I've gotten a copy of the book "The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality leads to Unbelief" by professional Christian philosopher James Spiegel. (See the summary of this book on the end of this post)
I haven't read the book yet, so I cannot comment anything about its specific contents.
However, I'd like to say the book addresses an aspect that, in my opinion, have been largely neglected in the literature critical of atheism and pseudo-skepticism in general: the psychological roots of atheism (and pseudo-skepticism, I'd add).
This psychological aspect has been neglected because it's thought that the origin of any belief has nothing to do with the validity of the belief. And this is true from a logical point of view, but it's false from a psychological point of view.
Let me to explain it better:
From a logical point of view, the truth or falsity of a proposition X is independent of the psychological or emotional motivation of the people who hold it. For example, the statement "God exists" is true or false, regardless of the psychological reasons to affirm or deny it.
However, from a psychological point of view, the statement "God exists" will be considered positive and good (or at least with a sympathetic eye) by many people (spiritual people, religious persons, etc.), and will be considered negative and bad by another people (atheists).
In other words, the psychological background of each person will determine, or strongly influence, the receptivity of the idea that God exists. And this psychological background will determine too how people respond to arguments in favor of God's existence (this is why the same argument is considered good by some people, and bad for others).
Spiegel's book is an examination (from the Christian perspective) of the psychological roots of atheism; and as the title suggest, the immorality seems to be (according Spiegel) the stronger factor leading to atheism.
I don't know if Spiegel's thesis about the connection immorality-atheism is correct; personally, I tend to think the root of atheism (and particularly, of the ideological atheistic materialism typical of pseudo-skeptics) is mainly due to the following TWO factors:
1-A personal painful emotional experience (mostly during childhood or adolescence) related to religion or spirituality or something connected with it; in particular:
-Being forced to pray
-Being forced to go to the Church
-Being abused by some religious relative or authority (e.g. being sexually abused by a religious believer; or being abused by a religious teacher in school; or being emotionally or socially abused by some religious bigot)
This deep emotional and spiritual wound, connected with religion/spirituality, is the basic psychological motivation behind militant forms of atheism, naturalism, materialism and pseudo-skepticism; and fully explains the dishonesty, irrationality, intellectual submission to the authority of mainstream science and arrogance typical of these individuals (remember that some of them proclame themselves as "brights", implying that non-atheists are not brights).
In this paper, David Leiter, who had a long first-hand experience dealing with materialistic atheists and pseudo-skeptics, discoveried this: "The theme that has emerged time after time, as I become closely acquainted with individual PhACT members is this: Each one who has disclosed personal details of their formative years, say up until their early 20’s, has had an unfortunate experience with a faith-based philosophy, most often a conventional major religion.
Very often, their family or community has (almost forcibly) imposed this philosophy on them from a very early age; but then as they matured, they threw off this philosophy with a vengeance, vowing at a soul level never to be so victimized again. Less often, it appears that they have instead voluntarily and enthusiastically embraced, for example, a New Age cult, or have become say, a born-again Christian. Then after a few years, they become convinced of the folly of that infatuation with the same basic result. They throw off this philosophy with a vengeance, vowing at a soul level never to be so victimized again.
A person who has been duped frequently in everyday life might learn by bitter experience to be cautious and wary. The reaction of those who have joined PhACT is however more dysfunctional. They have been wounded at a deeper level, to the extent that what was purported to be a valid philosophy of life, and in which they were heavily involved, turns out to be empty and useless, even damaging, in their eyes. Thus, they gravitate to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science. Unfortunately, while they loudly proclaim their righteousness, based on their professed adherence to “hard science”, they do so with the one thing no true scientist can afford to possess, a closed mind. Instead of becoming scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything. This regrettable condition acts to preclude their unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of science, which is not how a true scientist should behave. In fact, many “Skeptics” will not even read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical. I have direct experience with this specific behavior on the part of a number of PhACT members. Initially, I attributed that behavior to just plain laziness, but lately I’ve begun to suspect that those individuals may actually have a phobia about reading material that is contrary to their own views. It seems entirely possible that they fear “contamination” from that exposure will eventually lead to (Gasp!) acceptance of the opposition’s position. Such scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred people tend to join Skeptics’ organizations much as one might join any other support group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous. There they find comfort, consolation, and support amongst their own kind".
2-As consequence of point 1: there is exists very often a hatred towards and fear of God (or spirituality and religion in general) and therefore an irrational wishful thinking for atheism and naturalism (even in the face of contrary evidence) that impairs, distortions and destroys the atheist/materialistic's rational thinking skills. This makes them essentially irrational.
