Read an Excerpt

Unapologetic

Why Philosophy of Religion Must End

Pitchstone Publishing

MY INTELLECTUAL JOURNEY

Alvin Plantinga is a fundamentalist Christian philosopher of religion held in high esteem among like-minded Christians. Upon his appointment as the John O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame in 1983, he gave an inaugural lecture titled "Advice to Christian Philosophers." Before he gave his advice he prefaced it by saying this:

I propose to give some advice to the Christian or theistic philosophical community: some advice relevant to the situation in which in fact we find ourselves. "Who are you," you say, "to give the rest of us advice?" That's a good question to which one doesn't know the answer: I shall ignore it.

Of course by this time in his life he had already become an accomplished philosopher of religion. Besides, he had just been introduced to the audience. They already knew of his credentials. So he could get away with appearing humble.

Me not so much. I don't have Plantinga's credentials. So I cannot ignore this same question when I'm proposing the philosophy of religion must end. It's a very bold claim. Who do I think I am? What do I know such that philosophers of religion should take me seriously? Why should anyone listen to me? I'll confess when it comes to these sorts of questions I wonder myself.

What I can do is share my intellectual journey. I do so in hopes readers can understand what happened to me in the last decade or so. People had previously asked why I became an atheist. So I wrote an encyclopedic counterapologetics book to answer that question titled Why I Became an Atheist, which I consider my magnum opus. As a philosophically minded atheist myself, with three master's degrees and doctoral work in related fields, people will ask how I can defend the religious perspectives of new atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor Stenger. After all, they aren't known for being philosophically sophisticated to say the least. Why do I take a dismal view of a discipline I once majored in under Drs. James D. Strauss, at Lincoln Christian University, and William Lane Craig, at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School? This chapter will answer these kinds of questions. Hopefully they will satisfy.

Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, and Philosophy of Religion

After evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins published what came to be the best-selling atheist book of all time, The God Delusion, many theists wrote responses to it. These responses all argued that Dawkins was neither biblically nor philosophically informed. Well, what do you do when you have no regard at all for the God delusion, like Dawkins? What do you do when deluded pseudo-intellectuals came out in force with what I call obfuscationist theology? Do you study up on it? Do you try to match wits with these theologians and philosophers who have been at this kind of stuff for most of their lives? Do you commit yourself to years of study to show them wrong? No. I don't think that's required. Dawkins simply called these theological responses fleas. He responded correctly by ignoring their criticisms. Fleas are parasites and pests. You simply swat them away.

In 2006 biologist P. Z. Myers wrote a celebrated blog post in response to the critics of Dawkins titled "The Courtier's Reply," which was inspired by Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes." For those not familiar with the Andersen story, here is a brief summary:

Andersen's tale involves a vain king who was preoccupied with his appearance and his wardrobe. A pair of swindlers took advantage of this by pretending to be able to weave the finest cloth, which couldn't be seen by people who were either unfit for office or were particularly stupid. The king decided to have a suit of clothes made from the fabric in order to test which of his courtiers was unfit for office. As he didn't want to appear stupid or unfit for rule himself, he pretended to be able to see the new clothes, as did all of his courtiers. He paraded the "new clothes" through the streets and the onlookers, also not wishing to appear stupid, all admired them. A small child, who didn't understand the apparent necessity for pretence, piped up "But he has nothing on!". The bubble of pretence burst and soon all the onlookers were repeating what the child had said, whilst the king continued the procession, attempting to maintain his dignity by pretending that nothing had happened.

Putting Dawkins in the position of the child who interpidly spoke the obvious, Myers satirized the demand made by obfuscationist theologians and philosophers that Dawkins learn more before he dare to criticize their religious beliefs.

I have considered the impudent accusations of Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity ... Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

There are two matters to note about Myers' post, a reply that Dawkins himself praised. The first is that it represents a good case of ridicule or mockery, something we'll come back to in a later chapter. The most important thing to note is that obfuscationist theology doesn't change a thing with regard to the lack of evidence for a particular deity's religion. What matters is the evidence, sufficient objective evidence, evidence that convinces others. That's the only thing, the only requirement reasonable people who want to know the truth need. It's also the one thing lacking, for if it existed obfuscationist theology wouldn't need to be invented in order to defend the indefensible.

