At the time of Newton, evolution was not a theory. Germ theory did not exist, Plate Tectonics was unknown. There was no scientific alternative to a creator of the universe.  To a creator of humans.  “There was,” he implies, “[more] social and judicial pressure … to profess religion” back then (p. 124).  Similarly, Dawkins asserts: “Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find through the twentieth century… they [now] stand out for their rarity” (p. 125).   In a more shameful example, Dawkins dismisses the religious conversion of Anthony Flew (a renowned  philosopher and famous atheist until 2004) as something which happened “in his old age” (Footnote, p. 106).  See: Anthony Flew’sThere is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007). 

   6. Ipse dixit (false authority):  This fallacy consists in claiming authority without justification or evidence.  For example, Dawkins consistently presents the views of like-minded atheists as serious, credible authorities, and belittles those of Christians as trivial, with no other reason than their religious affiliation (or lack of it).  For example, he subtly disparages Francis Collins, the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute simply because he is a Christian.  He understates his role and accomplishment in leading the successful multidisciplinary effort to map and sequence all human DNA and contrasts him with the “brilliant (and non-religious) ‘buccaneer’ of science, Craig Venter” (p. 125). In all fairness, Venter was the first to sequence the Human Genome through his shotgun method, and he insisted that the sequence be released as public domain.  That is why he's widely admired.   In the same fashion Dawkins routinely hurls assertions of momentous import, without serious evidence or argument, as when he asserts that: “blasphemy, as the witty bumper sticker puts it, is a victimless crime” (p. 16; Preface to the Paperback Ed., 2008).  “Witty bumper stickers” do not constitute a serious argument.
This passage is more evidence that Lund is getting paid by the word.  What do bumper stickers and blasphemy have to do with anything?    

  7. Straw man (misrepresentation):  This fallacy misrepresents an opponent’s actual position through exaggeration or distortion.  A good precaution is to ask an opponent whether or not you have stated his viewpoint clearly and accurately.  Very few if any Christians will recognize themselves in Dawkins’ caricatures.   He repeatedly accuses religion of demanding credulity (mindless belief) and of discouraging science (rational inquiry).  For example, according to Dawkins, the great majority of Christians teach their children that: “unquestioning faith is a virtue” This again. (p. 323) and that “truth comes from scripture rather than from evidence” (p. 379).  Thus, he concludes: “Religious faith is an especially potent silencer of rational calculation… because it discourages questioning, by its very nature” (p. 346).   Thus, he concludes: “Religious faith is an especially potent silencer of rational calculation… because it discourages questioning, by its very nature” (p. 346).  Dawkins blandly assumes that all religions are basically the same in this regard.  While his characterization may apply to some cults and false religions, What is a "false religion"?  One that Lund doesn't believe in? it is categorically false when applied to historic Christianity.   (For a more complete discussion see: False Dilemma) Oh I can't wait.  I'll hold off until then.  Though the bit I said above about faith still holds.

B.  Fallacies of Ambiguity (Confusion)

     1. Composition (misapplication):  This fallacy assumes that what is true of the parts of something must also be true of the whole.  Dawkins commits this fallacy by treating evolution as a monolithic process, and refusing to distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution. The micro/macro thing is a creationist distinction.  All evolution is micro (excepting mutation) meaning that all changes are minute. But after millions if not billions of minute changes that often build on each other, the end result is drastically different than the beginning.  The idea of micro/macro evolution is a case of creationists wanting to have their cake and eat it too.  What they call micro evolution happens in a lab.  Viruses and bacteria change rapidly leading to multiple strains of the flu, and drug resistant bacteria. The micro/macro distinction allows creationists to be able to accept germ theory but allow humans to still be God's unique little pet.  No one denies micro-evolution.  The evidence for adaptation and change within species is overwhelming.  However, there is no such evidence for change between species (transmutation), nor for the appearance of life from non-life by natural processes (abiogenesis).  

     2. Equivocation (obscurantism):  To equivocate is to mislead someone by confusing them.  When a debater equivocates the proper response is to call out: “Distinguo!” (“I distinguish!”).  Dawkins is guilty of equivocation on a grand scale.  He refuses to distinguish between religions as radically different as Christianity and Islam.  He insists on treating all religions as equally irrational, superstitious and unscientific. Right.  Because there are some religions that are fare more sane than Christianity and Islam.  Baha'i is one, Buddhism is another.  They are still built upon somewhat irrational grounds, but those two religions, and there's others too, do not practice ritual cannibalism, or believe that their prophet rode a flying horse.  This broad generalization is grossly unfair and misleading.  An equally unjustified tactic would be to treat alchemy and astrology as the equivalents of chemistry and astronomy.  The motivation and freedom for scientific inquiry did not happen by accident.  It came from a Biblical worldview towards which the Koran is suspicious and unfavorable.  As Islamic scholar Salman Rushdie has pointed out: “Islam has failed to create a free society anywhere on earth” (Columbia U.; Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism, 1981-1991).  Freedom and encouragement for scientific study is unique to a Biblical worldview  (See: Straw Man). This is addressed below. But no, Christianity and Islam both claim to be "truth" and is why at times both religions have suppressed science, but European and Arabic cultures, at different times, promoted science when the culture was more secular than sectarian.

