Prominent philosopher of science and biology, professor Alex Rosenberg has written an excelent book in defense of naturalistic atheism (his book is "excellent", not because his conclusions are true or plausible, but because they're consistent with the premises of metaphysical naturalism. So, if naturalism were true, I'm sure that Rosenberg's conclusions would be true too). In this sense, we have to praise Rosenberg's intellectual honesty and courage in following the implications of the premises of metaphysical naturalism wherever they lead.
In the part 1 of this review, I just want to do general remarks about Rosenberg's book, leaving a more in depth critical examination of his arguments for upcoming posts. The purpose of part 1 of this review is to sketch what I consider is one aspect the typical hard-core atheist mindset: arrogance + complex of intellectual superiority + solid ignorance of theism.
Like with so many others book by atheists, the first impression that you'll receive of Rosenberg's book is its "smater than you" arrogant tone with condescending and patronizing remarks about people who disagree with atheism.
Take for example this comment (in which he mentions the great questions of life like the existence of purpose in the Universe, or the existence of God or free will and so forth):
People who believe in religion are particularly adept at avoiding the answers. This is not a book for them. This is a book for those who want to face up to the real answers to these questions. It's a book for people who are comfortable with the truth about reality. This is a book for atheists. (preface viii)
I know of no religious believers who are adept at "avoiding the answers". Rather, they provide answers in terms of God's action on the world, in order to make sense of the origin and fine tuning of the universe, the origin of consciousness, the rationality of our minds, the existence of objective moral values, putative afterlife experiences (like NDEs) and so forth. They try to make sense of our human experience and the universe as a whole in terms of a spiritual cause which trascends the purely material universe.
So, Rosenberg's characterization of "people who believe in religion" is demostrably false, a crude caricature based on atheistic prejudices (which is unworthy of a serious scholar like Rosenberg).
Note that, from the beginning, not just atheism is assumed to be true, but that atheists are considered to be in a superior intellectual position than theists regarding the truth.
I wasnt's surprised by this at all because, according to my experience, most hard-core atheists are strongly deluded into the belief that they're intellectually superior than non-atheists. Their self-perception is one of intellectual superiority. This explains their typical arrogance.
For example, non-philosopher naturalist Richard Carrier wrote in his book "This book is only for sane, reasonable people" (Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, p. 287), almost implying that non-naturalists (or people who disagree with Carrier's book) are somehow insane or irrational.
Also, remember Daniel Dennett's silly attempt to use "brights" as a label for atheists.
(By the way: This is why I enjoy so much when William Lane Craig kicks their butts in public debates and universities. Craig proves that atheists' self-perception of intellectual superiority is a pure self-delusion, without any objective ground on the reality. Even though I don't agree with all of Craig's views, I agree with his refutations of atheists and his exposing of them as irrational people)
They seem to live in a dream world where the (extremely few in number) atheistic people are superior than anyone else. I consider this elitistic personality trait an almost essential aspect of the hard-core atheistic minset and an interesting area of scientific research by experimental psychology.
For my surprise (since I've read several books on philosophy of science, economics and biology by Rosenberg), his knowledge of philosophy of religion and theology seems to be very superficial. In his typical atheist-arrogant and condescending prose, Rosenberg says:
Knowing the truth makes it hard not to sound patronizing of the benighted souls under religion's spell. So from time to time, some of the tone of much of what follows may sound a little smug. I fear I have to plead guilty to this charge, with mitigation. So far I can see, belief in God is on a part with belief in Santa Claus (preface XII).
The modest implication that Rosenberg (and atheists) "know the truth" about complex matters (many of which are metaphysical and hence beyond science proper) reminds me of the treatises of medieval religious dogmatists.
Also, saying that belief in God is on a part with belief in Santa Claus is an offense to prominent ancient, modern and contemporary thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig and (former atheistic apologist) Antony Flew, in addition to being an a slap to the face of the above 90% of people in Earth who reject atheism and embrace belief in God. (This sectarian, elitistic mindset is a direct consequence of the deluded self-perception of "knowing the truth" and being intellectually superior to anyone else who disagree with atheism)
Consider two of Flew's reasons for conversion from atheism to a version of theism: "There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion." (emphasis in blue added).
Note that Flew's argument is not a God of the gaps argument in which he argues that God exists on the grounds of gaps in our knowledge. Rather, his argument is that our current knowledge provide EVIDENCE for the "intelligent source hypothesis" over the purely materialistic hypothesis.
Now, what the hell has to do Santa Claus with Flew's argument for God? Is Santa Claus a good candidate to explain the complex order of the universe and life?
Only a person with strong atheistic prejudices and extraordinary ignorance of philosophy of religion could claim that the "God hypothesis" is on a par with the "Santa Claus hypothesis" (and hence, that belief in the former is on a par with belief in the latter).
Reading that part of Rosenberg's book made me very dissapointed of him as a philosopher (because, as I've commented, his works in philosophy of science and other fields are very good).
Part 1 of this review only tried to give you a taste of what you will find in this book in terms of "tone" or prose.
In future posts, I expect to explain in detail why I think that Rosenberg's case is self-refuting.
Don't get me wrong. I urge my readers (atheists, agnostics or theists alike) to get a copy of Rosenberg's book and read it carefully.
