You may have heard of the so-called “New Atheists” — men like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.
There’s nothing especially new about them except their attitude. However, they are very smart men and very good at what they do. To challenge these gentlemen in the battlefield of ideas, you need to be well-armed with both a sound body of knowledge and a skillful technique. The New Atheists may not have the facts on their side, but they can be overpowering with their rhetoric.
With that in mind, it’s important to be very careful about the way you take them on. A friend sent me a link to the following YouTube video in which an organization attempts to do just that (NOTE: I disapprove of the video; please take it as an example of “what not to do” for reasons I’ll offer below):
The video is attempting to make an argument that goes something like this:
- Sam Harris likes to think, and promotes reason and rationality.
- Richard Dawkins likes to think, and promotes reason and rationality.
- Robespierre liked to think, and promoted reason and rationality.
- Robespierre killed people who disagreed with him.
- Therefore, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins want to kill people who disagree with them.
This showcases some faulty arguments: the guilt by association fallacy, to name one, but also see The Hitler Card.
They seem to be saying that if you like to think and promote reason and rationality, you’re on par with a genocidal tyrant. This is wildly irresponsible; I daresay Jesus liked to think and promoted reason and rationality…
There’s more; I also detect another message in the video:
- Sam Harris does not believe in God.
- Richard Dawkins does not believe in God.
- Therefore, people who do not believe in God like to think and promote reason and rationality. (See the hasty generalization fallacy)
- Therefore, you should believe in God, not think, and reject reason and rationality.
I’m sure that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins watch videos like that with great satisfaction, knowing that their jobs are getting easier with every viewing. Not only is this argument invalid — the conclusion does not follow from the premises — it seems to imply that God is calling us to be ignorant and naïve.
Then the video ends by (implicitly) calling Harris and Dawkins “fools,” quoting Psalm 14:1. While I affirm the judgment of Scripture, how does name-calling — even if it’s sanctified with a Scriptural basis — win over the other side? I mean, in principle, I agree with the people who made the video, but I find myself repelled by the way they made their “case.”
I quoted Nietzsche a while back — “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” Nietzsche was an atheist who got a lot of things wrong, but God gave him a very sharp (though fallen) mind. In this case I think he was right. Christians who do not learn to give sound, powerful arguments for God’s existence and the truth of the Gospel, and instead settle for flawed arguments and sound bites like what we see in this video, are doing the Church — and its Head — no favors.
A Better Idea
I suggest that taking on the ideas of the New Atheists advances our cause more than sound bites and name-calling. Not only are such tactics feeble, they are also fleshly, and Scripture gives us a better way. As Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5,
For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ…
Let’s open the discussion with a question that hopefully leads to a more potent refutation of the New Atheists’ position.
Dawkins was quoted in the video as saying,
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Here’s the question: is Dawkins making a responsible claim, or is he guilty of spinning a fairy tale himself?
Hugh, I guess I viewed this somewhat differently than you did. It seems to me the video is making the point that ideas have consequences. It points out that historically, when people who share Dawkin’s and Harris’ ideas have been given access to power, the result has been horrific. Professed atheists are in fact the biggest mass murderers of the 20th century. I don’t think that is ‘guilt by association’ it is walking through to the consequences of this belief system. As the video points out, if God does not exist, there is no right and wrong and all things are permissible.
It is perfectly legitimate in my mind to analyze ideas by looking at what those ideas have led to when they’ve been given free reign (if we have the luxury of having an historical example of that, which we do in this case – several of them).
I also don’t think the producers of this are ‘dissing’ reason and thinking. I see their problem being with the use of unaided human reason and the elevation of reason to a place that should be occupied by God. The French revolutionaries in fact personified reason, making ‘her’ a goddess at whose feet they worshiped – leading as is pointed out here to the reign of terror.
I think Dawkin’s quote is an example of using unaided human reason to analyze the world. If we presuppose there is no God, it may indeed look like the events of the world, both good and bad, are random and pointless. However, when we view those events through the lens of a Biblical world view they appear very differently.
This is certainly not a perfect or complete refutation of Dawkins and Harris but I think it makes several valid points.
I see your point, Larry.
Unfortunately, the medium obscures that message. Try watching the video with the sound turned off and I think you’ll see what I mean.
In a visual medium, the things you see are the boldface headers of the message. In this case, the visuals communicate that Harris = Dawkins = Robespierre = Hitler = Stalin, and that the thing that equates them is a commitment to reason and rationality — not their atheism. The visuals never (until the end, after the emotional appeal has been driven home) communicate that the source of all this evil is the “de-Godding of God,” to use D.A. Carson’s phrase.
