Peter S. Williams is a Christian philosopher who is very familiar with the contemporary atheistic literature, specially with the so-called "New Atheism" kind of literature.
His book A Sceptic's Guide To Atheism (which can be bought in Amazon.co.uk, not Amazon.com) is a decisive confutation of the new atheism. Nuanced, balanced, erudite and charitable, Williams explores each of the best new atheistic arguments for atheism and against theism, and shows them seriously flawed (fallacious, resting on unjustified or even false assumptions, inconsistent, etc.).
A major virtue of Williams' book is that his arguments don't assume the truth of Christian theism. Even though Williams is a Christian, the premises of most of his arguments against atheism can be, and in fact are, largely accepted by agnostics and even atheists themselves. This gives Williams a crucial dialectical adventage: his critics will have to reject premises which, for most part, they accept themselves when arguing for other topics. They will tend to be caught in the uncomfortable position of having to reject arguments that, in the critics' own standards, are based on very plausible premises (which would expose the critic's wishful thinking and intellectual dishonesty).
Another interesting aspect of Williams' book is his explanation of what "faith" actually means in Christian theism, and how the new atheists constantly misrespresent the concept, and how they themselves concede that some of their positions are based on faith.
For example, Williams quotes Dawkins saying that faith is "blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence" (p.63). However, Dawkins himself has conceded that some aspects of his hard-core belief in the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is based on faith: "There cannot have been intermediate states that were not beneficial... If you can't think in one, then it's your problem, not natural selection's problem. Natural seleccion- well, I suppose that it is a matter of faith in my part" (p.64)
Why exactly is Dawkins' faith superior or better than the faith of religious believers that he condemns and castigates? Epistemologically, if "faith" is defined in terms' of Dawkins' own definition, his act of faith regarding natural selection is so irrational as the faith of religious believers.
Evolution by natural selection, on Dawkins' own concession, is not just a scientific hypothesis supported by evidence, but something that has to be true as a matter of faith on his part. (This kind of fanatical irrationalism can explain Dawkins' dogmatic, bigoted and intolerant censorship of the publication of agnostic journalist Richard Milton's critical article about Darwinism).
Perhaps Dawkins would defend his faith saying that, at least it is not so bad or evil as the faith of religious fundamentalists.
The problem with this response is that, epistemologically, Dawkins' faith is so irrational like the ones of religious fundamentalists (even if it is conceded that his faith is morally superior than the ones of religious fundamentalists). Moreover, in Dawkins' own worldview, the "evil and the good" are not objective properties of the world; therefore, there is not objective way to say that Dawkins' faith is morally superior or inferior than other faiths. It's just faith (as defined by Dawkins), and hence irrational. PERIOD.
Conclusive evidence of the moral poverty of Dawkins's atheistic worldview is seen in these videos:
His book A Sceptic's Guide To Atheism (which can be bought in Amazon.co.uk, not Amazon.com) is a decisive confutation of the new atheism. Nuanced, balanced, erudite and charitable, Williams explores each of the best new atheistic arguments for atheism and against theism, and shows them seriously flawed (fallacious, resting on unjustified or even false assumptions, inconsistent, etc.).
A major virtue of Williams' book is that his arguments don't assume the truth of Christian theism. Even though Williams is a Christian, the premises of most of his arguments against atheism can be, and in fact are, largely accepted by agnostics and even atheists themselves. This gives Williams a crucial dialectical adventage: his critics will have to reject premises which, for most part, they accept themselves when arguing for other topics. They will tend to be caught in the uncomfortable position of having to reject arguments that, in the critics' own standards, are based on very plausible premises (which would expose the critic's wishful thinking and intellectual dishonesty).
Another interesting aspect of Williams' book is his explanation of what "faith" actually means in Christian theism, and how the new atheists constantly misrespresent the concept, and how they themselves concede that some of their positions are based on faith.
For example, Williams quotes Dawkins saying that faith is "blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence" (p.63). However, Dawkins himself has conceded that some aspects of his hard-core belief in the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is based on faith: "There cannot have been intermediate states that were not beneficial... If you can't think in one, then it's your problem, not natural selection's problem. Natural seleccion- well, I suppose that it is a matter of faith in my part" (p.64)
Why exactly is Dawkins' faith superior or better than the faith of religious believers that he condemns and castigates? Epistemologically, if "faith" is defined in terms' of Dawkins' own definition, his act of faith regarding natural selection is so irrational as the faith of religious believers.
