Review of "The Future of Atheism"

One of the most powerful religions in the United States is the NFL.
- Daniel Dennett

This past weekend I attended a short convention at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (NOBTS). The Greer-Hear Point-Counterpoint Forum: Exploring the Tensions of Faith and Culture hosted a dialogue between Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett called The Future of Atheism. McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University and is better known for his recent books: The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, and The Dawkins Delusion [1]. Daniel Dennett is University Professor and Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Dennett is known academically for his physicalist approach to the philosophy of mind and his staunch defense of Neural Darwinism. His recent book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, is Dennett's book aimed at inquiring whether religion can be studied by science and an investment in the possible origins of modern-day religions. Other noteworthy speakers at the conference were William Lane Craig of Talbot School of Theology, Keith Parsons of University of Houston, Hugh McCann of Texas A&M, and Evan Fales of University of Iowa [2].

McGrath and Dennett at their podiums

I will admit that I missed the beginning of Dennett's presentation to the audience. However, from a friend who was present, he assured me that Dennett simply presented a quick overview of his book. The only thing worth mentioning for the sake of this review is Dennett's presentation of how secularism is the fastest growing identity in the United States, and perhaps even the world [3].

McGrath, however, I saw his full presentation. One of my Christian friends was simply disappointed in McGrath's dialogue. I do not blame my friend, because McGrath committed himself fairly ambiguous attacks on atheist thought. He gave a short rant concerning Dennett's use of hypothesis over empirical evidence in some parts of Dennett's book. He challenged the concept of the meme, arguing for a better defense for the concept by its adherents [4]. McGrath mentioned Stalin's communism, Stalin's atheism, and the link between his atheism and communism that drove the atrocities of communism. He made a valid point that the driving force of communist USSR was not atheism per se but fanaticism, and it is this fanaticism which religious leaders need to subdue if they desire to reconnect their people with their god. McGrath asked the question if whether science is able to sort out the 'God question,' and his position is the negative. Lastly, McGrath charged that atheism faces a potential internal coherency due to the increase in religiosity and religion's influence on society over the past few years.

Though the above is McGrath's presentation in a nutshell, I wish to add a few commentaries. For one, I am in agreement with him that fanaticism is a dangerous ideology. However, it was not the USSR's atheism which drove the atrocities to occur no more than it was President Bush's Christianity that drove us to war with Iraq or Afghanistan. To reduce the actions of leaders to a cultural identity without properly contextualizing the actions committed with the entire worldview pictures by the individual does violence to the cultural identity. Namely, Communism calls for a removal of religious dependency to achieve the greatest possible governing state. It is the government which controls the people, not the people's religiosity. This form of atheism is in no way comparable to secular humanism, the ethical philosophy held by most atheists, than apples can be compared to bricks [5]. It is simply a non-comparison.

Another point of contention I have with McGrath's presentation is his argument that naturalism is circular in reasoning [6]. He presented naturalism in a overly simplistic way which contradicts what most naturalists state. That is, he charged that naturalists first state that science cannot detect non-natural entities, and then comes back to say that since the data does not support the existence of non-natural entities than non-natural entities do not exist. This is a poor simplification of the creed of naturalism. It is not that the supernatural cannot be explained by science. It is simply that there has been no observable data to conclude the existence of the supernatural. As Daniel Dennett pointed out in his rebuttal to McGrath, all it would take would be a complete failure on the part of naturalism to allow the succession of belief in the supernatural as a truth and component of reality. However, as several other authors have pointed out before, no such data has been collected to conclusively support the notion of the existence of the supernatural [7]. So, the construction of the naturalist's argument isn't that by fiat the supernatural cannot be studied. The naturalist allows for the possible existence if the evidence suggests it. However, since the data does not support the conjecture, then it is not necessary at this time to conclude that the notion of the existence of the supernatural is valid.

Dennett addressed two of the major points McGrath brought attention to in his presentation. The response to the argument of circularity was mentioned earlier. Another point addressed is McGrath's opposition to memes. Dennett responded that in his opinion some of the critics of memetics offer nothing worthwhile to the conversation, and he feels that he has addressed the major critics in Breaking the Spell. He implicitly pointed out McGrath's straw man against memetics. That is, McGrath argued that memes are only irrational entities deemed by those who support memetics but other rational entities are not memes. Dennett assured McGrath that literally everything is a meme, including language [8]. In other words, the meme is not a euphemism for a delusional or irrational belief. The meme is a belief, a social construct, which social beings pass on to offspring. Lastly, Dennett admits that in Breaking the Spell there is speculative langauge. However, Dennett argued that his speculative language is simply asking questions to help see what needs to be answered. He hopes that one day his speculation will either be verified or falsified empirically, and his speculation is in the right direction to begin proper research.