This was indeed interesting – to get to your question, Hugh – I guess refuting Dawkins’ position should, for this discusiion, hinge on proving the existence of design, purpose, evil and good. I’ll leave that to the apologists 🙂
To me, the last statement was far more interesting: “Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Now there’s a sentence loaded with emotion. I would’ve expected a logical (and rational!) conclusion which omitted the qualifiers. This reminds me of an observation made by Rick Warren (purpose driven life), stating that he has never met an atheist who isn’t angry. The best proponents of atheism do not display that emotion in their reasonings or in their tone of voice, yet it seeps through in so many statements, like “blind, pitiless indifference.” Interesting.
We all go through stuff at one point or another. I have seen too many Christians deny design and purpose and become conflicted about the goodness of God (vs. indifference?) when they are in tough situations with bad outcomes.
To personalize this, maybe I can contribute my small part by ensuring that I doggedly pursue God, regardless of how I feel, by unwaveringly believing in the utter goodness of His character rather than pouting like a petulant toddler, demanding that God changes my circumstances; by stepping back and getting the big picture – knowing that we are here but for a very short time and that the One who designed and purposed everything is intricately involved in my life, fully in control, and cheering me on to make the right choices; to trust Him wholeheartedly, not by tuning out rationality, but by pushing through the hard questions and obtaining a glimpse of eternity and maintaining a quiet, restful heart.
That’s in response to the “no design, no purpose, no good” part. What to do with “no evil” – hmmm – one thing to get into philosophy 101 stuff about good and evil – much more removed and comfortable than getting your heart involved.
However, what liberty lies in setting your face like flint, determining to follow God regardless of what hits you; regardless if you ever hear His voice again, ever sense His presence, ever observe His working in your life; to know that there is no circumstance that could dissuade you from putting your trust in Him – moment by moment. Reminds me of Is 50:10 – “Who is among you that feareth Jehovah, that obeyeth the voice of his servant? he that walketh in darkness, and hath no light, let him trust in the name of Jehovah, and rely upon his God.”
So I guess that would be my personal “life” response to your discussion question.
Here’s my 2 cents…
Dawkins’ statement employs a form of hypothetical reasoning in which he asks, “What must be the case in order to account for the observations we see in the universe?” His answer is that the universe must be undesigned, without purpose, and amoral in order to account for the observations he makes about the universe.
Hypothetical reasoning is a valid form of reasoning, although there is always the possibility that someone will set forth a new explanation which will account for the observed data in a better way than the previous explanation. Hypothetical reasoning thus cannot prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it can provide a rational basis for believing something to be the best known explanation for observed data. So the problem with Dawkins’ statement is not necessarily his method of reasoning.
The problem with Dawkins’ statement is found primarily in the set of “properties” which he observes in the universe, i.e., the data set which he is trying to explain by positing an undesigned universe. Unfortunately, Dawkins has presupposed a naturalistic worldview in which all of reality can be accessed by the scientific method alone. As a result, the set of “properties” which he uses to infer conclusions about the nature of the universe must only be those observations which can be confirmed by science.
Dawkins has therefore by definition excluded any possibility of the occurrence of divine revelation in the past, since it is impossible to confirm such revelation ever occurred by means of science. By arbitrarily choosing to exclude any evidence that God has spoken, Dawkins is working with a very limited data set (i.e., only those “properties” which are scientifically observable) from which to infer conclusions about the nature of the universe. It is not surprising, then, that his conclusions are unconvincing.
I think that it is helpful to be able to set forth arguments for the existence of design and purpose and morality in the universe, but we should recognize that Dawkins rejects these kinds of arguments outright because they are not based on empirical science, or at least not on his brand of empirical science. Therefore, we must first and foremost argue for the inadequacy of the scientific method to explain all of reality.
In short, Dawkins’ statement is irresponsible because he assumes without warrant that empirical science can generate a sufficiently complete picture of reality from which to infer the nature of the universe.
Wow, Sandra… if you ever start a blog I’ll be a loyal reader! 🙂 I detect shades of C. S. Lewis in your prose… I’m reminded of the words of Screwtape: “Our cause is never more in danger, than when a human, no longer desiring, but intending, to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.” Sounds like your profession to me!
