Lessons in Bad Philosophy: Dawkins Edition (part 1)

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. 

1 Peter 3:15

Based upon the Lord's instructions here, as transmitted through His servant, Peter, every Christian should be prepared to give a reasoned defense of the Faith. Now, there's no way that every believer can know how to adequately answer every argument against God, there are several arguments that every believer should prepare to answer. This is one of those arguments.

Richard Dawkins, who is probably the most high profile of the vociferously rabid, God-hating "New Atheists" of our day, summarized his central argument against God (from his best-selling The God Delusion) in the following syllogism:

1) One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2) The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3) The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

4) The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

5) We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.

6) We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

Well, it's obvious the man is no philosopher since the conclusion wouldn't follow from the premises even if all six of them were sound. But we should still all be able to refute the faulty premises here and of course the "conclusion."

If you don't think you could interact with this argument in a meaningful way, take this as a challenge from God. This is the loudest and most unrelenting spokesperson for the anti-God movement presenting his central, and therefore seemingly most compelling argument against God as creator. If there's one intellectually-oriented atheist argument we should be prepared to answer with confidence it is this one. 

In my next post on this topic I will offer some arguments against a few of these premises and in subsequent entries I'll take on the final three premises and I'll finish in my last entry in the series by refuting the conclusion. Keep your eyes peeled for that!

Sam Harris: a Compassionate Buffoon

Today, in response to the tragic shootings in Connecticut, a Facebook friend posted a quote from card-carrying new atheist, Sam Harris. I noticed many of the comments in response to Harris' thoughts were positive. Many were praising Harris for what they thought to be insightful wisdom. I wanted to take this opportunity to expose some of the self-defeating views coming from today's most vocal atheists. In this case, God-hater Sam Harris.

"The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion.

Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, 'this might be all part of God’s plan,' or 'there are no accidents in life,' or 'everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves' - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.”

― Sam Harris

First of all, I would like to say that I agree with Harris that this is a horrific tragedy, and that we, as humans, should get broken hearts over these things. That is where our agreement stops.

Now, Harris says quite a lot of things in this short two-paragraph statement. My intention is not to unpack and demolish every logical fallacy or mistake in thinking. I just want to draw attention, in particular, to the outrageously self-defeating intellectual stance the new atheists take on certain issues.

That said, I feel it necessary to call Harris out on a particularly heinous false generalization. Harris states that "religious faith . . . erodes compassion." I am assuming Harris actually means "Christian faith" rather than simply "religious faith," as he said. These guys don't usually bother to go after the actually harmful religious faiths, such as Islam. So, speaking about Christian faith, Harris' assumption is not always the case, and it is oftentimes quite the opposite. I will say that Calvinistic soteriology, brought to its logical end, can serve as a means to escape the obligation to feel compassion, and I have no doubt that many, many Calvinists do just that. However, if one simply observes the Lord Jesus; His actions and words in the New Testament, then it becomes crystal clear that true Christianity is a religion built upon the foundation of selfless love and altruistic compassion. Enough said on that point.

I'm not going to assail Harris' assessment of certain cliche Christian phrases, because their truth or falsehood is not important to my main point here. What I would like to point out, for those who care, is that Harris is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He must borrow from religious morality to even make the statements he is pushing here. Because his argument presupposes that there is a transcendent moral law he defeats his own argument. In other words, if he's right he's wrong. He can't be right that there is no moral law and also be right that it's wrong to act or think in any way. If there's no moral law then there's no right and no wrong. Evil and good are words akin to yellow and blue, vanilla and chocolate.

I'll phrase it in the form of a question so that the reader can come to the correct conclusion by using his or her brain.

If there is no God, and thus no moral law, then why is it wrong to kill people, whether adult or child? Why is it wrong to lack compassion?

In order for the word "wrong" to carry any weight there must be some sort of ethical framework that is universal. A localized morality - a system of rights and wrongs based upon the consensus of the inhabitants of the land - doesn't work. We saw that in Nazi Germany. We see it today in many nations at which we Westerners scoff because of their barbaric beliefs (i.e., the stoning of a woman for adultery, the steam-rolling of children for being part of a family that illegally practices a religion not approved by the government). Right and wrong are clearly not determined by the consensus. The law of the land can punish or praise for actions deemed unlawful or lawful, but it doesn't have the power to actually make something morally right or wrong - only legally right or wrong.