This point has been noted by some honest naturalists themselves. In his book The Last Word, first rate naturalist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued that:
"I believe that this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.
In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world" (emphasis added)
In his paper The Contents and Appeal of Naturalism (which is part of the excellent book Naturalism In Question), another first rate philosopher, naturalist Hilary Putnam, wrote: "Naturalism", I believe, is often driven by fear, fear that accepting conceptual pluralism will let in the "occult", the "supernatural" (emphasis added)
Another first rate naturalist philosopher, John Searle, has realized that point too. He wrote: How is it that so many philosophers and cognitive scientists can say so many things that, to me at least, seem obviously false?... I believe one of the unstated assumptions behind current batch of views is that they represent the only scientifically acceptable alternatives to the anti-scientism that went with traditional dualism, the belief in the immortality of the soul, spiritualism, and so on. Acceptance of the current views is motivated not so much by an independent conviction of their truth as by a terror of what are apparently the only alternatives. That is, the choice we are tacitly presented with is between a "scientific" approach, as represented by one or another of the current versions of "materialism", and an "unscientific" approach, as represented by Cartesianism or some other traditional religious conception of the mind" (The Rediscovery of the Mind, pp. 3-4. Emphasis in blue added).
Whoever has interacted with pseudo-skeptics and dogmatic atheists has realized their intellectual dishonesty, their irrationality (e.g. they continously and obsessively talk about creationism and God even when you're not talking about these topics), and their tendency to ad hominem attacks. These factors are clearly IRRATIONAL and suggest that something is seriously wrong with the cognitive faculties of these individuals.
Many of them are deluded; and the main self-delusion is to think that they're rational and free thinkers.
As part of my study of the cultural, psychological and philosophical origin of materialistic pseudo-skepticism, I'm sure the naturalist ideology is rooted in a certain psychological and emotional structure, and I've discoveried a lot of curious and not well-known facts related to it (but I haven't commented anything in detail yet... stay tuned) because I'm still collecting the evidence to support my hypothesis.
Spiegel seems to suggest that immorality is a causal factor in atheism too; but in my opinion, the immorality is CONSEQUENCE of the irrationality and resentment rooted in the deep emotional wound suffered by militant pseudo-skeptics and atheistic materialists during their formative years, not a cause of this phenomenon as such. But I don't discard Spiegel's hypothesis.
Just by the record, in my opinion, all the above factors apply only to dogmatic, militant, ideological kind of atheists (e.g. the militant members of skeptical organizations, many of the commenters and posters of Richard Dawkins' internet forum or the strident bully-like atheist-materialist believers who comments in PZ Myers's blog; the hard-core followers of James Randi, the "fans" of Michael Shermer, etc.).
These factors don't apply necessarily to open mind seekers who, in their research, are not convinced of God or anything spiritual. However, in my experience, this kind of "rational unbelievers" are rare birds, are very exceptional (in fact, this kind of honest atheists are annoyed by the rhetoric, dishonesty, irrationality and ad hominem attacks of militant and strident atheists; and are open to a sympathetic consideration of the evidence for parapsychology, afterlife research and even religion. They don't have an axe to grind against these topics).
Anyway, I think you should read Spiegel's book and draw your conclusions.
Links of interest:
-Interview with James Spiegel about his book.
-Naturalist philosopher Alex Rosemberg's article on the actual implications of metaphysical naturalism.
-Naturalist philosopher David MacArthur's paper "Naturalism and Skepticism"
-My post on naturalist philosopher Thomas Nagel and the Fear of God.
-Some notes on (pseudo) skepticism.
P.S.
A summary of Spiegel's book can be read here:
Sigmund Freud famously dismissed belief in God as a psychological projection caused by wishful thinking. Today many of the “new atheists”—including Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens—make a similar claim, insisting that believers are delusional. Faith is a kind of cognitive disease, according to them. And they are doing all they can to rid the world of all religious belief and practice.
I haven't read the book yet, so I cannot comment anything about its specific contents.
However, I'd like to say the book addresses an aspect that, in my opinion, have been largely neglected in the literature critical of atheism and pseudo-skepticism in general: the psychological roots of atheism (and pseudo-skepticism, I'd add).
This psychological aspect has been neglected because it's thought that the origin of any belief has nothing to do with the validity of the belief. And this is true from a logical point of view, but it's false from a psychological point of view.
Let me to explain it better:
From a logical point of view, the truth or falsity of a proposition X is independent of the psychological or emotional motivation of the people who hold it. For example, the statement "God exists" is true or false, regardless of the psychological reasons to affirm or deny it.
