Monday, August 31, 2009

The (Real) Problem With Atheism

Did you know the new atheism is on the wane? Did you even know there was such a thing as the new atheism? In recent years there has been a surge of activity from atheists. Organizations, web sites, conferences and books advocating the materialistic world view have entered the spiritual marketplace. Fueled by strong convictions, these thinkers have made little attempt to make their hard-edged attitudes palatable to the unsuspecting public. Instead, they have force-fed their ideas onto searchers, insisting that atheism is mandated by science and logic. When you strip away religious sentiment and just look at the data, they declared, atheism is required.

Initially the new atheism attracted quite a bit of attention but now, as Bryon McCane pointed out this week, it is fading fast. I take some solace in its demise not because I dislike atheists but because the new atheism sowed needless confusion. Atheism is, and always has been, irrelevant in the origins debate. But the rise of the new atheism made atheism appear more important than it really is.

For many, atheism is the driving force behind evolutionary thought. Isn't the origins debate between religious people and those who reject god? Did not Princeton's Charles Hodge early on identify Darwinism as atheism in disguise? Is not the rise of twentieth century atheism evidence for this? After all, it was the leading atheist Richard Dawkins who admitted that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

The rise of the new atheism seemed to confirm such views. Evolution, it seems, is all about atheism.

Before we close this case, however, let's take one more look. First, there are no arguments for evolution made from atheism. If you study the evolution genre, and especially that part that argues for the veracity of the theory, you will have great difficulty finding atheistic premises. In fact, I have not found any.

The strong arguments for evolution are, and always have been, from theism. God would not create this gritty world so it must have evolved. There is no meaningful distinction between theist and atheist when it comes to belief in evolution--they both rely on the same theological premises. An evolutionary theist, such as Francis Collins, and an evolutionary atheist, such as PZ Myers, use arguments that rely on the same theological assumptions.

This is the dirty little trade secret of atheism: it is parasitical on theism. Atheism, itself, has nothing to add to the origins debate. As McCane notes, "the new atheists’ biggest mistake, by far, was to be openly intolerant of religion. They mocked, derided and made fun of it."

Indeed, atheism is motivated by skepticism of theism. It is not a positive argument for atheism, but a negative argument against theism. But an argument against theism usually entails theological convictions. Talk to any atheist and you're liable to hear strong convictions about what god should and should not do. As the atheist Myers wrote in the LA Times recently:

We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.

How do they have any idea what god would and would not do? Because they hold certain beliefs about god. Their atheism relies on their theism. Unbelievable. The folks who bring you the new, cutting edge, atheism rely on, yes, their own ridiculous pious pleadings. How pathetic.

But this "new" atheism is nothing new. Arguments for evolution and atheism have always been religious. In his massive investigation of the rise of atheism in eighteenth century France, historian Alan Charles Kors found that French atheism had come from the church and its culture. Kors wrote:

[My] inquiry led not to a prior history of free thought ... but to the orthodox culture of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries in France. It was, above all, within the deeply Christian learned culture of those years that there occurred inquiries and debates that generated the components of atheistic thought. It was, to say the least, not what I had expected; it indeed was what I found. … Before one can understand the heterodoxy of early-modern atheism, one first must understand the orthodox sources of disbelief.”

Likewise the eighteenth century Scottish philosopher David Hume buttressed his religious skepticism and nascent evolutionary ideas by relentlessly pounding home his attacks against theism. The complexity of the world was a tremendous problem for Hume, but it was trumped by the world's evil. "Here I triumph," proclaimed his character Philo.

Hume's arguments were largely borrowed from seventeenth and eighteenth century theists. So were Darwin's. In the centuries leading up to Darwin, Christians were pondering how god created the world. A handful of theological concerns mandated that god created strictly via natural laws rather than divine intervention. Leading theologians and philosophers declared that the world must have arisen via natural processes (read evolution). By Darwin's day these arguments had gained momentum and it is no surprise that scientists on different sides of the world were convinced that an evolutionary narrative was required, though they didn't know how the species could have evolved. Yesterday's theology had become today's science.

The story is no different today. Scientifically the theory is a muddle, but metaphysically it is mandated. Its truth is derived from the rejection of design / creation. Today, as in centuries past, the arguments come from the theists and are borrowed by the atheists.

Evolution is not about science, it is about god, and atheism is irrelevant. It makes no difference whether the theological arguments come from a theist such as Francis Collins or an atheist such as PZ Myers, the science is asinine either way.

And what was it that Dawkins said? "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Note the causal relationship. It was evolution that fueled atheism, not the other way around. The real problem with atheism is not that it is the driving force behind evolution; rather, the real problem is that it masks the driving force behind evolution. It is theism, not atheism, that is the driving force behind evolution.

20 comments:

  1. Oh look, here's a new Atheist now! Evolution is a scientific theory based on facts and has nothing to do with Atheism.(I'm kinda blue in the face from repeating that to theists) I think you clearly misunderstand Atheists. We merely look at origins as A plausible credible explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Sorry we don't look at magic or tall tales then run around and force our conjured up ethics on other folks. As for Atheists being openly intolerant of religion like it's a bad thing maybe you should have not used such a oxymoron for a label on this story (Evolution's religion) and perhaps labeled it 'my intolerance for Atheism'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Funny, I thought the strongest arguments for evolution came from biology.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Evolution ... has nothing to do with Atheism"

    That's what the post says.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous Coward:

    It also says that evolution enabled atheism which is a prety idiotic statment since there were atheists long before the theory of evolution. Also it says that evolution isn't about science, its about god.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Matt:

    "Funny, I thought the strongest arguments for evolution came from biology."

