Right Reason

Julian Baggini is an atheist who’s quite happy for people to know about it. I wish he weren’t, but hey, whatcha gonna do?

Recently Baggini has commented on the embarrassing spectacle that is the “new atheism,” a movement marked by volume and vehemence rather than substance and insight, spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, unconcerned by the need to study or understand the target of it’s frothing at the mouth, tub thumping tirades and wide eyed cheering, stomping and whooping from its young zealous audiences at speaking engagements that would easily pass for “God sucks” rallies.

I think that in a relatively short space, Baggini was exactly right and exactly wrong. He’s right about the new atheism. he says:

What [another writer’s opinion piece] revealed is the negative perception people have of the godless hordes, and the New Atheism must share responsibility for creating its own caricature. You can’t publish and lionise books and TV series with titles like The God Delusion, God is Not Great and The Root of All Evil? and then complain when people think you are anti-religious zealots.

This can’t be dismissed as “mere perception”. Appearances count, which is why those able to present a more agreeable face have come to dominate the moderate middle ground, even if their arguments are often vapid and shallow.

and:

Perhaps a period of New Atheist exuberance was necessary. At least it got people thinking, although I fear it has confirmed every negative stereotype about it.

Indeed. If ever conservative Christians needed to be encouraged to think that atheism is as much a fanatical sect as any other, the new atheists have given it to them on a silver platter.

Now, along the way, Baggini reveals the odd bit of ignorance of his own here and there. In arguing that historically, religious people have indeed cared about the truth of their beliefs, he asks, “Did doctrinal differences about Christ’s divinity have no role in Rome’s split from the Orthodox church?” Well actually – no they didn’t The divinity of Christ was a dispute primarily associated with the Arian controversy, not the split of Rome from the East. But such errors are excusable coming from someone who doesn’t set himself up as an expert in the subject, unlike the targets of his criticism.

But he manages to go quite wrong in a different way. One of Baggini’s stated goals is to encourage atheists to challenge fluffy liberal religious people to snap out of it and realise that the truth value of a religion really matters. He says:

Liberal believers and agnostics get away with this nonsense because religious belief is much more than a matter of doctrine, and practice can be as important, or more so. So while the atheists destroy simplistic, traditional creeds and dance on the ruins, much of the rest of the religious edifice remains intact. The fluffy brigade are then free to plant their flag on it unchallenged.

Atheists need to challenge these liberal theologians, so that they admit their vision of doctrine-lite faith is not a description of how true religion always was, but a manifesto for how it should be. If they do that and succeed, then good luck to them. I don’t care if people want to retain a sense of being religious, as long as what they believe stands up to intellectual scrutiny. Atheism needs critical friends as well as true non-believers, so that it is subjected to such scrutiny itself.

Perhaps a period of New Atheist exuberance was necessary. At least it got people thinking, although I fear it has confirmed every negative stereotype about it. We now need to turn down the volume and engage in a real conversation about what of value is left of religion once its crude superstitions are swept away.

The impression I get from the article as a whole is that he thinks that truth oriented Christianity with a belief in its own serious intellectual defensibility is really on the wane, and liberal religion has stepped in to fill the void, trying to keep the religious flame burning now that we can’t go around taking it intellectually serious any more due to the fact that astute atheists have torn it down and are dancing on the ruins.

Baggini is the editor of “the Philosopher’s magazine” according to the article I’m quoting from, but I have to think that he spends very little time staying abreast of the literature in analytical philosophy of religion, and he surely has no exposure to actual intellectual exchanges between Christian scholars and their critics. He probably does, but this piece does not reflect any such awareness. In those fields in particular, it is precisely the type of religion that Baggini thinks is in ruins that is postiviely thriving. The top journals in philosophy of religion are no longer dominated by sceptics but by believers. Within academia at least, what the world has witnessed is a resurgence of religious faith: Conservative, truth-oriented religious faith that is prepared to not only defend itself but actually take the intellectual fight to the naysayers.

But the article was half good.

Glenn Peoples

I like The Colbert Report. Here Colbert hosts and tackles Bart Ehrman, a scholar I’ve said things about before. The result is pleasing to me. That skeptics with a penchant for the sensational like this get so much favorable press among skeptics without a background in biblical studies is a source of some frustration to many who know better. I think the treatment his work receives in this interview is more in keeping with what it deserves.

The one thing I can’t figure out is why Ehrman here seems to think that a concession to a critic, like “yeah,” “right” or “exactly,” is a rebuttal of the criticism.

Some hat tipping is in order here. Firstly to Pansy and Peony where I saw this clip. Secondly to Dr Tim McGrew for bringing the link to my attention, and thirdly to Matt and Madeleine’s M and M blog where Tim posted the link. I’m running out of hats!