However, from a psychological point of view, the statement "God exists" will be considered positive and good (or at least with a sympathetic eye) by many people (spiritual people, religious persons, etc.), and will be considered negative and bad by another people (atheists).
In other words, the psychological background of each person will determine, or strongly influence, the receptivity of the idea that God exists. And this psychological background will determine too how people respond to arguments in favor of God's existence (this is why the same argument is considered good by some people, and bad for others).
Spiegel's book is an examination (from the Christian perspective) of the psychological roots of atheism; and as the title suggest, the immorality seems to be (according Spiegel) the stronger factor leading to atheism.
I don't know if Spiegel's thesis about the connection immorality-atheism is correct; personally, I tend to think the root of atheism (and particularly, of the ideological atheistic materialism typical of pseudo-skeptics) is mainly due to the following TWO factors:
1-A personal painful emotional experience (mostly during childhood or adolescence) related to religion or spirituality or something connected with it; in particular:
-Being forced to pray
-Being forced to go to the Church
-Being abused by some religious relative or authority (e.g. being sexually abused by a religious believer; or being abused by a religious teacher in school; or being emotionally or socially abused by some religious bigot)
This deep emotional and spiritual wound, connected with religion/spirituality, is the basic psychological motivation behind militant forms of atheism, naturalism, materialism and pseudo-skepticism; and fully explains the dishonesty, irrationality, intellectual submission to the authority of mainstream science and arrogance typical of these individuals (remember that some of them proclame themselves as "brights", implying that non-atheists are not brights).
In this paper, David Leiter, who had a long first-hand experience dealing with materialistic atheists and pseudo-skeptics, discoveried this: "The theme that has emerged time after time, as I become closely acquainted with individual PhACT members is this: Each one who has disclosed personal details of their formative years, say up until their early 20’s, has had an unfortunate experience with a faith-based philosophy, most often a conventional major religion.
Very often, their family or community has (almost forcibly) imposed this philosophy on them from a very early age; but then as they matured, they threw off this philosophy with a vengeance, vowing at a soul level never to be so victimized again. Less often, it appears that they have instead voluntarily and enthusiastically embraced, for example, a New Age cult, or have become say, a born-again Christian. Then after a few years, they become convinced of the folly of that infatuation with the same basic result. They throw off this philosophy with a vengeance, vowing at a soul level never to be so victimized again.
A person who has been duped frequently in everyday life might learn by bitter experience to be cautious and wary. The reaction of those who have joined PhACT is however more dysfunctional. They have been wounded at a deeper level, to the extent that what was purported to be a valid philosophy of life, and in which they were heavily involved, turns out to be empty and useless, even damaging, in their eyes. Thus, they gravitate to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science. Unfortunately, while they loudly proclaim their righteousness, based on their professed adherence to “hard science”, they do so with the one thing no true scientist can afford to possess, a closed mind. Instead of becoming scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything. This regrettable condition acts to preclude their unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of science, which is not how a true scientist should behave. In fact, many “Skeptics” will not even read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical. I have direct experience with this specific behavior on the part of a number of PhACT members. Initially, I attributed that behavior to just plain laziness, but lately I’ve begun to suspect that those individuals may actually have a phobia about reading material that is contrary to their own views. It seems entirely possible that they fear “contamination” from that exposure will eventually lead to (Gasp!) acceptance of the opposition’s position. Such scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred people tend to join Skeptics’ organizations much as one might join any other support group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous. There they find comfort, consolation, and support amongst their own kind".
2-As consequence of point 1: there is exists very often a hatred towards and fear of God (or spirituality and religion in general) and therefore an irrational wishful thinking for atheism and naturalism (even in the face of contrary evidence) that impairs, distortions and destroys the atheist/materialistic's rational thinking skills. This makes them essentially irrational.
This point has been noted by some honest naturalists themselves. In his book The Last Word, first rate naturalist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued that:
"I believe that this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.
In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world" (emphasis added)
In his paper The Contents and Appeal of Naturalism (which is part of the excellent book Naturalism In Question), another first rate philosopher, naturalist Hilary Putnam, wrote: "Naturalism", I believe, is often driven by fear, fear that accepting conceptual pluralism will let in the "occult", the "supernatural" (emphasis added)
Another first rate naturalist philosopher, John Searle, has realized that point too. He wrote: How is it that so many philosophers and cognitive scientists can say so many things that, to me at least, seem obviously false?... I believe one of the unstated assumptions behind current batch of views is that they represent the only scientifically acceptable alternatives to the anti-scientism that went with traditional dualism, the belief in the immortality of the soul, spiritualism, and so on. Acceptance of the current views is motivated not so much by an independent conviction of their truth as by a terror of what are apparently the only alternatives. That is, the choice we are tacitly presented with is between a "scientific" approach, as represented by one or another of the current versions of "materialism", and an "unscientific" approach, as represented by Cartesianism or some other traditional religious conception of the mind" (The Rediscovery of the Mind, pp. 3-4. Emphasis in blue added).