McGrath gave a rather complex rebuttal to memetics that made it difficult to give accurate notes. Essentially, McGrath asked if memetics are a reflection of culture, then how does one explain how religion morphed into culture [9]. McGrath also charged that memes are possibly self-destructive. That is, if memetics is a meme, then memetics tells us nothing on the behavior of memes as the entity is subservient to the laws of nature, or the meme is apt to suffer from the consequences of memetics. To McGrath, this gets us no where near to some sort of truth on cultural development and evolution. Lastly, McGrath charged that atheism, in a sort of paradoxical fashion, is a religion [10].

Dennett's closing remarks for the evening were very enlightening. The epigraph for this entry was the first thing Dennett said after McGrath ended his oratory. Afterwards, Dennett laid out a beautiful rebuttal to McGrath's chare against memetics. "Manifestly, religions are beautifully designed," said Dennett. The theory that there was a purposeful designer is a failure. For example, the idea that conniving priests developed Christianity from scratch cannot explain the commonality Christianity possesses with other religions of that time era. Dennett stated that these traits existed prior to such clever priests. With this observation, one can see how instead of a design theory memetics can be utilized to explain the development and evolution of these older ideals. As well, memetics can be utilized to explain the historical development of Christianity from the days f the apostles to today. Essentially, Dennett proposed the utility of memetics in this example, and he further argued that memes are rationally neutral. Memes are better explanations for the unexplainable elements currently found and considered in other models.

Dennett closed with an interesting remark. In the past he has gotten emails from individuals claiming the familiar mantra of how everything must be taken on faith. To Dennett, the faith card is a declaration of sitting out of the discussion for truth and reality. To Dennett, those who sit on the sidelines holding their faith card do a disservice to their religion by believing out of sheer believing. I am forced to agree with Dennett due to my experiences in the past. The faith card is an excuse and a white flag. There is no victory but an admission of defeat to those who pass it off as a genuine answer.

McGrath concluded the first night with a quick admission that he enjoyed the discussion of the designer. However, he also conceded that he still did not think memes are a viable means to describe how cultural information is passed on to future generations.

Overall, the conference was entertaining and enlightening [11]. Both Dennett and McGrath are highly intelligent and articulate men, both worthy of praise of their oratory capacities. McGrath was a jovial Brit, and Dennett was a charming Santa Claus. I learned a lot from this convention, and it left me desiring to read more from both sides of the argument.

But what about the namesake of the convention? That is, what about the future of atheism? The entire conference was centered not around its namesake, it seems, but about different positions held by naturalists and Christians [12]. However, during the question and answer session of the first session, someone asked Dennett what he thought the future of atheism entailed. Dennett gave a witty remark, and I will end this entry with his answer:

No, [there will be no future for atheism] because we will destroy our planet before the future comes.

Daniel Dennett

Notes
1. I think it is rather funny that when asked what he thought of McGrath's criticisms, Dawkins responded: "Alister McGrath has now written two books with my name in the title. The poet W B Yeats, when asked to say something about bad poets who made a living by parasitizing him, wrote the splendid line: 'Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?'" (Source) [Accessed 2/26/2007]
2. I plan on interacting with the other speakers in a later post.
3. American Atheist. "Survey Indicates More Americans 'Without Faith'". [Accessed 2/26/2007] (This was not his source, but it gives a good outline)
4. McGrath has inspired me to research memetics and analyze the criticisms from respected cultural anthropologists and other such scholars.
5.
6. It is interesting to note that McGrath is possibly attacking methodological naturalism, which is fairly agnostic concerning the existence of God, versus other forms of naturalism, such as metaphysical naturalism, which concludes that the current data does not support the existence of the supernatural. The distinction is signifcant but always overlooked.
7. For an example, read Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism. Though I do not ascribe to Carrier's vision of aesthetics, it is an enjoyable read.
8. From the viewpoint of etymology, I see how this makes sense. Language evolves, literally, under a Darwinian model of 'best fit' words in cultural context. Words which do not fit are phased out, whereas words that do fit remain.
9. I apologize for the lack of notes on this. However, I am too poor to purchase the convention's CD.
10. Though I disagree with McGrath that atheism is a religion under strict definition of a religion, I do admit that there are many atheists whom procliaim their atheism with great vigor.
11. I will address the other speakers in different posts, especially William Lane Craig.
12. During the entire conference, 'atheism' and 'naturalism' were used interchangeably. This practice agitates me to no end. Typically, what happens is a clever theist projects a worldview held by some atheists (for example, egotism or hedonism) and generalize this worldview to apply it to all atheists.

Jesus Christ the Shepherd: Is He a Good One a Bad One?

