Tag: atheism

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #4

“My faith is true for me” is rarely heard among more sophisticated believers and almost never heard among fundamentalists.

It is very difficult to explain why this claim is fallacious because often the type of person who makes this statement does not have the intellectual or educational wherewithal to understand more thoughtful, substantive responses. (The exceptions are the youthful solipsists, the postmodernists, and the epistemological and cognitive relativists.)

The statement, “My faith is true for me,” means the faith-based beliefs one holds are true for the speaker and not necessarily for other people. The utterer of this statement is not making claims about faith beliefs being universally true—that is, true for all people.

Here’s my response: does your faith tradition include statements of fact about the world? For example, humans are thetans trapped on Earth in physical bodies, Jesus walked on water, the ability to fly can result from fasting (Jacobsen, 2011), or the Garden of Eden is in Jackson County, Missouri.

If your faith tradition includes no empirical statements, then it’s unclear what your faith tradition entails. However, if your faith tradition makes empirical claims (and all faith claims that fall within the domain of religion make empirical claims), then what you’re saying is that your belief is true for you, regardless of how the world actually is. Since the world is the way it is regardless of our beliefs or of the epistemology we use to know the world, “my faith is true for me” is a nonsensical statement. One can have faith that if one jumps out of a twenty-story window one will polymorph into an eagle and fly to safety. This doesn’t make it the case.

What one is really saying when one states, “My faith is true for me,” is, “I prefer my delusions, and I wish to remain with them in spite of the evidence.”

Once more, we see Boghossian making an appeal to his personal incredulity. And the fact that some people may not understand “more thoughtful substantive responses” explaining why the statement is fallacious does not mean that it is difficult to explain why it is fallacious. After all, Boggie correctly notes that the youthful solipsists, the postmodernists, and the epistemological and cognitive relativists all have the intellectual wherewithal to understand any such explanation, and yet Boghossian does not provide one.

As will become clear from my recommended response, it’s not hard to understand why Boghossian doesn’t want to explain why the statement is fallacious. Nevertheless, because I am not a relativist, I would not recommend relying upon this particular defense of faith except as a rhetorical feint that is a prelude to an attack on unwarranted atheist morality claims.

VD RESPONSE: My claim that my faith is true for me is no different than your claim that your morality is true for you. Do you believe that some actions are good and others are evil? Do you believe that some actions are objectively desirable and others are objectively undesirable? If one believes in an objective moral Law that is universally applicable to everyone, then one must necessarily believe in a Lawgiver.

However, since you reject the existence of the Lawgiver, we know you also reject the existence of an objective universal moral law. Therefore the limits of your moral claims extend no farther than you. What you’re saying is that your moral beliefs are true for you, regardless of what the moral law actually is. You’re saying that you prefer to act however you momentarily desire, regardless of the morality of your actions.

This is why even atheists believe other atheists are less trustworthy than believers. And the bloody history of atheist rule has shown that people whose moral reality is subjective are far more dangerous to the world than people whose perception of reality is subjective. The subjective believer may be delusional and dangerous to himself, but the subjective moralist is not only delusional, he is dangerous to everyone else.

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #16

Defense: “Atheism and secular humanism are as much a religion—and require as much faith—as any religion. Atheists and secular humanists love to equivocate on religious issues—claiming they are not religious and are free of religious bias—but they are no less religious or faithful than anyone else. They are not aware of their own faith and are blind to their biases. There is a saying: ‘There are no nonreligious people, only false Gods.’”

Response: “Confusing atheism with secular humanism demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding as to what the terms mean. Secular humanism is a philosophy and a set of ideals; atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God or Gods. There is no dogma attached to nonbelief in a divine Shiva the Destroyer. And, as to the saying—it’s silly. To assert that people are incapable of letting go of belief in mythological fairytales without attaching themselves to some other form of worship is narrow-minded, condescending, pessimistic, and without evidential merit.”

VD RESPONSE: How can you possibly think that is an adequate response? You are providing an example of the very evidence you claim does not exist! You are responding to a charge of atheist equivocation by blatantly equivocating! The claim was that atheism and secular humanism were religions that required faith… and your response is to say that atheism is not secular humanism? That is a complete non sequitur.

As a Street Epistemologist, you are an atheist who is actively selling secular humanism, a specific “humanistic vision” as Peter Boghossian describes it, and yet the moment you’re called on what you are doing, which is religious proselytizing, you retreat to pretending that your atheism is totally unrelated to your secular humanism.  And describing secular humanism as “a philosophy and a set of ideals” doesn’t mean that secular humanism isn’t a religion. Quite to the contrary, by describing it that way you have admitted that it is “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons”. That is the literal dictionary definition of a religion!