You say you’ll leave some things to “the apologists,” but I’ll gently observe we are all called to be apologists — 1 Peter 3:15 is a binding imperative for all of us, not just a sort of “Christianity deluxe” that some people opt for.
But if you mean just the philosophical side of apologetics, well, perhaps you’re wise to do so. Someone has said that philosophy is the equivalent of speaking in tongues, except that even the angels can’t understand what you’re saying… 😉
Your “personal ‘life’ response” is delightful and eloquent, and I think there is apologetic value in a life lived out with radical devotion like you described. (Do you sense the “but” coming?) But you have to be able to show that it’s not just an emotional response or a blind leap of faith — it has to be bolted to reality. The question you’ll need to answer is this: How do you know that your radical devotion is well-placed? A Mormon or a Muslim could make the same statement you offered — why is your Christian response any different?
As you said, the philosophical answers often come across as “removed and comfortable” compared with “getting your heart involved.” I think you can do both. Sandra, if you can compose a reasoned defense of your Christian faith with the same poetry and flair that is evident in the testimony of your devotion, you will render the Kingdom a great service — I hope to read it!
@Jason — how do you think someone like Dawkins might be dissuaded from philosophical naturalism (the idea that the physical universe is all there is)? Given that he presupposes a naturalistic worldview, how do you drive him to the point of tension that shows the weakness in his worldview — that the universe doesn’t work the way he thinks it does?
Hugh,
I know you asked Jason (and I’m sure he’ll give an excellent answer!) but my take on that would be you have to point out the things he assumes to be true or to exist that cannot be seen, felt, touched, etc. Things that could not truly exist if the physical universe was all there was. All materialists have such things that they believe in that cannot be accounted for by materialism, “reason” itself being one of them. No one has ever held “reason” in their hand.
Ultimately though if Dawkins is to move from death unto life, it will happen the same way that it does for everyone else, by hearing the word of God and having the Holy Spirit open his eyes to its truth.
BTW, I’ll take a look at the video again without sound to see if the message I got changes, after that I’m going to listen to my Beatles album backwards. 🙂
I agree with Larry in that we must challenge Dawkins to account for the very existence of reason/logic and causation in his worldview before we allow him to use reason and cause-and-effect scenarios to try to persuade us of his worldview. While there are a host of other non-physical realities which Dawkins’ worldview cannot account for, these two would seem to be the most significant in challenging his thinking.
I would also point out that empirical observations are basically meaningless unless they are interpreted by the scientist, at which point the scientist’s worldview necessarily affects how the scientist interprets the data. Therefore, empirical observations, when interpreted so as to draw meaningful conclusions, are not as objective as they at first seem. Empirical observations in themselves cannot provide an objective foundation for a worldview, although Dawkins acts as if they can.
Finally, I would point out that Dawkins’ worldview seems to be akin to a short-lived philosophical movement from the 1920’s known as logical positivism, which restricted the domain of reason and knowledge to that which can be known by empirical observation. This movement was short-lived because its central tenet — the verification principle — was self-refuting. In other words, the claim that knowledge is limited to what can be known by empirical observation does not stand up to its own test, in that this claim itself cannot be observed empirically.
I think Larry makes a very good point — these arguments in themselves are incapable of softening a heart which God has hardened to the truth; but God may choose to use arguments such as these as a means to soften a heart like that of Dawkins.
William Lane Craig has offered a deft, brief response to Dawkins’ argument for atheism. In summary:
He goes on to explain briefly why this is so. It’s a short piece worth reading.
That is a good article Hugh. I too thought #3 was the worst argument. Dawkins falls back on the old ‘who made God?’ question. However, if God has no beginning and no end as the Scriptures clearly teach, then there is no ’cause’ for Him. Only things that have a beginning have a cause.
As usual, Dawkins’ argument requires certain presuppositions (i.e. if there is a god, he, she, it must be finite like we are) in order to be valid and even then (if his assumptions are true), as Craig says, that doesn’t ‘prove’ there is no God.
I do not find Dr. Craig’s response to Dawkins’ argument for atheism entirely convincing. The heart of Dawkins’ argument is really statement 4, since statements 1-3 are dealing with the objection that a designer is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, and since statements 5-6 are dealing with the objection that Dawkins’ worldview has no explanation for the appearance of design in physics.
Statement 4 is therefore the primary statement which grounds Dawkins’ conclusion that “Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.” I believe, contrary to Dr. Craig, that this conclusion does follow logically from Statement 4 in particular (and the other statements in general), since it would seem to be the case that if Darwinian evolution by natural selection is true, then there was no Creator of life.