Glenn Peoples

According to atheist celebrity Richard Dawkins in his work Growing up in the Universe, “We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA … That is exactly what we are here for.”

In the minds of some, perhaps most, this robs human beings of purpose. I want to add my two cents by saying that from a purely naturalistic point of view, Dawkins is trying to claw back more purpose than he is entitled to. In fact, if he is right, species do not evolve for the purpose of making more copies of their DNA. They do not evolve for any purpose whatsoever. Allow me to elaborate, drawing on the work of Alvin Plantinga and throwing my own two cents in every now and then.

To say that something has a proper function is equivalent to saying that there is a way that this thing is meant (dare we say intended?) to function. In the mid-twentieth century Errol Harris outlined the two major objections to explaining physical processes with any appeal to teleology or goal orientation:

First, it is maintained, teleology is supposed to be the causal operation in the present of future events. A teleological process is one that is purposive and seeks a goal, so that every event in it must be explained by reference to this goal, which determines the course of the whole process. Now it is held to be impossible to understand how a future event (the goal) can causally influence an event that precedes it, and teleological explanation is therefore explanation obscuri per obscurius. The case of human action is understandable, so it is alleged, in terms of consciousness and intention. We are aware of our purposes and aim at them consciously, so our actions are caused not by a future event, but by our present awareness and the intention to act which we consciously form. But, it is argued, teleological explanation in other cases, where consciousness may not be presumed, cannot be justified. This is the second main objection. Human action and possibly that of some higher vertebrates may be explicable in terms of consciousness, but in the case of invertebrates and lower species such explanation becomes highly dubious. When we turn to physiological processes, such as those of metabolism or the process of morphogenesis and phylogenesis, any account presuming conscious direction is plainly inadmissible and teleological explanation is ruled out altogether. [i]

Writing slightly later, Francisco Ayala exhibits the tendency to switch without differentiation between genuine forward-looking teleology in scientific explanation and the backward looking conduciveness of certain inherited traits in the evolutionary process:

Darwin recognized, and accepted without reservation, that organisms are adapted to their environments, and that their parts are adapted to the functions they serve. Fish are adapted to live in water, the hand of man is made for grasping, and the eye is made to see. Darwin accepted the facts of adaptation, and then provided a natural explanation for the facts. One of his greatest accomplishments was to bring the teleological aspects of nature into the realm of science. He substituted a scientific teleology for a theological one. The teleology of nature could now be explained, at least in principle, as the result of natural laws manifested in natural processes, without recourse to an external Creator or to spiritual or nonmaterial forces. At that point biology came into maturity as a science. [ii]

Notice the way in which Ayala, unfortunately, draws no distinction between being suitably adapted for survival in a given setting, and having a certain feature for a certain purpose. The fact that fish are adapted to live in water is set next to the facts that “the hand of man is made for grasping, and the eye is made to see,” as though nothing different were being said, even on a semantic level, in each case. No one would doubt that Darwin gave an account of the former occurring, and organisms that did not adapt in the best way for the purposes of surviving in the environment in which they lived stood a lower chance of surviving than those whose adaptations turned out to be more conducive to survival. But saying that something is “well adapted to survive” is very different from saying that something “adapted to survive.” In the former description, the adaptation was accidental, and the survival appropriateness of the adaptation was determined after the fact. In the latter, the adaptation took place for the purpose of surviving. To speak as Ayala did then is not at all to speak of a natural teleology as a replacement of a theological one. It is simply to fail to distinguish between fortunate adaptation and teleological adaptation.

More recent Darwinist writers have underlined the fact that naturalism point blank rules out the possibility of genuine teleology. In urging the scientific community to keep “creationism out of the classroom,” Anna Marie Gillis tells us that “What makes Darwin’s thinking such a challenge is he refuted purpose and teleology.” [iii] It seems clear that by “refuted” Gillis means “denied.” [iv] The message here is that in order to keep religious mumbo-jumbo out of classrooms, evolution must be taught with no concept of teleology.
If Dawkins is right about naturalism, then he’s wrong about purpose, and we did not evolve to do anything, serve any end, meet any purpose, to be good at anything at all (and nor, for that matter, did any of our bits and pieces).
Notes:

i. Errol E. Harris, “Teleology and Teleological Explanation,” The Journal of Philosophy 57:1 (1959), 6-7.

ii. Francisco Ayala, “Teleological Explanation Is in Evolutionary Biology,” Philosophy of Science 37:1 (1970), 2.

iii. Anna Marie Gillis, “Keeping Creationism Out Of the Classroom,” Bioscience 44:10 (1994), 652.

iv. This, at least, is a more charitable reading or what Gillis meant. If she meant that Darwin demonstrated that there in fact was no teleology involved in adaptation, she was mistaken, since it is difficult to conceive of how such a demonstration might be made.