You are not merely religious, you are a religious fanatic. You’re the secular humanist version of the crazy guy raving about the End of Days in the park.

As for atheism, it is merely a specific belief that is a subset of the secular humanist religion. Your position is no more reasonable than a Southern Baptist who doesn’t believe in infant baptism claiming that his lack of belief in infant baptism means he isn’t a theist. That sounds absurd, but it is no less absurd than your attempt to delink atheism from secular humanism.

Anti-Apologetic #3

“I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.”

I have personally heard this objection innumerous times—mostly from those who are more fundamentalist in their orientation. My suspicion is that people who have genuine doubts about their faith but want to demonstrate or voice strong verbal support for their faith (not necessarily to others but for themselves) make this statement.

This defense is problematic for several reasons. First, what amount of “faith” is required for someone’s nonbelief in the Norse god Thor? Or, are most people Thor atheists? Does nonbelief in Thor require effort? Do people need to congregate and sing songs together to reinforce their nonbelief in Thor? Anyone who says, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist,” doesn’t understand what the word “atheist” means, or is simply insincere.

Second, one possible reason this defense has gained such traction is the starting point. The faithful start with defaulting to God; in other words, the faithful look at the world around them and say, “God.” I happen to be on a plane now, and when I look around I see clouds, seats, people, my laptop, but I don’t see an invisible, unifying metaphysical and supernatural element. I see objects. It is unclear to me why one’s default would be God.

Borrowing from a term first used by pastor and French theologian John Calvin, contemporary American Christian apologist Alvin Plantinga tries to answer questions of defaulting to God with the Sensus Divinitatis or “God sensor” (Plantinga, 2000). Basically, Plantinga’s answer is that some people have a built-in sense of the divine—something within them senses God in the same way that we have eyes that sense things in the visual realm.

One of the main problems with the God sensor argument is that just as some people allegedly claim to sense God, other people can allegedly claim to sense other imagined entities. This common rebuttal is referred to as “the Great Pumpkin” objection. In American cartoonist Charles M. Schulz’s comic strip Peanuts, Linus believes there’s a Great Pumpkin who arises from the pumpkin patch to reward well-behaved children. If the theist can claim that her sensation of God is immediate, why can’t anyone who genuinely feels an imagined entity claim that entity is real? (This argument can become very complicated, and as a general rule I’d suggest avoiding it whenever possible. Focus instead on the fact that one’s confidence in a sensation does not map onto its accuracy—just because people feel in their hearts the Emperor of Japan is divine, does not make the Emperor of Japan divine.)

When responding to, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist,” I begin by clearly defining the words “faith” and “atheist.” I can’t imagine how these two definitions could align so as to make this statement sensible.

VD RESPONSE: An appeal to your own lack of imagination is not only a fundamental logical fallacy, but is so hapless and inept a response that I would be embarrassed for you if I didn’t think you were an intellectually dishonest jerk who is willing to say anything in order to tear others down.

Also, you’re wrong. Let’s look at your own definitions of “faith” and “atheist”. You defined faith, improperly, as “pretending to know something you don’t”. As for atheist, you say: “Atheist,” as I use the term, means, “There’s insufficient evidence to warrant belief in a divine, supernatural creator of the universe.”

The two definitions don’t align because your definition of atheist doesn’t even conform to the grammatical rules of the English language. “Atheist” doesn’t mean “there’s insufficient evidence to believe” anything. It’s not a statement, it’s a freaking noun! An “atheist’ is a type of person, specifically, a person who does not believe in the existence of God, gods, or the supernatural, who “offers a humanistic vision”, to quote Peter Boghossian, and in most cases, also subscribes to rational materialism and scientific determinism.

And given that the possibility that God always existed cannot be ruled out, as per Mr. Boghossian’s Anti-Apologetic #1, it should be obvious that every atheist who claims God does not exist is someone who is pretending to know something he does not know. Which, according to your own definition, is someone who has faith.

Very few theists have the sort of faith required to engage in that pretense, to say nothing of the vast quantities required to pretend to know that the universe always existed, life came from non-life, science is the only means of obtaining reliable evidence, and global warming requires a global government.

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #15

Defense: “You’re just talking about blind faith. My faith is not blind.”

Response: “There is no need to modify the word ‘faith’ with the word ‘blind.’ All faith is blind. All faith is belief on the basis of insufficient evidence. That’s what makes it faith. If one had evidence, one wouldn’t need faith, one would merely present the evidence.”