    No, the strong arguments are metaphysical. For example, see this:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/sober-rebukes-evolutions-religion.html

    And I'll be posting more on this ...

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Sorry we don't look at magic or tall tales then run around and force our conjured up ethics on other folks."

    So I take it you'd be fine with Joe Schmoe marrying his brother or getting it on with fido? Since you're so against forcing your conjured up ethics (morals are just opinions) on other people and all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Atheist principle 110: .There is no God. Chance and necessity - purely material causes - gave rise to humans

    Darwinist principle 110b: Evolution must only be explained in terms of chance and neccessity.
    No discussion or inference to design can be tolerated.

    Darwinian Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism.

    LOL !

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Darwinian Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism. LOL !"

    You greatly underestimate evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Samuel Skinner

    I don't really get what your point is. You do realize the Epicurians had already come up with "natural processes create the world and the Gods don't interfere" before the rise of Rome?

    As for atheism being parasitic upon theism, no, really? Do you think people normally argue against something if no one believes it? It has no bearing upon the truth value of atheism.

    "Evolution is not about science, it is about god, and atheism is irrelevant."

    No, evolution is about how life changes over time. It has no need for God. Like all of science it is entirely secular. And this is as it should be.

    "So I take it you'd be fine with Joe Schmoe marrying his brother or getting it on with fido? Since you're so against forcing your conjured up ethics (morals are just opinions) on other people and all."

    Remember kids, having sex with animals is wrong. However killing them and eating them is perfectly fine! There is a perfectly good reason for this... okay, I'm lying.

    As for forcing our ethics on other people... what do you think laws are for? People complain about forcing your ethics on others when your ethics are insane.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Samuel:


    "I don't really get what your point is. You do realize the Epicurians had already come up with 'natural processes create the world and the Gods don't interfere' before the rise of Rome?"

    Yes, I realize materialistic ideas go back to antiquity. My point is not that atheism comes from evolution, but rather that evolution does *not* come from atheism. Today, the relationship between evolution and atheism is that, as Dawkins says, evolution fuels atheism.

    ---
    "Evolution is not about science, it is about god, and atheism is irrelevant."

    No, evolution is about how life changes over time. It has no need for God. Like all of science it is entirely secular. And this is as it should be.
    ---

    Then why is evolutionary science so silly, and why does evolution rely on metaphysical arguments for its justification?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Samuel Skinner

    "Then why is evolutionary science so silly, "

    Silly is a subjective term- how is it silly?

    "why does evolution rely on metaphysical arguments for its justification?"

    It doesn't.
    http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

    That is the title of the chapters from On the Origin of Species. None of them deal with any metaphysical justifications- the justification is that life exhibits these patterns and this explanation explains the patterns the best.

    Obviously the theory has changed over time, but these were the arguements that managed to get it accepted by the scientific community. It does have a common logical underpinning with all of science (express things in math and equations, simplest explanation with predictive power, naturalistic, etc) but none are unique to it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Samuel:

    ---
    It doesn't.
    http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

    That is the title of the chapters from On the Origin of Species. None of them deal with any metaphysical justifications
    ---

    Of course it does--Darwin's key arguments all entail metaphysical premises. What is remarkable is the denial that evolutionists are in, about their own arguments. One moment they give you a sermon, and the next they claim it is "just science."

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-jerry-coyne-liar-or-just-in-denial.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/evolutions-religion-revealed.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/sober-rebukes-evolutions-religion.html

    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_6_The_fact

    ReplyDelete
  13. Samuel Skinner

    Attempting to make a rebuttal resulted in an argument too cumbersome to use.

    Anyway I'll try to aim for the heart of the matter.

    Simply put, name an alternative theory. This theory must explain all that evolution explains, explains things you claim evolution cannot explain and do so without adding any more complications (although is resolution is increased complications are acceptable).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Samuel:

    "Simply put, name an alternative theory. This theory must explain all that evolution explains, explains things you claim evolution cannot explain and do so without adding any more complications (although is resolution is increased complications are acceptable)."

    Well I would need to know how you define "evolution." Are you an evolutionist, using the word in the sense that it is used in the evolution literature (ie, a factual explanation of how the species arose, though many details are yet to be ironed out)?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Samuel Skinner

    Why would you need to know the current theory in order to offer an alternate theory?

    ReplyDelete
  16. If it wasn't clear, I don't have to provide a theory- you have to show how your proposal is better than all currently existing theories.

    As for evolution I always use the dictionary definition of a word unless otherwise noted.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

    : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

    ReplyDelete
  17. Samuel:

    "As for evolution I always use the dictionary definition of a word unless otherwise noted."

    OK, that seems reasonable. Now, do you think it is a fact, absurd, somewhere in between ...?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @"do you think it is a fact, absurd, somewhere in between ...?"

    It makes no difference what he thinks. The fact is that all life reproduces with variations and all life dies. That makes evolution a reality whether you find it silly or not.

    There are people who follow every religion on the planet, and people who follow no religion at all, who understand this.

    There are also people who seem unwilling and unable to grasp this basic truth, regardless of religion. That's absurd, but it's a sad fact.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Arthur:

    "The fact is that all life reproduces with variations and all life dies. That makes evolution a reality whether you find it silly or not."

    Actually this does not make evolution a reality, unless you redefine evolution. This view is widespread and it reveals the degree of misinformation that is out there.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Samuel Skinner

    "Actually this does not make evolution a reality, unless you redefine evolution. This view is widespread and it reveals the degree of misinformation that is out there."

    Not all individuals have offspring. The pool of living things changes over time as those that manage to have offspring have a large portion of the pool. I could go into more detail, but that is basically it- competition for limited resources leads to traits being selected based on how well they assist with survival.

    ReplyDelete