P. Z. Myers, like other scientists, will accept only empirical evidence for a religion. If it's not found, that's the end of it. He recommended a parable about sausages in which a philosopher and a scientist discuss a sausage machine. It starts as it ends like this:

A philosopher designs a marvelous sausage machine. A scientist comes to marvel at this wonderful creation, and raises an eyebrow. The philosopher says, "Ah, behold the wonderful cogs and sprockets and temperature-controlled mixing chambers in my wonderful machine — surely you can see how it must produce the most fantastic sausages!" The scientist says "Yes, that is all very interesting. "Show me the sausages."

To understand my previous views on the philosophy of religion, I'll quote what I earlier wrote about the courtier's reply on my blog:

There are different types of critiques of Christianity. Each one of them stresses something different coming from different areas of expertise. Some of the major areas of criticism come from 1) The sciences, especially evolution and brain science; 2) Biblical and historical criticism; 3) Philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion; 4) Archaeology; 5) Cultural anthropology; 6) Psychology; and, 7) Social and moral criticism of the Bible and the church. There are others. What atheists think is a more effective criticism is not always the same as what Christians think is more effective.

I suspect we won't all agree. Without the sciences (#1) we probably don't have much of a critique at all, at least no reasonable alternative to a creator God, so that has got to be the highest on the list. But here's the problem. Christians denigrate the sciences in favor of their holy book. In every era Christian believers have repeatedly said that reason must bow down before faith, you see. That's the problem when using the sciences in getting Christian believers to change their minds. We must first help believers see that their holy book has holes in it. To do that we must speak to them in their language by critiquing their beliefs in terms they will understand and appreciate. Otherwise we're preaching to the choir.

While I see the value of ridicule, the most effective critique of the Christian faith will be one that can best be described as a counter-apologetic. An apologetic offers reasons from several different areas of expertise on behalf of the Christian faith. A counter-apologetic does the opposite. A counter-apologetic must take believers where they are and move them (or push them) in the right direction, the direction that the sciences have shown us. But since believers usually denigrate the sciences (#1) I start with the other areas of criticism (#'s 2–7), especially biblical and historical criticism (#2), and philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion (#3).

I was thinking that believers can always reject most any scientific evidence, if doing so was required to maintain one's faith. So we needed other arguments, including those grounded in the philosophy of religion, to help them see their faith is false. Those other arguments are indeed helpful of course, if done in the right way, as I'll show in chapter 6 later. But I have come to think that since believers can always reject most any objective evidence, scientific evidence, or empirical evidence to maintain their faith, they can also reject any philosophical arguments. So why shouldn't we just focus on the evidence against faith and the corresponding lack of sufficient evidence for any extraordinary miraculous claims? It is the better route to take, since the lack of evidence is the Achilles' heel to all faith-based explanations and justifications. It's the best we can do. If appealing to the evidence doesn't convince believers then I see no reason to think mere philosophical argumentation will do any better. It's the evidence that can convince the believer, if anything can do so. Scientifically based reasoning is the best we've got. Logical reasoning based on the evidence can convince. Consistent reasoning based on the evidence can convince. Coherent reasoning based on the evidence can convince. But the evidence is paramount.

Victor Stenger and Philosophy of Religion

Around the time I first started blogging at Debunking Christianity, I posted a review on Amazon of Victor Stenger's New York Times best-selling book God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, which had just come out. My comments, dated April 15, 2007, reveal how I thought at the time.

Stenger's argument [in his book] is that science has progressed to the point that it can now make "a definitive statement" on the existence of a God who has the attributes "traditionally associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God." (p. 11). His conclusion is that the existence of this God "is not only missing from but also is contradicted by the empirical data." (p. 231).

In Stenger's previous book, Has Science Found God? he argued that the evidence for God is "inadequate." In this book he wants to say something more. Here he claims that the evidence is actually against the existence of God. (p. 17).