VD RESPONSE: Your thinking is too simplistic. Faith is no more a binary matter than science is. I also notice that you’re changing the definition of faith again: before you said faith was “pretending to know what you don’t know”. You are also contradicting yourself here. What distinguishes “sufficient” evidence from “insufficient” evidence? What is the magical binary line that separates one form of evidence from the other?

Even “insufficient evidence” is still evidence, by definition, so your assertion that if one had evidence, one wouldn’t need faith is obviously false since you declare that faith necessarily requires a form of evidence upon which the belief is based.

This next anti-apologetic is particularly fascinating in light of the recent conversation I had on Twitter with one of Peter Boghossian’s Street Epistemologists named Blake. Blake staunchly defended the idea that there might have been an eternal universe consisting of Skittles, luminiferous aether, and highly compressed phlogiston prior to the Big Bang because, and I quote: “as far as what was before the Big Bang, (if that even makes sense), I just don’t know, and you don’t either.”

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #2 

“You can’t prove there’s not a God.”

I try to have patience when I hear this. What’s perpetually surprising about this defense is that I hear it from people all over the intellectual and educational spectrum. The basic idea is that because you can’t prove that there’s not a God, then God must exist. Of all of the defenses of faith, it is most difficult to comprehend how someone could actually offer this as a legitimate defense for faith or for belief in God.

To rebut this, I talk about little blue creatures living inside Venus. Clearly one cannot prove there are no little blue men living inside Venus. I then ask the question directly, “Do you believe there are little blue men living inside the planet Venus?”

There are basically three answers for this: yes, no, or I don’t know. If they say “yes,” then I change the color to yellow. I continue to change the color until they admit that not all the men I’ve described can physically live inside the planet. I then repeat the question and ask if they believe there are little blue men living inside Venus.

If they say “no,” I reply, “Why not? You can’t prove it not to be true.” Most people will get the point and then say there’s something different about God. That is, this line of argument works against everything except God. (Here I’m reminded of defenders of Anselm’s argument for the existence of God. Every time someone would bring up an objection, they’d state that the argument only works with God.) When the respondent says there is something special about God that makes this argument not work, then I always press them to know what’s different about God. I’ve yet to hear a coherent answer to this question.

If they respond, “I don’t know,” to the question of little blue men living inside Venus, I ask them why they don’t take the same stance with God and say, “I don’t know.”

Finally, I ask, “What evidence could I give you that would prove God doesn’t exist? Can you please give me a specific example of exactly what that evidence would look like?” Because it’s not possible to have a justified belief in God due to the fact that there’s insufficient evidence to warrant this belief, very few people have been able to cogently answer the question. I then use the discussion as a springboard to suggest that they don’t believe in God on the basis of the evidence. From here it’s a rocky but clear path to, “One ought not believe in something for which there’s insufficient evidence.”

Here Boghossian completely fails to understand the point of the defense he is trying to attack. He’s surprised because he is erroneously assuming that it is the basis for an assertion rather than the response to an attack which it obviously is. (This is more evidence of Boghossian’s social autism; it’s typical of many of the more socially awkward atheists that they cannot distinguish between an attack and a defense.) The basic idea is not that because you can’t prove that there’s not a God then God must exist, but rather because you can’t prove that there is not a God, then you cannot say there is not a God. And no faith is needed to posit that God exists and has always existed.

Which Boghossian should understand, given that in Anti-Apologetic #1, he stated: “The possibility that the universe always existed cannot be ruled out…. No faith is needed to posit that the universe may have always existed.”

VD RESPONSE: I don’t believe that little blue men live inside Venus. The human body, regardless of size or color, is incapable of surviving temperatures on the surface of Venus, let alone inside Venus’s iron core. Therefore, it should be readily apparent that little blue men cannot live there. Furthermore, there is no testimonial or documentary evidence of little blue men on Venus, whereas there is a vast quantity of testimonial and documentary evidence in favor of the existence of God.

I will be happy to tell you what evidence you could give me that would prove God doesn’t exist if you agree to tell me what evidence I could give you to prove that God does exist. Are we agreed? Very well. If the human race could collectively go one single 7-day period without committing any of the acts that God describes as sins in the Bible, I would agree that God doesn’t exist. If God does not exist and evil is nothing more than how we happen to describe certain human choices, then obviously it is possible for Man to not commit evil as it is described in the Bible as the violation of God’s Will. In fact, even if only 10 people could manage to go about their normal daily lives for a single week without sin, I think this would be a remarkable piece of evidence against the existence of God.