Dawkins is careful not to overstate his case by inserting the qualifier “almost certainly” in his conclusion. This qualifier is necessary because Darwinian evolution by natural selection is (in Dawkins’ mind) the best explanation of the appearance of design in biology [Statement 4]. However, Dawkins appears to realize that his argument is a form of hypothetical reasoning, and conclusions drawn from hypothetical reasoning can be overturned if a better explanation comes along to account for the evidence.
Dr. Craig’s rebuttal of Statement 3 is helpful as far as it goes, but I wonder if it goes far enough. Dr. Craig’s counter-argument only demonstrates that logically we are not required to give an explanation of the origin of a designer; what we need, however, is a counter-argument which demonstrates that the best explanation of design in the universe is a designer.
Statements 5-6 of Dawkins’ argument are probably indicative of how he handles the objections which were raised in previous comments by myself and Larry that his worldview does not account for the existence of such things as reason and causation, since these things might reasonably be subsumed under or likened to the category of “physics.” Basically, Dawkins seems to be saying that he is justified in believing in things which cannot be accounted for in his worldview (e.g., the laws of physics), because he believes that science (= his worldview) will be able to account for these things eventually. He puts a lot of faith in the future of science. It is at this point that we see most clearly Dawkins’ presuppositional commitments.
I doubt that we can prove to Dawkins that science will never be able to account for the existence of things such as logic and causation. But if Dawkins believes it is justifiable to believe in things which science might possibly be able to account for eventually [as Statements 5-6 suggest], on what basis can he say that science will never eventually account for the existence of God? In other words, on what basis does Dawkins choose to believe that one proposed non-physical reality [e.g., laws of physics] is something which science will eventually be able to account for, whereas another proposed non-physical reality [e.g. God] is something which science will never be able to account for and therefore not justifiable to believe in? Dawkins appears to have no workable basis for distinguishing justifiable beliefs in non-physical realities from non-justifiable beliefs in non-physical realities. It is therefore inconsistent for Dawkins to say that Christians do not have justifiable belief in God.
If Dawkins would concede that point, we would then proceed to demonstrate that the Christian worldview already accounts for all non-physical realities in the present, and we do not need to wait for science to catch up. The Christian worldview presents the most powerful explanation of all of reality, not just in biology, but across the board.
Hugh, I meant to respond earlier to your gentle admonition regarding being ready to give an account of what we believe (1Pet 3:15) – earthly things like laundry and cooking got in the way :).
I certainly believe that one needs to be able and willing to give reasons for the hope you hold – one of the clearest examples to me is in Acts 18, concerning Apollos, who was already “an eloquent man,” “and he was mighty in the scriptures.” Priscilla and Aquila heard him “and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately.” The result was that in culturally-progressive Achaia, “he powerfully confuted the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” So yes, let’s all get on board and be able to eloquently, logically and reasonably defend the faith.
But… 😉
That should be the very minimum requirement in our mission as kingdom-bearers. When I was young I loved debating for the sake of debating, and winning the argument was to my shame more rewarding to me than winning the person. Alas, the years brought temperance, compassion, and hopefully stripped away some of my youthful arrogance. I started to understand the latter part of 1 Peter 3:15 – “but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear”
Lately, I have spoken to atheists far differently – I listened more and defended less. I listened for the fear or the anger or the despair, and I responded specifically to that. The effects are quite different.
Corinth was thriving, progressive, not in need of God. When Paul, who was more than able to hold his own, went to Corinth the first time, he did something odd – alomost counter-intuitive – he states “when I came unto you, (I)came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co 2:5 that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”
Henry’s commentary about this portion is amusing:
“He did not affect to appear a fine orator or a deep philosopher; nor did he insinuate himself into their minds, by a flourish of words, or a pompous show of deep reason and extraordinary science and skill. He did not set himself to captivate the ear by fine turns and eloquent expressions, nor to please and entertain the fancy with lofty flights of sublime notions. Neither his speech, nor the wisdom he taught, savoured of human skill: he learnt both in another school.”
All of this just to say that yes, we ought to be able to defend the faith well, but with our hearts as well as with our minds, and our passionate arguments need to at least be matched by similar passion in our prayers and tears for the lost.
Here’s my take:
Robespierre was French. French is a dressing. Dressing is eaten at Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is in November. November starts with N, so does Napoleon. Napoleon was French.
See, it all makes sense.
Sorry folks, that’s all my brain’s got!