C. Fallacies of Presumption (Faulty Form)

    1. False Dilemma (Either/Or):  Dawkins presents a false option between two extremes.  On the one hand he portrays science as the heroic, rational pursuit of facts.  On the other hand he portrays religion as the hypocritical, irrational pursuit of faith. Where is the dilemma?  Not all either/or choices are a dilemma.  And the middle ground is not always the best option.  Here, Lund assumes that is the case, otherwise there would be no dilemma.  This is the fallacy of the Appeal to Moderation. Some of his criticisms may apply to certain cults and false religions, but not to historic Christianity.  Faith and facts are not opposites. Neither are deer and Gorillas. But then again, maybe they are.  Faith: Belief without evidence.  Fact: The record of an observed and measured event. No, they are not opposites, but Faith is to believe something to be true with out any facts to back it up. Delusion is to believe something is true when the known facts are counter to that belief. This is the delusion, Dawkins was talking about in the God Delusion. There’s no necessary contradiction between the two.  In fact, the Pulitzer-prize winning historian, Rodney Stark, has argued: ”not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science" (For the Glory of God, Princeton & Oxford, 2003: p. 123). If this is true, then why was it the Muslims who were the Wests leaders in Science during the Dark Ages? Why were the Chinese more advanced than the West until the Renaissance?  In both cases it was when secular ideals of skepticism and curiosity were in favor, and pious obedience to ideas was waning. Dawkins argument is clearly distorted and false.  For almost a millennium fides quaerens intellectum (“faith in search of understanding”) has been a Christian motto expressing the Christian motivation to seek the truth.  It was Anselm’s dictum, echoing Augustine, about the positive relationship between faith and reason.  All Biblically literate Christians know that they have been exhorted to use their minds to the best of their ability (Phil. 4:8); to “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16); and to “always be prepared to make a defense to any one calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15).  The oldest universities in the world, including Oxford, were founded by Christians who shared that conviction.   Granted that Dawkins’ criticism may apply to some individuals or groups in the history of Christianity, but they have been the exception, not the rule. The above is a common thread in Abrahamic apologetics.  Faith is belief without evidence.  At least, that is how Dawkins uses the word.  If there is evidence for something, then it is a fact.  The real argument here goes back to Descartes and his theory of doubt: begin with a null hypothesis.  In other words, do not believe until it is proven.  Religion requires a certain amount of faith (believing first) to exist.  Never have there been evidence of miracles, supernatural phenomenon, or deities.  Yes people believe in them, claim to "feel" them, but these are not evidence. They are not verifiable. If you have evidence for something, you have a reason to believe in it, and it your belief stops being based in faith.

Eminent historians and philosophers of science have acknowledged the unique formative role of Christianity in the origin of modern science.  French-born American historian, teacher and cultural critic (Columbia U.: 1927-67) Jacques Barzun wrote that the ‘so-called warfare between science and religion [could] be seen as the warfare between two philosophies and perhaps two faiths, [a] dispute between the believers in consciousness and the believers in mechanical action; the believers in purpose and the believers in pure chance’” (Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage; U. Chicago Press, 1941).  Dinesh D’Souza points out in his recent study, What’s So Great About Christianity, modern science relies upon an “unsupported belief” both in the rationality of the universe and of our own minds.  In a lecture at Harvard University in 1925 the eminent British philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, asserted that “faith in the possibility of science… is an unconscious derivative of medieval theology” (Science and the Modern World: Free Press, p. 53). No. Science requires no faith.  Why?  It works! Observe nature. Question what you see. Guess at the answer (hypothesis) [NOTE: this is where the faithful stop]. Experiment to eliminate your hypotheses. Observe and record results. Submit the whole shebang to other experts to see if they can duplicate your findings. This is science, this and nothing more. It is this process that took us to the moon, eradicated small pox, and tamed the electron. 