If, however, Man cannot refrain from committing evil despite consciously choosing to do so, then obviously the Biblical model of fallen Man is more in line with observable reality than the godless model, thereby indicating that Man’s morality is defined by the Will of an existent God.

So, what evidence are you willing to accept that you would consider conclusive regarding the existence of God?

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #14

Defense: “You should never say such things. You’ll offend people and they’ll think you’re a jerk.”

Response: “What people believe, and how they act, matter. They particularly matter in a democracy where people have a certain amount of influence over the lives of their fellow citizens. My intent is not to be a jerk. I don’t buy into the notion that criticizing an idea makes me a bad person. A criticism of an idea is not the same as a criticism of a person. We are not our ideas. Ideas don’t deserve dignity; people deserve dignity. I’m criticizing an idea because that idea is not true, and the fact that people think it is true has dangerous consequences.” 

VD RESPONSE: First of all, you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a corrupt imperial republic imposed by force and ruled by a bi-factional oligarchy, in which the people have absolutely no amount of influence over the lives of their fellow citizens regardless of how they vote. Your argument is based on a false premise. And more importantly, it doesn’t matter what your intent is, the observable fact is that you are acting like a jerk. You are violating basic social etiquette and the fact that you genuinely can’t see that your behavior is offensive indicates you may have a neurological abnormality that prevents you from grasping normal human socio-sexual relations. You know how you complain about women not liking you? Well, Sherlock, here’s your first clue.

Furthermore, Peter Boghossian wrote that “tolerance has been perverted into another value that undermines reason”. So, you’re not merely a jerk, you’re an intolerant jerk. You’re every bit as intolerant as the Saudi clerics who run around whipping girls who dress improperly, only you’re running around verbally abusing everyone you think believes improperly. And what’s more, you’re revealing yourself to be either dishonest or incredibly forgetful. You said it is wrong to pretend to know what you don’t know, you also said that we can’t know if God exists or not, and now you’re saying that you know that idea is not true. Are you even listening to yourself? Because you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

You said how people act matters. I suggest you look at your own actions! Is it really your intention to go through life with everyone correctly seeing you as a dishonest, intolerant jerk and avoiding you if they can? Is that really what reason dictates?

On Twitter, Blake Seidler is attempting to defend one of Peter Boghossian’s many errors. It’s highly amusing and it demonstrates how most atheists simply are not prepared for rhetorical battle. Seeing them dip their toes into rhetoric and trying to figure it out in their quasi-aspie way is like watching monkeys try to figure out how to drive a car.

BS: Your accusation of science denial is false.

VD: He is indisputably denying science. He is appealing to the long-discredited idea of a Steady State universe.

BS: No he’s not, and that’s precisely the straw-man I’m referring to. He absolutely accepts the Big Bang model of the universe.

BS: You invoked the Steady State model, not Boghossian.

VD: He’s the one who denies the scientific consensus for the age of the universe, Blake.

VD:  “The possibility that the universe always existed cannot be ruled out.” – Peter Boghossian. There’s your science denial.

VD: “The possibility that the Earth is only six thousand years old cannot be ruled out.” – Peter Boghossian (paraphrased)

VD: “The possibility that God created the Heavens and the Earth cannot be ruled out.” – Peter Boghossian (paraphrased).

There is more of the same sort of thing, but the fact is that we all know Boghossian actually believes in the Big Bang and the scientific consensus concerning the age of the universe. He simply pretended that he didn’t in order to attack the possibility that God might have created the universe. But notice how the simple fact of answering rhetoric with rhetoric has immediately forced Blake, the Street Epistemologist, to beat a hasty retreat to scientific dialectic. Oh, of course Peter Boghossian isn’t a SCIENCE DENIER. Of course he ABSOLUTELY accepts the Big Bang model.

Forcing this retreat was, of course, precisely my intention, since now we can cheerfully cram the very words he was attempting to use to cast doubt on our faith right down his throat. Now Boghossian can’t even argue with someone claiming that there was nothing but Skittles and bubblegum before the Big Bang, or with someone who argues that Bishop Ussher’s 6,000 year old Earth can’t be ruled out without facing his own words. He is forced to choose between being hung by our rhetoric or accept that his arguments have been neutralized.

Hit them with rhetoric when they use rhetoric. Then, when they retreat and try to switch back to dialectic, recall their rhetoric and turn it against them. As I’ve noted, they are NEVER prepared to defend their beliefs or stand by the statements they make in attacking Christian beliefs. Ironically, the less intellectually honest they are, the easier it is to take them apart because they will always say something that contradicts an earlier statement. The more you do this, the easier it gets to spot the statement that will eventually be contradicted.