Glenn Peoples

I just did a Google search (at www.google.co.nz) for the phrase “religion in the public square” combined with the phrase “New Zealand.” The first result is a news site with a story about my PhD research. The second result is a page at my blog. The third result is my online CV, which refers some of my research.  The next few results were miscellaneous American sites. Result 8 was a hit from my fellow Kiwi bloggers at the M and M blog. That result was perhaps the only exception in the list of results, none of which was from a site of anyone or any groups in New Zealand that are actually discussing the issue of the place of religious convictions in modern democratic society or political philosophy.

I’m sure I could have sought out different phrases or words to search for and managed to dig up a few more results. But I have to say, this is disappointing. Virtually every time I tell an interested person here in New what my area of focus was in my PhD and what my research interests are, I’m greeted with an impressed expression and I’m told something like “well that would have been interesting. It’s such an important subject in New Zealand at the moment.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not at all suggesting that such comments are not sincere. They are, and what they say is true: It really is an important subject to be addressed in New Zealand at the moment. But why aren’t people talking about it? Can I really be the only one – or one of only very few?

The rather lazy minded and cavalier attitude of some in new Zealand of those who do not share my view is to automatically assume (and say very loudly) that religious convictions should play absolutely no part in your decisions about what social agendas to pursue. Religion and social policy should never meet. Now I know full well that plenty of people do not share that view, but somehow the most memorable contribution that New Zealand can contribute to the subject is a hoard of men clad in black shirts chanting “enough is enough,” or a well paid televangelist (according to common perception at least). Needless to say, it’s a tad frustrating that if someone stirs up an unpopular commotion that draws negative media attention, a perception can be created that it is representative of a typical conservative Christian approach to the subject, but if credible postgraduate research is conducted on the issue that also reaches a conservative conclusion, it is overlooked as invisible.

That side of things is perhaps indicative of the image that certain organisations want to see portrayed at the expense of others, but where is the high level discussion and work being done on this issue from a Christian standpoint in new Zealand? How, exactly, do I go about enticing those involved with said work out of the woodwork?

They could start by posting a comment on this blog. I’m not talking about people who think it’s a fascinating subject. I’m talking about people who are interested in serious collaboration on the issue in a visible public way who are prepared to present themselves as credible, qualified and authoritative. If we’re going to work together, we need to know who and where the others are.

Or could it be that they genuinely don’t exist?

Glenn Peoples

In New Zealand, today is Good Friday. It’s not meant to be the actual time of year that Jesus died, but it’s the day on which Christians commemorate the suffering and death of Christ. It’s a real shame, I think, that Christmas has become the giant of the year, and Easter has become its poor cousin. Easter is everything in Christian theology. Strike out Easter and what it means and you’ve struck out the Christian Gospel. Jesus gave his life to save sinners, standing in our place and bringing us back to a relationship with our maker.

I’ve heard the objection raised that for Jesus to come and die for us wasn’t really all that big a deal. It was temporary suffering, after which, Jesus was assured ahead of time, he would be resurrected to glory and everything would be alright. For reasons first suggested to me by Edward Fudge, I think this is quite wrong.

On the evening before Jesus was killed, the Gospels depict him in what is now a familiar scene, praying in Gethsemane. He fell to the ground in anguish and prayed, “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done” (Matthew 26.29). This text is often explained as follows: Jesus was asking his Father if he could avoid going to the cross because it was so awful, but he accepted that if the Father insisted, he would go to the cross and die. It’s not a crazy interpretation. But I want to prompt you to ask if it is the correct one or not.

I put it to you that the cup of judgement did in fact pass from Jesus. We know this because he rose from the dead. Hebrews 5:7 suggests that Jesus was not praying to avoid the cross, but something else – something, I think – that is chilling in light of Jesus’ innocence and also very revealing of his love for sinners. The verse tells us that “he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.” God responded to Jesus’ prayers, and saved him from death, and Jesus submitted to the will of his father, whatever that will might have resulted in. Obviously, if Jesus had been praying to avoid the cross altogether if possible, it’s a bit tricky to say that he received what he prayed for, since was crucified, and here we are in 2009 remembering that fact.