Herbert Schneidau, in his widely acclaimed study of mythical cultures, Sacred Discontent: The Bible and Western Tradition (University of California Press: Berkeley, 1977), concluded that the Biblical worldview led to the rise of science and technology.  By “desacralizing” nature, the Bible sanctioned critical, objective investigation of the world and a linear concept of time. Um, no.  The middle ages are proof that science was not born from Christian ideas.  Science often ran counter to Christian doctrine to the misfortune of the scientists, like Copernicus and Galileo.  Science did not blossom in Europe until the Muslims reintroduced science to Europe, as they had no problem with science at that time.  Also, ancient Greek and Roman writings, knowledge lost in Europe for nearly 1,000 years were reintroduced thanks to the preservation efforts of the Muslims.  Loren Eiseley, the late distinguished professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania went so far as to suggest that science was an “invention” of Christianity: “it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself” (Darwin’s Century: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1961; cited in Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton, The Soul of Science, 1994; pp. 17-18).  John Lennox, a Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Oxford, has pointed out to Dawkins (in formal debates) that the Natural History Museum (where they have debated) was originally “dedicated to God and the investigation of divine design” http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/  This is an irrelevant point.

    2. Begging the Question (circular reasoning):  Dawkins constantly assumes that which he purports to prove, namely, that a godless process of evolution is the cause of everything, including “apparent design.”   No.  For example, he asserts that: “Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it” (p. 52). This is why scientists are a little behind when it comes to purely logical arguments.  Dawkins is trying to apply evolution to the creation of life. See my next comment. Although Dawkins claims that he will “show” the reader evidence for this belief, he fails to deliver. He does, actually.  It's called the whole book.  Sometimes, and we all do it, we are so in dissecting the organelle, we become oblivious to the organism.   When the issue comes up again later, he simply repeats the assertion: “Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process” (p. 98).  Dawkins announces his “commitment to naturalism” in Chapter 1.  He explains that: “An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe” (p. 35; italics added).  He seems unaware that he is making the same kind of unsupported faith commitment which he otherwise finds so inimical.  In other words, Dawkins’ foundation is not facts or evidence, but a reductionistic faith in materialism. And we are back to pious belief, and not supported evidence. Naturalism, the way Lund uses it, assumes nothing; only when facts are present then do they come to be regarded as truth.   Naturalism assumes that nothing exists besides matter and energy. That is not an assumption, that is an observation. There is even a foundation to discover supernatural phenomenon, complete with a one million dollar reward!  But so far, no supernatural phenomenon has ever been demonstrated. The end result of naturalism is self-contradiction.  If our thoughts are nothing more than a random, bio-chemical process (p. 34), then we have no basis to believe that our thoughts are true. That is because they are not random. A die is random. The lottery is random. What impulses and cranial regions that elicit thought and emotion are not random.  Here, Lund is trying to build up a straw man fallacy. They are equivalent to the secretions of our kidneys and other physical organs.  In Darwin’s (and Dawkins’) world, our thoughts need not be “true,” only “useful” (p. 413). This is oddly true. For instance, think of Newton's laws of Gravitation.  It describes a universe where objects are mutually attracted (in love?) with a force equal to the sum of their mass divided by the square of the distance between them.  This is a simple formula that reliably describes the motion of the planets, the trajectory of a bullet, and why a five pound bowling ball and a 20 pound bowling ball hit the ground at the same time. However, this is an inaccurate description of the universe.  Gravity isn't a force, like magnetism, but rather a curvature in the space/time continuum (think of a bowling ball on a mattress; the curvature of the mattress is the "gravity" made by the bowling ball). The math behind it is highly complex as well.  Yet, Newton's laws and formulas make an adequate rule of thumb for all but the most exotic of uses. Think of it this way: The number Pi is a wholly irrational number without end -- it goes on forever.  Yet skyscrapers and moon rockets get built by only going to the third or fourth decimal place of Pi.  3.1415 is good enough.   But there’s no way to know which ideas are most useful at any given time. There is: Critical thinking!  That is what critical thinking is all about: Finding what idea is most useful at that time, in that situation. Only later will it be revealed which ideas “survive.”   People are reduced to random metabolic units which receive and emit random sensory input.  Although others might find this view dismal and dehumanizing, Dawkins claims to find it “liberating” and “emancipating” (p. 419-420). And there's the fruition of Lund's Straw man.  By saying that evolution reduces people to "random metabolic units" and "random sensory input" (Lund keeps using the word random, but I don't think he knows what it means) he implies that only religion can make "metabolic units" into people -- a moral agent, if you will. Naturally, it would highly weaken Lund's position to admit that one can be good without god, or have dignity without faith in religion.

