The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Fideism and Obfuscation

Posted on behalf of Steve Hays -- blue background indicates Dr. Stenger's comments and quotations, red background indicates Steve Hays'.

Subject: The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason

On Jul 13, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Steve Hays wrote:

Dr. Stenger,

I was looking through the excerpts you've posted of your forthcoming book. I found some of your statements a bit puzzling:

"Science sees no limit in the human capacity to comprehend the universe and ourselves."

Isn't that a rather hyperbolic claim? For example, isn't paleontology limited to whatever trace evidence happens to survive the ravages of time? Likewise, in your own field of specialization, if the ultimate constituents of matter are immeasurable (because they're too small to measure), then doesn't that limit what we can know about the ultimate constituents of matter? We can extrapolate and postulate, but we can't really know, can we?

"God does not exist. Life without God means we are the governors of our own destinies."

That sounds very idealistic in the abstract, but how does it cash out in practice?

Does a baby who's terminated in the 8th month of pregnancy govern his own destiny? Does a senior citizen who's involuntarily euthanized govern his own destiny?

Isn't it the case that some people will always wield power over others? How many North Koreans govern their own destiny?

All of us eventually die of old age. That's our destiny. And it's not a destiny that we govern. We can sometimes do little things to hasten or forestall the outcome, but the outcome is inexorable.

"Taoism also preaches an end to the love of self and its replacement with a love of the world."

First of all, w hy should we care what Taoism preaches?

Secondly, isn't that a false dichotomy? It is still the self that loves the world. Eliminate the self, and you have an object without a subject.

“I like simple answers, and the answer is simple. People are capable of slitting a baby's throat if they are convinced they are following God's orders.”

Peter Singer advocates infanticide. Is he following God's orders?

"The evidence is overwhelming that the happiest, best-adjusted, healthiest societies in the world are those in which the majority has freely abandoned belief."

To judge by comparative rates of suicide around the world, the stats don't seem to bear out your correlation.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/

–Steve

Sent: Mon, Jul 13, 2009 12:44 pm

I was looking through the excerpts you've posted of your forthcoming book. I found some of your statements a bit puzzling:

"Science sees no limit in the human capacity to comprehend the universe and ourselves."

We don't have to know every detail to comprehend something.

UNDERSTAND, grasp, take in, see, apprehend, follow, make sense of, fathom, get to the bottom of; unravel, decipher, interpret; informal work out, figure out, make head(s) or tail(s) of, get one's head around, get the drift of, catch on to, get.

"God does not exist. Life without God means we are the governors of our own destinies."

That sounds very idealistic in the abstract, but how does it cash out in practice?

Does a baby who's terminated in the 8th month of pregnancy govern his own destiny? Does a senior citizen who's involuntarily euthanized govern his own destiny?

Isn't it the case that some people will always wield power over others? How many North Koreans govern their own destiny?

All of us eventually die of old age. That's our destiny. And it's not a destiny that we govern. We can sometimes do little things to hasten or forestall the outcome, but the outcome is inexorable.

OK, so maybe we all can't. But at least many can since we don't have God pulling the strings, in which cans none can.

"Taoism also preaches an end to the love of self and its replacement with a love of the world."

First of all, why should we care what Taoism preaches?

Because it may be a good idea.

Secondly, isn't that a false dichotomy? It is still the self that loves the world. Eliminate the self, and you have an object without a subject.

It's not the self that's eliminated, its the love of self.

“I like simple answers, and the answer is simple. People are capable of slitting a baby's throat if they are convinced they are following God's orders.”

Peter Singer advocates infanticide. Is he following God's orders?

I wasn't talking about Peter Singer.

"The evidence is overwhelming that the happiest, best-adjusted, healthiest societies in the world are those in which the majority has freely abandoned belief."

To judge by comparative rates of suicide around the world, the stats don't seem to bear out your correlation.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/

Suicides were included in the total statistics on happiness in the survey I reference.

----------------------------------
Victor J. Stenger
Adjunct Professor of Philosophy
University of Colorado at Boulder
Emeritus Professor of Physics and Astronomy
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Author of the 2007 NY Times bestseller
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Soon to be released: The New Atheism
http://www.colorado.philosophy/vstenger/

On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Steve Hays wrote:

Thanks for taking time to reply.

"We don't have to know every detail to comprehend something."

True, but that sounds far more modest than your original claim. Instead of saying "Science sees no limit in the human capacity to comprehend the universe and ourselves," I take it that you now say something like:

"According to science, human beings have a very limited, but genuine, capacity to comprehend something about the universe and something about themselves."

Is that your actual position?

"OK, so maybe we all can't. But at least many can since we don't have God pulling the strings, in which cans none can."

1. That sounds like a rather emotional objection.


2. Moreover, aren't you just exchanging one puppet-master for another? Instead of God pulling the strings, it's genes, hormones, brain chemistry, natural selection, cultural conditioning, &c.


3. Furthermore, on your view, isn't the puppet-master an ultimately blind, mindless puppet-master?


4. Finally, you yourself said "Christianity and Islam are the two most popular religions today for one reason more than any other: the promise of eternal life. Atheism can never compete with this promise."
   
   Isn't a supernatural puppet-master who offers eternal life better than a natural puppet-master who consigns you to oblivion?

"Because it may be a good idea"

Why is it a good idea to replace self-love with altruistic love? From a secular standpoint, why would an atheist recommend self-denial? If this life is all there is, wouldn't it be foolish to deny yourself?

"It's not the self that's eliminated, its the love of self."

Are they really separable? We love what we do because of who we are. We value the things we love in large part for what they mean to us.

"I wasn't talking about Peter Singer."

I know you weren't. And that's the problem. Shouldn't your objection be more even-handed? You said "People are capable of slitting a baby's throat if they are convinced they are following God's orders."

I take this to mean that people wouldn't commit infanticide unless they were convinced that they were following God's orders.

Now Peter Singer is a very articulate and unapologetic proponent of infanticide. Yet he's a secular bioethicist. So where's the religious connection? If there is no intrinsic religious connection, why cite infanticide as an objection to religion?

"Suicides were included in the total statistics on happiness in the survey I reference."

I'm not sure I know what that's supposed to mean. Seems to me that rates of suicide are a fairly obvious barometer of a happy, healthy, well-adjusted society. So what is your point?

Do you still insist on a consistent correlation between lower rates of suicide and higher rates of secularization? Or do you admit that there is no consistent correlation, but say this is offset by other factors which yield a higher sum total of social happiness?

Sent: Mon, Jul 13, 2009 5:47 pm

I do not have time to carry on email dialogues, although you are certainly welcome to send comments that I do look at.

In any case, I am not inclined to carry our discussion further since you have not read the book where these statements that you object too can be found in context and are expanded upon.

If you want to participate in a discussion with other scientists and freethinkers, I invite you to join my discussion list avoid-L@Hawaii.edu. See my home page for details.