Whoever has interacted with pseudo-skeptics and dogmatic atheists has realized their intellectual dishonesty, their irrationality (e.g. they continously and obsessively talk about creationism and God even when you're not talking about these topics), and their tendency to ad hominem attacks. These factors are clearly IRRATIONAL and suggest that something is seriously wrong with the cognitive faculties of these individuals.
Many of them are deluded; and the main self-delusion is to think that they're rational and free thinkers.
As part of my study of the cultural, psychological and philosophical origin of materialistic pseudo-skepticism, I'm sure the naturalist ideology is rooted in a certain psychological and emotional structure, and I've discoveried a lot of curious and not well-known facts related to it (but I haven't commented anything in detail yet... stay tuned) because I'm still collecting the evidence to support my hypothesis.
Spiegel seems to suggest that immorality is a causal factor in atheism too; but in my opinion, the immorality is CONSEQUENCE of the irrationality and resentment rooted in the deep emotional wound suffered by militant pseudo-skeptics and atheistic materialists during their formative years, not a cause of this phenomenon as such. But I don't discard Spiegel's hypothesis.
Just by the record, in my opinion, all the above factors apply only to dogmatic, militant, ideological kind of atheists (e.g. the militant members of skeptical organizations, many of the commenters and posters of Richard Dawkins' internet forum or the strident bully-like atheist-materialist believers who comments in PZ Myers's blog; the hard-core followers of James Randi, the "fans" of Michael Shermer, etc.).
These factors don't apply necessarily to open mind seekers who, in their research, are not convinced of God or anything spiritual. However, in my experience, this kind of "rational unbelievers" are rare birds, are very exceptional (in fact, this kind of honest atheists are annoyed by the rhetoric, dishonesty, irrationality and ad hominem attacks of militant and strident atheists; and are open to a sympathetic consideration of the evidence for parapsychology, afterlife research and even religion. They don't have an axe to grind against these topics).
Anyway, I think you should read Spiegel's book and draw your conclusions.
Links of interest:
-Interview with James Spiegel about his book.
-Naturalist philosopher Alex Rosemberg's article on the actual implications of metaphysical naturalism.
-Naturalist philosopher David MacArthur's paper "Naturalism and Skepticism"
-My post on naturalist philosopher Thomas Nagel and the Fear of God.
-Some notes on (pseudo) skepticism.
P.S.
A summary of Spiegel's book can be read here:
Sigmund Freud famously dismissed belief in God as a psychological projection caused by wishful thinking. Today many of the “new atheists”—including Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens—make a similar claim, insisting that believers are delusional. Faith is a kind of cognitive disease, according to them. And they are doing all they can to rid the world of all religious belief and practice.
Christian apologists, from Dinesh D’Souza to Ravi Zacharias, have been quick to respond to the new atheists, revealing holes in their arguments and showing why theistic belief, and the Christian worldview in particular, is reasonable. In fact, the evidence for God is overwhelming, confirming the Apostle Paul’s point in Romans 1 that the reality of God is “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that men are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20, NIV).
So if the evidence for God is so plain to see, then why are there atheists? That is the question that prompted The Making of an Atheist. The answer I propose turns the tables on the new atheists, as I show that unbelief is a psychological projection, a cognitive disorder arising from willful resistance to the evidence for God. In short, it is atheists who are the delusional ones.
Unlike Dawkins and his ilk, I give an account as to how the delusion occurs, showing that atheistic rejection of God is precipitated by immoral indulgences, usually combined with some deep psychological disturbances, such as a broken relationship with one’s father. I also show how atheists suffer from what I call “paradigm-induced blindness,” as their worldview inhibits their ability to recognize the reality of God manifest in creation. These and other factors I discuss are among the various dimensions of sin’s corrupting influence on the mind.
I’ve been told that The Making of an Atheist is a provocative book, but I didn’t write it to provoke anyone. I simply wanted to tell the truth about this issue. Anyway, since the new atheists are bold enough to trumpet their claim that theists are delusional, it seems appropriate that someone should be willing to propose that the opposite is true. As they say, turnabout is fair play.
0 comments:
Post a Comment