When Dawkins is so transparent about his dislike for God, he opens himself to the charge of ‘theophobia,’ that is, a fear of (or revulsion against) God.  C. S. Lewis identified this phenomenon and applied it to Sigmund Freud.  As a result, Dr. Armand Nicholi, a professor at Harvard University has taught a course comparing the ideas of Freud and Lewis.  In 2002 he published his findings in a book entitled: The Question of God: C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex and the Meaning of Life (New York: The Free Press).  Lewis agreed with Freud on one basic thing, that human beings have a tendency to "suppress" unpleasant truths."  However, Lewis disagreed with Freud regarding which truths we find most unpleasant, and which truths we try hardest to suppress.  Like Dawkins, Freud asserted that we are most afraid of "being alone" (i.e. without God) and of "being unloved" (i.e. without God's love).  Lewis disagreed.  Lewis said that when he became a Christian he reaIized that for many years his greatest fear had been "not being alone" (i.e. not being free to do whatever he wanted) and afraid of "being judged" (i.e. accountable to God).  Similarly, whereas Freud argued that we "project" our "wishes" for moral order and life after death by "creating" (an imaginary) heaven, Lewis argued that we "project" our "wishes" for personal freedom and supremacy by "creating" (an imaginary) kingdom of our own.  (See Armand M. Nicholi, Jr.: The Question of God: The Free Press, 2002).  I admit to not having anything clever to say here.  Partly because I am not that familiar with Lewis' work, nor am I familiar with the work of Nicholi. Perhaps a helpful reader will contribute to this little passage. However, from what is presented here is only partial philosophies.  Just enough for Lund to cherry pick to make his, albeit weak, point. That point being that Dawkins hates god.  Absurd.  What dawkins hates is abusive religions that tell people they are inherently evil (original sin) or insist on accepting ideas that have no bearing in reality (creationism).

    3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause):  This fallacy makes the unjustified assumption that when one thing precedes another, the first must cause the second.  Dawkins adds a peculiar twist to this fallacy by arguing that the ‘simple’ must always precede the ‘complex.’ This is quite true.  Complexity is a melding of multiple simplicities. Thus there must be at least two simple things added together before there can be a complex thing. This isn't a "chicken and the egg" problem, but rather, which came first: the egg, the peppers, and the cheese, or the omelette? He insists that in the history of the universe simple processes must always have preceded (and produced) more complex systems. This is coherent with observation. On the one hand, as mentioned earlier, Dawkins asserts the creative power of (simple) naturalistic evolution: “Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process“ (p. 98).  On the other hand, Dawkins denies the admissibility of (complex) divine creative agency: “Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as a … universe would have to be even more improbable than [a universe]” (p. 146). Lund seems to start making sense here.  On the surface it sounds good.  After all what is the improbability of a universe, and are the improbability of the creator and the created linked? No. Improbable does not mean impossible.  We are the proof that we are here.  Yet there is still no proof of a creator.

The renowned philosopher, Anthony Flew, has called Dawkins’ argument “bizarre.”  Dawkins offers no evidence in support of these assertions other than his admitted preference for any viewpoint which precludes divine activity.  The logic of Dawkins’ argument (‘simple-always-precedes-complex’) is disproved by all human artistry and engineering as well as all forms of biological reproduction. Not at all.  The argument is that the complex is always preceded by the simple.  What Lund is trying to argue against is that the complex can never produce the simple, which is not Dawkin's argument. Lund has tried to pull a logical bait and switch; or create a straw man fallacy. The artist always precedes the work of art; the chicken always comes before the egg. And that art is a simple part of a complex myriad of art that motivates culture, and inspires other artists.  The simple egg matures into a chicken as equally complex as its parents.  If Dawkins’ logic was valid, then any human agency capable of designing something as improbable as a watch, a cathedral, or a spaceship would have to be considered “improbable.” It is improbable!  Out of all of the species on Earth that have ever lived, only humans have evolved the mental capacity to leave Earth.  That's a strong argument for the impossibility of higher intelligence, but it is possible.  After all, it did happen. There’s obviously something wrong with that.  It is an accepted practice in logic to “infer to the most sufficient explanation.”  In the debate about human origins, a strong argument can be made that only divine agency can account for human life and reason. And this argument is?  Evolution provides a sufficient explanation for complex life on Earth adding a creator, be it Yahweh, Brahma, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster add another layer of complexity that must be justified in itself. By refusing to consider the possibility of divine creativity and causation, Dawkins ends up by threatening human creativity and causation as well.  These two sentences do not link.  By adding the divine to human creativity, an additional layer of complexity is added that must be justified.  Lund fails to provide this.  


I am sad to see such an educated mind fall prey to such bad arguments.  I can understand the personal need to believe that it doesn't all end six feet under.  The need to believe that we will see our loved ones again in a world without pain and suffering.  If a person were to believe just that, then only the biggest of asses would argue.  But it is all of the other stuff that comes with religion.  The hell concept, the sin concept, the misogyny, the cognitive dissonance religion requires is the source of conflict between religion and the secular world.  

Lund may never see this, and for that I am sad.  But for those who do, the world is a beautiful place and will only be more so.