UPDATE: Boghossian’s tactics may be more self-destructive than I’d imagined.

VD: You say we can’t believe there was nothing before the Big Bang, but we can believe there were never any gods. You have faith!

BS: no, I withhold belief in God the same way I withhold belief in everything else that I don’t have evidence for.

VD: You appear to be pretending to know something you don’t. Do you admit there may be a Creator God?

BS: yes. I think a deistic god is impossible to disprove, and a truly omnipotent being could obviously conceal his existence.

VD: Good. You claim there may be something pre-Big Bang and there may be a Creator God. Do you also claim that Jesus Christ may be Lord?

BS: sure. I think the evidence is strongly against it, but if I am open to being shown that I am wrong about that.

And now we’re onto the Christian’s favored ground. Blake is presently trying to cite various forms of evidence against the Lordship of Jesus Christ, which should be an interesting enterprise. Notice that although he’s still repeating Boggie’s talking points, we’re no longer questioning the essential legitimacy of faith, but are instead discussing the evidence for and against Jesus Christ. I’ve asked him to focus, in particular, in the historical and textual evidence against Jesus Christ he cited.

So, you see, an unprovoked attack by a Street Epistemologist can be transformed into an opportunity to not only defend one’s faith, but share it. The anti-apologetic should be viewed as a potential opportunity for Christian evangelism. Just keep in mind that these are seldom individuals who are wired normally, so avoid any and all emotion-based appeals or personal testimonials and stick firmly to nothing but facts, reason, and logic.

UPDATE 2: A new tactical line occurs to me. When asked about the evidence AGAINST Jesus Christ, Blake surprised me by answering: “Historical, archeological, textual, philosophical, psychological, anthropological, cosmological, and experiential.”

Given that most atheists actively attempt to limit evidence to “scientific evidence”, it may be useful to encourage them to expand the limits of what they consider acceptable evidence by first asking them for their evidence against Jesus Christ. For example, most atheists would run screaming away from the idea that experiential evidence is legitimate in any circumstances. And archeological evidence has played into Christian hands since Nineveh was discovered. But Blake has manfully agreed that all these evidential grounds are fair game, “given sound logic and consistent definitions”, restrictions to which I can’t possibly object.

In any event, we’ve agreed that Twitter is too limited a medium for a detailed discussion, so he is going to write up his case for the evidence against the Lordship of Jesus Christ, which I will post here on the blog, unedited, in its entirety.

In which responses to two more of the 16 anti-apologetics offered in Peter Boghossian’s A Manual to Creating Atheists are provided. The juxtaposition of the two anti-apologetics is particularly effective, as it illustrates the intrinsic lack of integrity, indeed, one should say the lack of good faith, of the Street Epistemologist.

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #1 

FAITH IS TRUE

“Why is there something rather than nothing? You have faith that there was no Creator.”

“Bear in mind that an atheist believes that all these miraculous coincidences took place by chance. But he doesn’t just believe that man and woman came into being without a Creator, but that all of creation did—amazing flowers, massive trees, succulent fruits, beautiful birds, the animal kingdom, the sea, fish, natural laws, etc. His faith is much greater than mine.”
—Ray Comfort, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can’t Make Him Think (2009, p. 2)

This is the best argument I’ve heard for the existence of God. It’s the trump card played by believers. However, it doesn’t work.

There are several related ways to respond to why there’s something rather than nothing: “Why assume nothing is the default?” This is a question that has no answer. As prolific German philosopher Adolf Grünbaum states, “Why be astonished at being at all? To marvel at existence is to assume that nothingness is somehow more natural, more restful. But why? The ancients started with matter, not the void; perhaps nothingness is stranger than being” (Holt, 2012).

Similarly, “How do you know the universe didn’t always exist?” Even if appeals are made to the Big Bang, one can never know either that reality is one endless time loop with Big Bangs strung together for eternity, or that à la American theoretical physicist Brian Greene, we’re part of a larger multiverse with an infinite number of Big Bangs constantly occurring.

Why isn’t there nothing rather than something? On what basis can one claim nothing is the default position for existence? Couldn’t something be the default position, with nothing being the truly extraordinary thing? And even if we do accept by fiat, given our limited knowledge, that something rather than nothing is extraordinary, does that give license to make up answers as to why this is the case? It begs the question: is it better to pretend we know an answer to something we don’t actually know, or is it better to simply be honest and say, “I don’t know?”

The possibility that the universe always existed cannot be ruled out. This by definition casts doubt on a creator. No faith is needed to posit that the universe may have always existed.