Evolution by natural selection, on Dawkins' own concession, is not just a scientific hypothesis supported by evidence, but something that has to be true as a matter of faith on his part. (This kind of fanatical irrationalism can explain Dawkins' dogmatic, bigoted and intolerant censorship of the publication of agnostic journalist Richard Milton's critical article about Darwinism).
Perhaps Dawkins would defend his faith saying that, at least it is not so bad or evil as the faith of religious fundamentalists.
The problem with this response is that, epistemologically, Dawkins' faith is so irrational like the ones of religious fundamentalists (even if it is conceded that his faith is morally superior than the ones of religious fundamentalists). Moreover, in Dawkins' own worldview, the "evil and the good" are not objective properties of the world; therefore, there is not objective way to say that Dawkins' faith is morally superior or inferior than other faiths. It's just faith (as defined by Dawkins), and hence irrational. PERIOD.
Conclusive evidence of the moral poverty of Dawkins's atheistic worldview is seen in these videos:
Therefore, Dawkins cannot consistently appeal to ethics in a attempt to justify morally his irrationality.
In any case, the new atheists' rhetoric about "faith" is irrelevant to William's Christian theism, since he shows that in Christianity, "faith" is not a blind belief unsupported by evidence or contrary to it, but a commitment to what we have reason to believe that it is true (e.g. a commitment to believe that Jesus' teachings about God's Kingdom are true based on the historical evidence for his resurrection). As consequence, in Christian theism, "faith" is not something opposed to reason, but something which is a consequence of it.
According to Williams, a lot of Biblical passages support this view, for example:
-Samuel said "I am going to confront you with evidence before the Lord" (1 Samuel 12:7)
-Jesus said "At least believe in the evidence of miracles" (John 14:11)
-God to humans "Let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18)
-Paul to Christians "stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults" (1 Corinthians 14:20)
-Christians are encouraged to "always be prepared to give an asnwer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15)
And many other passages.
I submit that most people (Christian and non-Christian alike), specially many non-Christian theists that I've known (some spiritualists, some mystics, etc.), have been largely mislead by the rhetoric of atheists regarding the proper meaning of "faith" in Christian theology. I include myself in the group of people who was at one time fooled by such propaganda (see the first part of my autobiographical post).
The works of serious Christian philosophers (like Edward Feser, Alvin Plantinga, etc.), including some of Williams' articles and also his book, have convinced me that "faith", properly understood in its Christian sense, is not an irrational or blind belief, but a belief based on the deliverances of reason (if such deliverances are false or flawed in a particular case is another discussion... right now we're not examining the truth of Christian theism, but the epistemological status of "faith" properly understood).
Serious atheists, like first-rate philosopher Brand Blanshard, have argued that Christian theology has been mainly rationalistic (in the sense of offering reason and evidence, from history and natural theology, to support the truth of the Christian faith). This point is intentionally suppressed or misrepresented by the new atheists and other atheistic charlatans.
Hence, providing a much needed clarification and evidence for what "faith" actually means in Christian theism is another great contribution of Williams' book.
In summary, Williams, rigurously and systematically, provide conclusive evidence (like the ones mentioned above) to show that:
-The new atheists contradict themselves in fundamental points.
-They crudely misrepresent the best arguments for God's existence (a point noted by every serious philosopher, even atheistic ones, who have read the new atheistic books), and their objections are largely irrelevant to the theistic arguments when properly formulated.
-They misrepresent the concept of "faith" (as understood in Christian theology) but themselves fail prey to leaps of faith (as misdefined by atheists), as evidenced by Dawkins' quotation above.
-Their worldview (given their purely mechanistic assumptions) cannot ground properly the existence of an objective normativity (including moral normativity). A point which tends to be conceded by many leading atheists (see evidence here).
A criticism that I'd mention against Williams' book is that he doesn't deal with more sophisticated atheists like Quentin Smith, who knows better than the "new atheist" cranks and are harder to refute.
In any case, since most people are familiar with the new atheists and want to know responses to them specifically, I think Williams' omission is largely justified.
Also, I think Williams could add an appendix in which the main philosophical and scientific arguments for God's existence (e.g. the kalam argument, design arguments, the moral argument, the argument from consciousness, the quantum mechanics arguments, etc.) be discussed in the context of the most common objections against them. Even though Williams discusses some of these arguments, it is done more in the context of the new atheists' crude critiques and misrepresentations of them; but other (more plausible and serious) criticisms are available in the technical literature and perhaps dealing with them in an appendix would be helpful.