Stenger begins by basing his argument "on the contention that God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans." (p. 13) To those who disagree with this contention, he refers the reader to Theodore Drange's argument from non-belief, and to John L. Schellenberg's argument with regard to the problem of divine hiddenness. Drange has argued that since God wants people to believe and since he has the power to help them to believe, the reason why a majority of people don't believe in the Christian God is probably because God doesn't exist. Schellenberg has argued that since there are people who are open to believe in God who still don't believe, it means that a perfectly loving God probably doesn't exist.

Both Drange and Schellenberg's philosophical arguments form the basis of Stenger's whole argument, and I find them very persuasive. Stenger, however, seems to have a low view of philosophical arguments in general when it comes to solving the debate over the existence of God. He thinks science can step in where philosophical arguments only seem to lead to further debates, as both sides define and redefine the terms used in the arguments themselves. (p. 34). According to Stenger, "Arguments for and against God have been largely confined to philosophy and theology," while "science has sat on the sidelines and quietly watched this game of words march up and down the field." (p. 9).

The most charitable way to read Stenger is that scientific evidence is the way to tip the scales in favor of atheism, not that philosophy isn't useful in doing so, since two philosophical arguments form the basis of his whole argument. But I'm not so sure such a charitable interpretation is justified, given what he said, and given that many scientific minded people eschew philosophical argumentation.

Stenger proceeds from here by arguing there is scientific evidence against the existence of God, in so far as "absence of evidence" is "evidence of absence." (p. 18) "If we have no evidence or other reason for believing in God, then we can be pretty sure that God does not exist." (p. 18). He claims that if there is a failure with the evidence, "the argument may be made that a hidden God still may exist," but only if the believer can adequately deal with Drange and Schellenberg's arguments.

After this introductory material Stenger argues that "design is an illusion," simply because "earth and life look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God." (p. 71). He argues that brain science shows us that "thought processes are accompanied by localized physical activity in the brain." (p. 83) He argues there is no credible evidence for "out of body experiences," for psychics who claim to contact the dead, for ESP, or for the efficacy of petitionary prayer.

In his most unique scientific argument he claims that since the existence of "nothing" is fundamentally unstable, "only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something [rather than nothing at all] is just what we would expect if there is no God." (p. 133).

Stenger moves on to the evidential failures with regard to religious experience, unfulfilled prophecies, Messianic and otherwise, and the lack of archaeological evidence for the Israelite Exodus. With regard to the Exodus, Stenger quotes former believer turned agnostic, William Dever, who said, "Absolutely no trace of Moses, or indeed of an Israelite presence in Egypt, has ever turned up." (p. 186).

Stenger argues we don't need the Bible for morality, and that at times the church has used it to justify horrendous things like Southern slavery. He argues: "the hypothesis of a God who provides moral knowledge is falsified by the observable fact that many of the moral teachings found in the scripture that are supposed revelations are not obeyed by even the most pious faithful." (p. 173). And "the very fact that humans have a common moral conscience can be taken as evidence against the existence of God." (p. 210).

Lastly Stenger argues that the amount and intensity of evil in this world is evidence against the existence of God. He concludes the book by arguing that religion has a negative impact upon society.

This is a very good book, scientifically speaking, as far as I understand the science that forms the background to his argument as a whole. He's best when it comes to science, having authored a number of books on science. It should be read and discussed by everyone who is interested in the God question.

I find him lacking, as I do most scientifically minded people, when it comes to the areas of philosophy and theology though. His arguments with regard to failed prophecies and the problem of evil are too brief, and too simple. There are several objections Christian believers can make against these arguments that he doesn't show awareness of, or deal with, although, in the end I agree with his analysis. Stenger does provide further references for further reading which does what he doesn't do, in many cases. Christians can claim there is historical evidence which shows Jesus arose from the dead, which may lead them to believe, despite the other problems Stenger finds with their belief. How does science dispute this claim of theirs? Christians can also argue God isn't hidden in that the Holy Spirit reveals himself inwardly to everyone, even though I find these arguments unpersuasive.

---

Excerpted from Unapologetic by John W. Loftus. Copyright © 2016 John W. Loftus. Excerpted by permission of Pitchstone Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---