To put it into perspective, if our own government made it mandatory for every man or woman to "euthanize" their parents once they reach an age at which they are unsafe behind the wheel of an automobile, would that mean that it's right to do it? A better question is, "would it be wrong to not do it?" You would be breaking the law by not murdering your mom!

I hope you can see how fault cultural ethics prove to be in the real world.

The only non-religious option at this point is an egocentric morality, a.k.a. situational ethics. This would mean that each person chooses what is right or wrong depending on each individual situation. Well, this is clearly not an option because I'm sure Harris, like me, would agree that just because a guy finds it acceptable to murder children for this or that reason doesn't mean that it is.

This brings us back to the question of why.

Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to do anything? Why is any option better than another, morally-speaking?

Harris is trying to play the white knight riding in on his shining horse, trampling under foot all of the mean people of faith who try to find meaning in situations which may not have any, other than to serve as a painful illustration of the depths to which our nation has fallen in the realm of ethics, but in reality he makes himself out to be more of a village idiot who doesn't even understand the basic foundation of ethics, of the morality he feels so free to espouse without having any right to hold within his chosen worldview.

Does Religion Poison Everything?

“Religion poisons everything.”

This is the mantra of modern-day atheism and has been immortalized in the title of Christopher Hitchens’ book, “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” Some common manifestations of this argument against religions go as follows:

“Countless atrocities have been committed in the name of God/religion.”

“More wars have been waged, and lives lost, in the name of God/religion than any other ideal.”

“Religion/the Bible is responsible for such intolerance and hate.”

I’m sure that if you have been anywhere near the conflict between theism and atheism you have heard some form of one or all of these statements. What I would like to do, among other things, in addressing these arguments, is to lay out before you the actual numbers associated with wars, deaths and atrocities, from both sides, plus talk a little bit about tolerance and intolerance. This information will span a few posts. So, without any further ado…

Deaths and Wars in the Name of Christianity – I am giving the least favorable numbers I could find without actually using those which are fudged or speculated

The Crusades 1095-1291 AD

There is much controversy over the actual number of lives lost during the Crusades. The figures coming from reliable sources in the conservative camp land at about 200,000 casualties; but in order to hold the attention of those who trust the liberal numbers let’s be generous and just say that 1.5 million people died in the Crusades, which spanned nearly 200 years. That’s roughly 7,500 per year, or 626 per month. This will be important later.

The Spanish Inquisition 1478-1834 AD

Out of the 125,000 trials only about 1,200 – 2,000 people were actually sentenced to death. That’s about 10 people per year - less than one per month. More children die from bicycle related accidents in the US per year than at the hands of the inquisitors. Bikes must be evil. I am going to start an anti-bike website… no! I am going to be an abikist. Because bikes seem to be responsible for so much death I am going to stop believing in them. That’s logical.

The Witch Trials 1400-1800 AD

Because of the era in which we live where it’s super cool and totally “in” to be a witch, I thought I would include a short description of this strange phenomenon called the Witch Trials or the Witch Hunt. During this 400 year period people were actually really creeped out by witches, and it was definitely neither cool nor “in” to be a witch, in fact even someone calling you a witch could get you killed in any of several unpleasant ways. So how many people were executed for being witches during this period of 400 years? Between 50 and 60 thousand. That would be about 150 per year, or about 12 per month.

Grand Total: 1,562,000 - or, 1 million 562 thousand, over about a 600 year period. That ends up at about 640 per month, which is definitely not good.

Wow, people claiming to be Christians really have been responsible for many, many deaths. Does that mean that Christianity is false?

Nope.

Unlike the founder of the world’s fastest growing religion our Founder never commanded His followers to kill those who would not convert. In fact, He actually taught us to love our enemies. So, any deaths in His Name, were not truly in His Name. Murdering innocent people and saying that you are doing it for Jesus is like killing cows in the name of Gandhi. You can claim to be someone’s follower but your actions will speak louder than your words… unless you are a Christian.

You can claim to be a disciple of Gandhi if you like, but if you are an open carnivore everyone will know you are a faker. No one will point the finger at Gandhi or Hinduism; they will call you a liar.

For Christians however, the actions of people centuries ago who were clearly not following Jesus’ teachings on murder or His command to love your enemies somehow implicate Jesus and Christianity as a whole. 

This argument against Christianity, in light of the above, is blatantly fallacious. It is a tactic which God-haters of all stripes, but especially atheists, have been using as a “proof” that Christianity is false for decades now (possibly centuries).

So, other than the obvious fact that pragmatic approaches to discovering truth never hold up on their own merit, there is also the issue we already discussed that the people who were responsible for the aforementioned atrocities were clearly going against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Any murders committed in His Name were done against His commands, and thus were not truly in His Name. They certainly were not pleasing to Him. I mean, come on! When the “bad guys” arrived in the garden to haul Jesus off to a mock trial where He would be sentenced to an excruciating death for claiming to be God, which He is, Peter drew his sword and lopped off some guy named Malchus’ ear.

What did Jesus do? Did He also charge into battle with twelve legions of angels and decimate His would-be captors? If there was ever a time for retaliation this was it.

What was His response? Big surprise, He put back Malchus’ ear, good as new, and then basically tells Peter that those who live by the sword will likewise die by it.

Jesus clearly did not teach nor did He endorse killing for religious purposes.

This argument centering on religious wars is just plain bad; however, I am going to, for the sake of argument, play by these rules for my next entry on the topic of atheism. If you thought so-called “Christians” were bloodthirsty just wait ‘til you see the casualties of the atheistic worldview…

The Fanatical Self-Destruction of Atheism

I am nearing the end of a marvelous volume by G. K. Chesterton entitled, Orthodoxy. At the end of chapter 8, The Romance of Orthodoxy, I came across the following observation about atheism which I probably read five or six times before I moved on. It is a wonderfully accurate portrayal of modern atheism, even more so than it was of atheism in Chesterton's day.

[speaking of the militant atheist]
"He sacrifices the very existence of humanity to the non-existence of God. He offers his victims not to the altar, but merely to assert the idleness of the altar and the emptiness of the throne. He is ready to ruin even the primary ethic by which all things live, for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some one who never lived at all."

I will follow up that quote with this excerpt from Where All Roads Lead, by Chesterton as well.

"If there were not God, there would be no atheists."

The utter futility of atheism...

I believe I have recently stumbled upon the truth about why such rabid God-haters as Richard Dawkins and Christipher Hitchins expend such copious amounts of time end energy trying to get you and I to stop believing in God. Note that they don't seem to be so much concerned with simply defending their scientifically unprovable stance that there is no God, as they are with vehemently slandering the God they claim does not exist.

So, here is why I believe these men are found spending and being spent in the pursuit of convincing people that there is no God:

"Misery loves company."

Let me unpack that statement a little.

Track with me. If there is no God, no moral Lawgiver, no Originator of meaning and purpose; if Darwinian evolution, neo-Darwinian evolution, punctuated equilibrium, or whatever they come up with next, is true... then we, this planet, this universe, are little more than a cosmic accident, the product of a miraculous belch in which nothing somehow became gasses and then relieved itself. I move to rename it the Big Fart.

So, following logically, if we are the accidental outcome of evolution then our existence is intrinsically meaningless. There is no purpose. Sure, you can accumulate wealth and power but when you die it either goes with you into the ground (if you are a grumpy accident), or it goes to your children (if you are a sentimental accident), or... it goes to charity (if you are an altruistic accident). But even if you pass it on at some point it also passes on, as do all of those you passed it to.

Or, you could live a life of sacrifice in which you choose the betterment of others over your own pleasure, but all of those for whom you spend your time, energy and resources trying to help will also eventually die and then what have you done? You have worked against natural selection!

This can go on for eons and then what?

Heat Death

The universe attains equilibrium and becomes a really, really big ghost town, where nothing can or will ever live again.

This is depressing stuff. Seems like it would tend to make those who believe it miserable. And, as we know, misery loves company.

See, it doesn't make sense to rail against a being who does not exist. What if I started an anti-Shiva website, where I made it my singular aim to defame, insult, curse and otherwise bully Shiva the Destroyer (a Hindu god who, together with Brahma and Vishnu, make up the Hindu version of the Trinity), a being I know to be fictitious? If I know that said being is not real I will give an apologetic for what I believe and against this other entity, as Christians do, but there would be no animosity (and there isn't). I may even speak out against the founder of Shiva worship, laying out evidence that this person is not credible, but I would have no personal emotional response to the deity.

So my question for the New Atheists is this:

Why all the hatred? Why the obvious personal vendetta against a God you claim does not exist? If you say, "Because religion has caused so much death and destruction! That's why!" then you will probably want to tune in for an upcoming entry where I will display and discuss the numbers of people killed in the name of religion compared and contrasted with the numbers of those killed as a result of secular humanism and the atheistic worldview.