The quality of Peter Boghossian’s education can be easily summarized by pointing out that of all the various intellectual arguments concerning God’s existence that have been concocted by Christendom over the centuries, the best one that he has ever heard was presented by Ray Comfort. This isn’t merely embarrassing for him, it should be so humiliating for him that he never again opines in public on the subject.

VD RESPONSE: Why assume nothing is the default? Because Scripture, Science, and Reason all point to nothing having preceded the universe as we presently observe and experience it. How do I know the universe didn’t always exist? Because Fred Hoyle’s Steady-State Universe theory, which was inspired by a freaking B-grade British horror movie, is contradicted by the theory of general relativity, the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, Hubble’s observation that the universe was expanding, and both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, just to name a few things. You might as reasonably believe in a magic perpetual motion machine as an eternal universe.

As for your appeal to the multiverse hypothesis, if you are going to insist upon an infinite number of universes, then you must admit that at least one of those universes would have to contain a Creator God, in which case the evidence suggests that this happens to be that particular universe. Even if we are assured that in none of them does Sheldon dance.

As to WHY there is something rather than nothing, that is irrelevant. This is not a question of why, it is a question of what. Do you believe that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old? Then you cannot appeal to the current scientific consensus that calculates the age of the Earth to be 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years while simultaneously rejecting its calculation that the age of the Universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years.

The possibility that the universe has always existed was ruled out by scientists decades ago. It is true that no faith is needed to posit that the universe has always existed, just as no faith is needed to posit that you are a clown made out of candy. But you have to be a science denier to claim that either of those things are a legitimate possibility in this particular universe. Now, are you really prepared to deny science and declare your disbelief in what Newton, Einstein, Hawking, and Hubble, just to name a few, have established scientifically?

Or do you have faith in those men and their conclusions? Because I know, I am not merely “pretending to know”, that you don’t understand the math involved.

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #13

Defense: “Much of modern science and practical mathematics is based upon mere ‘native preference,’ not on any rational proof. Faith is the same.”

Response: “Science has a built-in corrective mechanism that faith does not have. There’s been convergence across all fields of science on virtually all scientific theories since the eighteenth century. At any point in the future, do you ever think there will be convergence on specific faith propositions? I don’t, because those propositions are arbitrary.”

VD RESPONSE: You attacked science by denigrating its consensus concerning the age of the universe and now you’re appealing to it? Why, I find myself beginning to doubt your integrity and your intellectual honesty! And your statement is false: science does not have a built-in corrective mechanism. As Thomas Kuhn demonstrated, scientists work within paradigmatic assumptions that they do not question and the so-called “corrective mechanism” to which you appeal is no different than it is in accounting or any other human activity where sufficient divergence from observed reality eventually tends to draw someone’s attention. Including, you will note, organized religion.

As for your question about convergence on specific faith propositions, you are quite clearly wrong. We have already observed what you claim to be impossible. History shows a considerable degree of convergence on specific faith propositions; 2,000 years ago, there were a plethora of pagan religions and only 11 Christian apostles. Now most of those pagan religions are defunct and there are 2.2 billion Christians around the world, accounting for more than one-quarter of the global population. In fact, the Bible itself describes the process of this inevitable convergence. One day EVERY knee shall bow, and one day EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Including yours. You can do it now. Or you can do it later. But you will do it.

PREVIOUS IN THE SERIES: The Fifth Horseman 2

I finished Peter Boghossian’s A Manual for Creating Atheists yesterday. Needless to say, it did not succeed in creating one. In fact, I suspect Dominic, TGM, and some of the other intelligent atheists here will tend to be mildly embarrassed by it, in much the same way that intelligent Christians are embarrassed by a Kirk Cameron attempt at apologetics. The difference is that Cameron means well, while Boghossian is, quite literally, the sort of person who will kick out a crutch from under a cripple’s arm because he doesn’t believe the individual is truly crippled. Nor will he likely apologize when he learns, after the fact, that he was wrong.

It is readily observable that Boghossian almost certainly ranks higher on the Aspie scale, or whatever they are calling it these days, than Sam Harris or even Richard Dawkins. He’s simply clueless about what (silence) in a conversation means, inevitably assuming that what the dialogue tends to indicate means: (I can’t talk to this idiot, he’s hopeless) is actually: (oh my goodness, I am struck dumb by the irrefutable reasoning of your beautiful mind). And that is giving Boggie the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he is accurately recalling the dialogues rather than inventing them out of whole cloth.

The funniest part of the book is without question the following conversation with his father. I have a strong suspicion that his father regards Boghossian with mixed embarrassment and pride, the latter over his minor celebrity, the former over the fact that Boggie is the picture of what Bruce Charlton describes as a clever silly.