You need to know which are the actual consequences of metaphysical naturalism, and I know of no other book which explains these consequences so consistently and rigurously as Rosenberg's.
And for the same reason, you need to know why sanity, morality, spirituality and rationality demands to refute and consistently debunk such doctrine.
In the part 1 of this review, I just want to do general remarks about Rosenberg's book, leaving a more in depth critical examination of his arguments for upcoming posts. The purpose of part 1 of this review is to sketch what I consider is one aspect the typical hard-core atheist mindset: arrogance + complex of intellectual superiority + solid ignorance of theism.
Like with so many others book by atheists, the first impression that you'll receive of Rosenberg's book is its "smater than you" arrogant tone with condescending and patronizing remarks about people who disagree with atheism.
Take for example this comment (in which he mentions the great questions of life like the existence of purpose in the Universe, or the existence of God or free will and so forth):
People who believe in religion are particularly adept at avoiding the answers. This is not a book for them. This is a book for those who want to face up to the real answers to these questions. It's a book for people who are comfortable with the truth about reality. This is a book for atheists. (preface viii)
I know of no religious believers who are adept at "avoiding the answers". Rather, they provide answers in terms of God's action on the world, in order to make sense of the origin and fine tuning of the universe, the origin of consciousness, the rationality of our minds, the existence of objective moral values, putative afterlife experiences (like NDEs) and so forth. They try to make sense of our human experience and the universe as a whole in terms of a spiritual cause which trascends the purely material universe.
So, Rosenberg's characterization of "people who believe in religion" is demostrably false, a crude caricature based on atheistic prejudices (which is unworthy of a serious scholar like Rosenberg).
Note that, from the beginning, not just atheism is assumed to be true, but that atheists are considered to be in a superior intellectual position than theists regarding the truth.
I wasnt's surprised by this at all because, according to my experience, most hard-core atheists are strongly deluded into the belief that they're intellectually superior than non-atheists. Their self-perception is one of intellectual superiority. This explains their typical arrogance.
For example, non-philosopher naturalist Richard Carrier wrote in his book "This book is only for sane, reasonable people" (Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, p. 287), almost implying that non-naturalists (or people who disagree with Carrier's book) are somehow insane or irrational.
Also, remember Daniel Dennett's silly attempt to use "brights" as a label for atheists.
(By the way: This is why I enjoy so much when William Lane Craig kicks their butts in public debates and universities. Craig proves that atheists' self-perception of intellectual superiority is a pure self-delusion, without any objective ground on the reality. Even though I don't agree with all of Craig's views, I agree with his refutations of atheists and his exposing of them as irrational people)
They seem to live in a dream world where the (extremely few in number) atheistic people are superior than anyone else. I consider this elitistic personality trait an almost essential aspect of the hard-core atheistic minset and an interesting area of scientific research by experimental psychology.
For my surprise (since I've read several books on philosophy of science, economics and biology by Rosenberg), his knowledge of philosophy of religion and theology seems to be very superficial. In his typical atheist-arrogant and condescending prose, Rosenberg says:
Knowing the truth makes it hard not to sound patronizing of the benighted souls under religion's spell. So from time to time, some of the tone of much of what follows may sound a little smug. I fear I have to plead guilty to this charge, with mitigation. So far I can see, belief in God is on a part with belief in Santa Claus (preface XII).
The modest implication that Rosenberg (and atheists) "know the truth" about complex matters (many of which are metaphysical and hence beyond science proper) reminds me of the treatises of medieval religious dogmatists.
Also, saying that belief in God is on a part with belief in Santa Claus is an offense to prominent ancient, modern and contemporary thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig and (former atheistic apologist) Antony Flew, in addition to being an a slap to the face of the above 90% of people in Earth who reject atheism and embrace belief in God. (This sectarian, elitistic mindset is a direct consequence of the deluded self-perception of "knowing the truth" and being intellectually superior to anyone else who disagree with atheism)
Consider two of Flew's reasons for conversion from atheism to a version of theism: "There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion." (emphasis in blue added).
Note that Flew's argument is not a God of the gaps argument in which he argues that God exists on the grounds of gaps in our knowledge. Rather, his argument is that our current knowledge provide EVIDENCE for the "intelligent source hypothesis" over the purely materialistic hypothesis.
Now, what the hell has to do Santa Claus with Flew's argument for God? Is Santa Claus a good candidate to explain the complex order of the universe and life?
Only a person with strong atheistic prejudices and extraordinary ignorance of philosophy of religion could claim that the "God hypothesis" is on a par with the "Santa Claus hypothesis" (and hence, that belief in the former is on a par with belief in the latter).
Reading that part of Rosenberg's book made me very dissapointed of him as a philosopher (because, as I've commented, his works in philosophy of science and other fields are very good).
Part 1 of this review only tried to give you a taste of what you will find in this book in terms of "tone" or prose.
In future posts, I expect to explain in detail why I think that Rosenberg's case is self-refuting.
Don't get me wrong. I urge my readers (atheists, agnostics or theists alike) to get a copy of Rosenberg's book and read it carefully.
You need to know which are the actual consequences of metaphysical naturalism, and I know of no other book which explains these consequences so consistently and rigurously as Rosenberg's.
And for the same reason, you need to know why sanity, morality, spirituality and rationality demands to refute and consistently debunk such doctrine.
0 comments:
Post a Comment