Edward explains:

Through-out the Old Testament, God’s punishment against sin is pictured as a “cup” which God himself mixes and hands to the person to be punished, who must “drink” it (see Psalm 60:3; 75:8; Isaiah 51:17, 22-23; Jeremiah 25:15-38; Obadiah 16). Sometimes a person drinks God’s cup and it sends them reeling, but God then takes the cup back from their hand and they recover (as in Psalm 60:3 and Isaiah 51:22). Sometimes, however, God does not take the cup back, and the person who drinks it falls to the ground and never rises again (as in Obadiah 16 and Jeremiah 25:27).

Jesus prays for the first scenario. He will drinkthe cup, for he knows that is God’s will (Matthew 26:42). He will die as the sacrificial Shepherd, who lays down his life for his sheep (see John 10:11). He knows also, from Psalms 2 and 16 and 22, and from his constant intimate unity with the Father, that God will raise him from the dead (see John 10:17-18).

But there is an enormous difference between “knowing” something intellectually, and “knowing” the same thing in your gut. Jesus knew in the first sense that God would raise him, but not in the second sense. In his humanity, he had to trust God for that. If God did not raise him, Jesus would remain dead. And Jesus was willing to pay that price, if necessary, to save his people from their sins.

Jesus drank the cup and died. But God took the cup back from Jesus’ hand—he saved him out of death —and Jesus rose again in vindication of his own faith and of God’s faithfulness. “Let this cup pass from me,” Jesus prayed. And it did!

Jesus, the man praying at Gethsemane, was willing to offer more than an evening and a morning of scorn and suffering, followed by death.  We often hear Christians reminding each other, correctly, that Jesus gave it all. I think in this prayer we really see how true that is. The possibility that Jesus was contemplating was truly horrible, and even then, his love for us compelled him to submit to the will of his father if that is what was needed. That is sacrifice in the face of incomprehensible fear. He wasn’t praying to avoid the cross – that’s why he came in the first place. He was showing his horror – and yet his willingness – to literally and completely give himself for us. God accepted the work of Christ on the cross in tasting death for all (Hebrews), and (figuratively) took the cup of judgement from him. How much sweeter that makes Jesus’ words, “I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!”  (Revelation 1:18)

Happy Easter 🙂

Glenn Peoples

Virtually all commentators, whether Christian or atheist (not all, but nearly all – and at the risk of sounding somewhat elitist, everyone who is in a position to know) who have heard/seen the debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens have concluded that it wasn’t even close. Hitchens lost and lost clearly, and Craig’s arguments carried the day.

John Loftus agrees with this assessment. John runs the Debunking Christianity blog. He’s an atheist who once professed Christian faith, and he was a student of Bill Craig at one point. We’re not bosom buddies or anything, but I’ve had some dealings with him in the past, and while I think some of the arguments he might have sympathy for are pretty bad, and while I think some of the arguments he doesn’t care for are actually pretty good, and while I think he’s about as wrong as a person can be on the God question and on the significance of Christ, I actually kinda like the guy.

Loftus would like to debate Bill Craig at some point. I can’t see it happening any time soon, and that has to do with Bill’s general policy on debating former students (says Loftus), and to do with Loftus’s departure from the Christian faith, something that Craig finds tragic. But who knows, maybe something will work out at some point. Time will tell. In the meantime, in the thread that I linked to above, I’ve made the offer that if John would like some shooting practice, I’d be happy to engage him in debate. Whether or not that will come to pass in any organised way remains to be seen, but here’s hoping. I’ve suggested the moral argument for theism as a possible topic, but I’m open to more general subjects like whether or not God exists.

I’ve  titled this blog entry based on the title of the article by Edward Green as it appeared in the World Focus Supplement of our local paper, the Otago Daily Times. Apparently (and fortunately) the editor down here is less concerned about provocative titles than the powers that be at the Washington Post, where the article was simply called “The Pope May Be Right.” How boring.

I’m a Protestant. I do not defer to the Pope in any matter because he is the Pope. I also do not have a principled moral objection to all forms of contraception. But the drive behind family planning organisations (that is, organisations for those planning never to have a family) and the like is more like a vacant sounding religious mantra than anything else. When Pope Benedict told Africa and the world that the public promotion of condom use was not the appropriate answer to Africa’s colossal AIDS and HIV problem, he was lambasted for it. A newspaper (see the linked article for details) depicted the Pope as cynically declaring to a crowd of dying Africans: “Blessed are the sick, for they have not used condoms.”

“Yet in truth,” Green points out, much to the chagrin of our secular liberal commentators, “current empirical research supports him.”

It’s public suicide for any liberal public figure to dare suggest that the Pope just might have a point on something like public policy on sexual behaviour. So much so that it doesn’t seem to matter if the facts side with him. But, as Green notes:

In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations’ AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called “Reassessing HIV Prevention” 10 AIDS experts concluded that “consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.”

Check out the article in full for more.

Glenn Peoples