(Not that these particular sillies are especially clever. The second funniest part of the book comes in the Introduction by the ever-hapless John Loftus:“I thanked God for everything, from getting me into the Christian-based Pepperdine University (my grades and SAT scores were unspectacular) to finding a parking place at theaters and restaurants.”)

Unspectacular grades, mediocre SATs, and barely getting into a third-rate university. And these guys are constantly appealing to their intelligence? But back to the two Boghossians and the book’s best dialogue:

When I told my father that K–12 educational systems should promote the value of epistemological rigor, he replied incredulously, “Are you kidding me? High school dropout rates are hovering around 33 percent in most [U.S.] cities. We can’t even teach kids how to read. What makes you think we’d be any more successful with instilling ‘epistemological rigor?’”

Whether or not we can be successful in helping people see value in epistemological rigor is an empirical question. I have my own speculation that this can be accomplished through pop culture—for example, comic books and TV shows for children that personify new heroes, Epistemic Knights, and new villains, Faith Monsters.

Didn’t even slow him down. Yes, it is an empirical question, but the point that Boghossian the Younger simply ignores is that the question has been answered! As you can see, we’re not exactly dealing with a godless genius here.

Boghossian the Elder made precisely the same point that I have repeatedly made concerning the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Both the evangelical evolutionists and Boghossian the Younger are so removed from reality that they are not only wrong, they are making a fundamental category error. How are the children at schools like this one in Queens, where the children have no books, going to develop epistemological vigor even if they spend all day watching what sounds like a bad version of Captain Planet? The total impossibility of the task is only underlined as one reads the book, as one observes that even though the younger Boghossian values the idea of epistemological rigor, he does not actually practice it.

The entire book reads rather like it was written by Otto from A Fish Called Wanda. Aristotle was not Belgian. The definition of faith is not “pretending to know things you don’t know”. The central message of Scepticism is not “Ecrasez l’infame”. More than one argument for the existence of God has withstood scrutiny and many of them have done so for centuries. I should very much like to see Boghossian personally attempt to address my preferred argumentum e maleficus; it would be certain to provide an amount of hilarity.

In any event, now that I’ve read the manual, I’m not going to go through it on a page by page basis because most of my posts would consist of long quotes followed by short one- or two-word summaries: “exhortation” and “naked assertion”. Instead, I’m will begin with critiquing each of the 17 tactical anti-apologetics he presents, after which I will address certain other aspects of the book when I am finished with it. If there are specific sections or assertions you would like to see me address in a post, please download the book from the readily available torrent Pirate Bay and let me know. Even if you are an IP enthusiast, you can do so in good conscience, as Boghossian writes in Chapter 9:

“To prevent doxastic closure it’s also important to read the work of noted apologists. The only two I’d suggest are Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig, though I’d urge you not to buy their books; their projects don’t need your support.”

It is entirely possible that Boghossian not familiar with The Irrational Atheist, but even if he was, I am confident he would not recommend reading it to prevent doxastic closure because TIA is exactly the sort of thing that Boghossian recommends his Street Epistemologists avoid at all costs: the questioning of atheist assumptions and the criticism of their arguments. The Manual may be intended to be inoffensive, but it is all offense and offers very little in the way of anticipated defense. And therein, as I will demonstrate in this series of posts, lies the tactical Christian response.

Since this has already been a long post, I will begin with one of the shorter anti-apologetics from Chapter 7:

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #12

Defense: “Atheism is just another religion. You have faith in atheism.”

Response: “Atheism is a conclusion one comes to as a result of being rational and honest. Atheism is a conclusion that’s based on the best available evidence for the existence of God—which is that there is none. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is, basically, the lack of belief in God(s). Atheists follow no creeds or doctrines. They engage in no particular set of behaviors.”

VD RESPONSE: How old were you when you became an atheist? Most atheists declare themselves to be atheists before they are old enough to be considered mature enough to legally drink, so reason indicates that it is less a conclusion based on reason and honesty than on teenage hormones and temptation. There is considerable documentary and testimonial evidence for the existence of God, the kind of evidence that is legally admissible in a court of law. You are deceptively substituting the subset of scientific evidence for the entire set of evidence, which calls into doubt your evidence-free assertion that atheism is based on being honest.

As for your other claims about atheism, do you believe in ghosts? Do you believe in Feng Shui? Do you believe in evolution by natural selection? Do you believe in abiogenesis? What do any of those things have to do with a lack of belief in God? Your definition of atheism is clearly incomplete, at best.