Also, as an argument against atheism (in its materialistic, metaphysical naturalist version which is the most plausible one), Williams could use the evidence from near-death experiences, which strongly suggest that mind-body dualism is true (the best up-to-date scholarly evidence, and philosophical discussion, of NDEs is available in philosopher Chris Carter's recent book Science and the Near Death Experience). An appendix discussing this matter would prove to be very useful and informative for his readers.
Williams' book is, without a doubt, one of the best up-to-date critical resources about contemporary new atheism.
I strongly recommend this book for all the seekers for the truth, regardless of their theological (or anti-theological) persuasions.
In any case, the new atheists' rhetoric about "faith" is irrelevant to William's Christian theism, since he shows that in Christianity, "faith" is not a blind belief unsupported by evidence or contrary to it, but a commitment to what we have reason to believe that it is true (e.g. a commitment to believe that Jesus' teachings about God's Kingdom are true based on the historical evidence for his resurrection). As consequence, in Christian theism, "faith" is not something opposed to reason, but something which is a consequence of it.
According to Williams, a lot of Biblical passages support this view, for example:
-Samuel said "I am going to confront you with evidence before the Lord" (1 Samuel 12:7)
-Jesus said "At least believe in the evidence of miracles" (John 14:11)
-God to humans "Let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18)
-Paul to Christians "stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults" (1 Corinthians 14:20)
-Christians are encouraged to "always be prepared to give an asnwer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15)
And many other passages.
I submit that most people (Christian and non-Christian alike), specially many non-Christian theists that I've known (some spiritualists, some mystics, etc.), have been largely mislead by the rhetoric of atheists regarding the proper meaning of "faith" in Christian theology. I include myself in the group of people who was at one time fooled by such propaganda (see the first part of my autobiographical post).
The works of serious Christian philosophers (like Edward Feser, Alvin Plantinga, etc.), including some of Williams' articles and also his book, have convinced me that "faith", properly understood in its Christian sense, is not an irrational or blind belief, but a belief based on the deliverances of reason (if such deliverances are false or flawed in a particular case is another discussion... right now we're not examining the truth of Christian theism, but the epistemological status of "faith" properly understood).
Serious atheists, like first-rate philosopher Brand Blanshard, have argued that Christian theology has been mainly rationalistic (in the sense of offering reason and evidence, from history and natural theology, to support the truth of the Christian faith). This point is intentionally suppressed or misrepresented by the new atheists and other atheistic charlatans.
Hence, providing a much needed clarification and evidence for what "faith" actually means in Christian theism is another great contribution of Williams' book.
In summary, Williams, rigurously and systematically, provide conclusive evidence (like the ones mentioned above) to show that:
-The new atheists contradict themselves in fundamental points.
-They crudely misrepresent the best arguments for God's existence (a point noted by every serious philosopher, even atheistic ones, who have read the new atheistic books), and their objections are largely irrelevant to the theistic arguments when properly formulated.
-They misrepresent the concept of "faith" (as understood in Christian theology) but themselves fail prey to leaps of faith (as misdefined by atheists), as evidenced by Dawkins' quotation above.
-Their worldview (given their purely mechanistic assumptions) cannot ground properly the existence of an objective normativity (including moral normativity). A point which tends to be conceded by many leading atheists (see evidence here).
A criticism that I'd mention against Williams' book is that he doesn't deal with more sophisticated atheists like Quentin Smith, who knows better than the "new atheist" cranks and are harder to refute.
In any case, since most people are familiar with the new atheists and want to know responses to them specifically, I think Williams' omission is largely justified.
Also, I think Williams could add an appendix in which the main philosophical and scientific arguments for God's existence (e.g. the kalam argument, design arguments, the moral argument, the argument from consciousness, the quantum mechanics arguments, etc.) be discussed in the context of the most common objections against them. Even though Williams discusses some of these arguments, it is done more in the context of the new atheists' crude critiques and misrepresentations of them; but other (more plausible and serious) criticisms are available in the technical literature and perhaps dealing with them in an appendix would be helpful.
Also, as an argument against atheism (in its materialistic, metaphysical naturalist version which is the most plausible one), Williams could use the evidence from near-death experiences, which strongly suggest that mind-body dualism is true (the best up-to-date scholarly evidence, and philosophical discussion, of NDEs is available in philosopher Chris Carter's recent book Science and the Near Death Experience). An appendix discussing this matter would prove to be very useful and informative for his readers.
Williams' book is, without a doubt, one of the best up-to-date critical resources about contemporary new atheism.
I strongly recommend this book for all the seekers for the truth, regardless of their theological (or anti-theological) persuasions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment