Atheist Sam Harris, who's one of the so-called "new atheists", has a degree in philosophy; hence, we would expect from such person to have the intellectual competence to present the arguments for God's existence (to which he disagrees with) in his best, strongest formulation, in order to show that, if they fail, then there are no good reasons to think that God exists. (However, even some professional philosophers, provided they're atheists and naturalists, have not the basic philosophical competence to present arguments for God's existence in their best formulation, as I've demostrated in this post and in this one).In his book "Letters to a Christian Nation", Harris attacks the cosmological argument in this way: "The argument runs more or less like this: everything has a cause; space and time exist; space and time must, therefore, have been caused by something that stands outside of space and time; and the only thing that trascends space and time, and yet retains the power to create, is God... As many critics of religion have pointed out , the notion of a creator poses an inmediate problem of an infinite regress. If God created the universe, what caused God? To say that God, by definition, is uncreated simply begs the question" (p.72-73. Emphasis in blue added)
It's astonishing to discover how such straw man argument (very common in popular atheistic literature) is convincing for so many atheists. In fact, some years ago, after surveying a number of atheistic books and realizing that many of them contain such straw man and the silly "What caused God?" objection (presented as a powerful objection against the cosmological argument), I concluded that something is seriously wrong with the cognitive faculties of hard-core atheistic materialists and naturalists. The "What caused God?" objection was instrumental to my realization and conviction that atheistic materialists and metaphysical naturalists are deeply irrational and their intellectual faculties are seriously, permanently and irreversibly impaired.
People like these cannot think rationally. They have fixed ideas and delusions (specially about God and religion). They're literally irrational. Therefore, we cannot trust in their cognitive faculties.
Currently, I'm researching for the causes of such consistent irrationality, and I hope in the future to publish in my blog some preliminary conclusions about it. So, stay tuned...
Let's to examine Harris's straw man argument in more detail:
Instead of quoting actual defenders of the cosmological argument, Harris appeals to the standard atheistic straw man, arguing that the cosmological argument (which runs "more or less" like this) begins from the premise "Everything has a cause".
Now, it's important to know that no philosophical defender of the cosmological argument has ever argued that "everything has a cause" as a premise of the cosmological argument. As has written professional philosopher Edward Feser "In fact, not one of the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everything has a cause” argument—not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. Perhaps... you think that when trying to refute some of history’s greatest minds, a good strategy would be to attack an argument none of them ever defended." (emphasis in blue added).
After creating the straw man, Harris predictably asks: Then, what caused God? This question is supposed to be a excellent objection to the cosmological argument. But this question is based on the atheistic straw man mentioned above.
However, when the straw is removed from the argument, and the premise of the argument is correctly stated (Evertyhing that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause), then the stupid "What caused God?" objection dissapears, since the premise doesn't assume anything about God's beginning or not beginning to exist (moreover, God is supposed to be eternal, and hence without a beginning of existence since, if he exists, he exists necessarily, which one of his basic classical attributes). This point is explained by contemporary defender of the cosmological argument, William Lane Craig:
If Harris were an actual philosopher, he would know that he's committing a straw man fallacy.
That a "philosopher" like Harris cannot formulate the argument in its corrrect, actual formulation is strong evidence of his philosophical incompetence (and it's suggestive of intellectual dishonesty too).
Note, by the way, that Harris' incompetence has obscurantist consequences: His incompetence prevents that readers of his books learn the actual cosmological argument, and can objectively assess it in its correct formulation. He's not educating them, but misleading them into false arguments that no sophisticated theist has ever defended.
Harris is not interested in educating the public; he's interested in the destruction of theism, as part of his personal ideological agenda in defense of atheism.
Honest truth-seekers, including atheist truth-seekers, will feel annoyed by such incompetence and won't take authors like that seriously. Authors like that don't deserve intellectual respect. They're sophists, propagandists, ideologues, not serious thinkers nor honest truth-seekers.
This is why honest truth-seekers (atheists and theists alike) should protest against such obscurantism and sophistry. We have "to fight" (with purely intellectual means) this kind of continuous and repeated atheistic intellectual fraud and misleading propaganda.
If God exists or not, is not the issue here; the issue is the intellectual responsability of the books' authors to present the arguments they're criticizing in their actual formulation. They have the responsability of educating the public with the TRUTH, not with fallacies and misrepresentations.
As serious readers, we cannot ask for less.
That a "philosopher" like Harris cannot formulate the argument in its corrrect, actual formulation is strong evidence of his philosophical incompetence (and it's suggestive of intellectual dishonesty too).
Note, by the way, that Harris' incompetence has obscurantist consequences: His incompetence prevents that readers of his books learn the actual cosmological argument, and can objectively assess it in its correct formulation. He's not educating them, but misleading them into false arguments that no sophisticated theist has ever defended.
Harris is not interested in educating the public; he's interested in the destruction of theism, as part of his personal ideological agenda in defense of atheism.
Honest truth-seekers, including atheist truth-seekers, will feel annoyed by such incompetence and won't take authors like that seriously. Authors like that don't deserve intellectual respect. They're sophists, propagandists, ideologues, not serious thinkers nor honest truth-seekers.
This is why honest truth-seekers (atheists and theists alike) should protest against such obscurantism and sophistry. We have "to fight" (with purely intellectual means) this kind of continuous and repeated atheistic intellectual fraud and misleading propaganda.
If God exists or not, is not the issue here; the issue is the intellectual responsability of the books' authors to present the arguments they're criticizing in their actual formulation. They have the responsability of educating the public with the TRUTH, not with fallacies and misrepresentations.
As serious readers, we cannot ask for less.
PS.
The fact that Harris' books are best-sellers, and are widely read and celebrated by many atheists, confirm my hypothesis that hard-core atheists are irrational: they simply have not the intellectual ability, the proper cognitive faculties and rationality to detect Harris' fallacies, and this is why they tend to swallow them entirely.
If my hypothesis is correct, and hard-core atheistic materialists/naturalists are irrational, then they'll tend to agree with Harris's irrationalities and fallacies. And this is exactly what we find.
The fact that Harris' books are best-sellers, and are widely read and celebrated by many atheists, confirm my hypothesis that hard-core atheists are irrational: they simply have not the intellectual ability, the proper cognitive faculties and rationality to detect Harris' fallacies, and this is why they tend to swallow them entirely.
If my hypothesis is correct, and hard-core atheistic materialists/naturalists are irrational, then they'll tend to agree with Harris's irrationalities and fallacies. And this is exactly what we find.
0 comments:
Post a Comment