Finally, the atheist Peter Boghossian declared that an evangelical atheist “offers a humanistic vision”. He wrote that his atheist Street Epistemology “offers a humanism that’s taken some hits and gained from experience. This isn’t Pollyanna humanism, but a humanism that’s been slapped around and won’t fall apart.” So, how can you say that atheists follow no creeds or doctrines when they are going around actively trying to sell a specific type of humanism? Is that what you are offering to me? A humanistic vision? Then you obviously have faith in humanism! And given what you’ve been saying about the evils of faith, shouldn’t you be addressing that log in your own eye before worrying about any splinters in mine?

PREVIOUS IN THE SERIES: The Fifth Horseman 1

Peter Boghossian has written a little manual on atheist evangelism that has concerned some Christians. Having read two of its nine chapters so far, I can assure you that it is simply a weaponized version of the same endless bait-and-switching upon which Messrs. Dawkins and Harris rely so heavily. However, given MPAI, I have no doubt there are living, breathing human beings who found Mr. Harris’s Red State argument as conclusive and convincing as Mr. Dawkins did, so it seems worthwhile to provide an inoculation to Mr. Boghossian’s poisonous little book as a public service.

This I shall do on the blog, going through it in much the same way various atheists went through the first three chapters of TIA before reaching Mount Chapter Four and running off to Las Vegas and so forth.

This book will teach you how to talk people out of their faith. You’ll learn how to engage the faithful in conversations that help them value reason and rationality, cast doubt on their beliefs, and mistrust their faith. I call this activist approach to helping people overcome their faith, “Street Epistemology.” The goal of this book is to create a generation of Street Epistemologists: people equipped with an array of dialectical and clinical tools who actively go into the streets, the prisons, the bars, the churches, the schools, and the community—into any and every place the faithful reside—and help them abandon their faith and embrace reason.

A Manual for Creating Atheists details, explains, and teaches you how to be a street clinician and how to apply the tools I’ve developed and used as an educator and philosopher. The lessons, strategies, and techniques I share come from my experience teaching prisoners, from educating tens of thousands of students in overcrowded public universities, from engaging the faithful every day for more than a quarter century, from over two decades of rigorous scholarship, and from the streets.

Street Epistemology harkens back to the values of the ancient philosophers—individuals who were tough-minded, plain-speaking, known for self-defense, committed to truth, unyielding in the face of danger, and fearless in calling out falsehoods, contradictions, inconsistencies, and nonsense. Plato was a wrestler and a soldier with broad shoulders. He was decorated for bravery in battle (Christian, 2011, p. 51). Socrates was a seasoned soldier. At his trial, when facing the death penalty, he was unapologetic. When asked to suggest a punishment for his “crimes,” he instead proposed to be rewarded (Plato, Apology).

Hellenistic philosophers fought against the superstitions of their time. Lucretius, Sextus Empiricus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and others combated the religious authorities of their period, including early versions of Christianity (Clarke, 1968; Nussbaum, 1994). They thought the most important step was to liberate people from fear of tortures of the damned and from fear that preachers of their epoch were spouting. Hellenistic philosophers were trying to encourage stoic self-sufficiency, a sense of self-responsibility, and a tough-minded humanism.

Boghossian starts off by trying to fire up the troops. They’re going to be as tough as street preachers and unemployed boy-buggering Greeks! More importantly, he also signals right away that he’s going to play very fast and loose with the readily verifiable truth, given that Lucretius (55 BC) lived before Jesus Christ, Sextus Empiricus wrote against mathemeticians and the very Hellenic philosphers Boghossian is lionizing, and Marcus Aurelius actually WAS the religious authority, being not only the Emperor of Rome, but a member of “all the priestly colleges” of Rome who was literally deified in 180 AD.

None of these four examples, not a single one, “thought the most important step was to liberate people from fear of tortures of the damned”. Sextus Empiricus, for example, declares that “the aim of the Sceptic is tranquility of soul in those things which pertain to the opinion and moderation in the things that life imposes.” Indeed, Boghossian’s very stated purpose is in direct and explicit opposition to everything Sextus Empiricus advises, beginning with “suspension of judgment”.

Boghossian intends to teach atheists how to become an evangelical. And I am going to teach you how to crucify and humiliate those evangelicals using the very tools to which Boghossian is fraudulently appealing. He may be an educator and a philosopher, with two decades of what already appears to be not very rigorous scholarship behind him, but then, I am a superintelligence who has already taken four atheist scalps.

The fifth one won’t be any trouble at all. The manual is nothing but rhetoric in the guise of dialectic, and as most of you have learned, rhetoric combined with actual dialectic will reliably trump the pseudo-dialectic.