The imagery of Jesus as a shepherd has its roots in the Jewish Bible and the heritage of the Jews of the region. But its roots and how it made the Jews who would hear about Jesus feel is lost to the feelings invoked by modern Christians. That is, as opposed to an analogy the imagery simply brings comfort to modern Christians. However, to me, I only see an error.

It is the shepherd who takes care of the flock. This is perhaps what gets Christians feeling genuinely good about their Savior as he is proactive in their lives, just like the shepherd is proactive with his flock. However, it is the good shepherd who ventures forth to find his lost members. To the good shepherd, every member of the flock is important, and the good shepherd would do anything in his power to find his lost sheep.

Yet, only about a third of the world's population is Christian, and roughly half of that amount are non-religious [1]. With this information, I find it difficult to believe that Jesus is the shepherd of humanity, and if he is than I am not convinced that he is a good shepherd. Certainly, if he were the shepherd of humanity, the non-religious population counts as the most lost of the sheep, especially the atheists which comprise of that group. And it would be for this group which the shepherd may need to go to extremes to reclaim.

I can foresee, however, the Christian responses: "Jesus is not obligated to help those unwilling to find him;" "Jesus is above the demands of humans and the calls for experiential evidence from non-believers;" "Jesus has already done that which would qualify as evidence [2]." Though these could possibly be true, I can think of a counter-example which dismantles these responses. The counter-example is Paul's experience.

It is fascinating to consider this example. Paul, whom is claimed to have persecuted Christians [3], was literally knocked off of his horse by Jesus on his way to Damascus. This kind of show of power is expected for God or a messenger of his. Yet, why does he not do this often? Again, if Jesus was a good shepherd of humanity, why does he not show his great power to everyone like he does to Paul? Why does he not knock me out of my chair and speak to me, taking the shape of a ball of light, and to tell me to stop writing this blog entry?

Of course, the Christian would respond that I am demanding too much from Jesus or God. However, I do not think so. It is the duty of the shepherd to maintain his flock and to find his lost sheep. In terms of Christianity, I am a sheep who is misplaced from the flock. Unless Jesus is only the shepherd of Christians and could care less about humanity as a whole, he is obligated as a good shepherd to find me and bring me to his flock. Yet, he has not.

Now I see another response coming forth from the crowd: "But what about the Bible? It is a map to join the flock". Though this is potentially true, would this still be the mark of a good shepherd? Does the shepherd give his flock a map and hope they return to him at the end of the day? Of course not. The good shepherd is proactive, and though I hear many tales of Christ's presence in the Christian's life, I hear of none from the non-believers. Though I hear plenty of him guiding the members already present in his flock, I hear little about him venturing forth and gathering his lost members.

A map is hardly good enough for those of us who demand experiential evidence. For an entity that had the capacity of appearing before Paul and knocking him of his horse, I would assume such a feat is possible to occur again and again to different people. Sadly, this day has not come for roughly two-thirds of the population of this world. The cynic within me doubts it ever will, and it even doubts that it happened to Paul.

So I leave my readership with this thought. Anytime you hear Jesus being called a shepherd, remember that a shepherd is one who is proactive with his flock. So, is Jesus the shepherd of humanity as a whole, or only for the select few who call themselves Christians?

Notes
1. CIA World Factbook - 33.03% Christians vs. 14.39% "non-religious". I combined the 12.03% non-religious with the 2.36% atheists listed in the World Factbook. (Accessed 2/16/2007)

2. John 10:11 reads "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." Though I disagree with this interpretation, you can read "The Good Shepherd: Expositional Study of John 10:11" by Fred G. Zaspel to understand where my contrived response comes from. (Accessed 2/16/2007)

3. "Conversion of Paul" - Wikipedia Article (Accessed 2/16/2007)

Beauty and the Ugly

First, the beauty. I must thank my friends Mark and Frank for showing me a video of two lovely young ladies in their late adolescence denouncing the truth of the Bible. Sadly, embedding has been disabled for this particular video. So, instead, click this link.

Now, aside from the girls being obviously facetious about the subject material with their silly grins and banter, I can't help but find fault in the video. I nearly died of a heart attack when the brunette, Jessica, showed a close-up of the Holt Physics textbook by Ray Serway and Jerry Faughn. Now, do not get me wrong. I appreciate the work of Serway and Faughn, but the particular edition of Holt Physics held up to the camera should not be labeled as 'truth'. Actually, in my personal opinion, Holt Physics is one of the blandest introductory textbooks for physics. I personally approve of either Cutnell and Johnson's Physics or Halliday, Resnick, and Walker's Fundamentals of Physics. Obviously, the latter is the most prominent text to choose from for an introductory course as it requires foreknowledge in calculus, but for those lacking in such a toolkit would find satisfaction with Cutnell and Johnson.

Now, if I had to choose one book to label as 'truth', I think it would be a toss up between the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics or the Merck Index. However, it is simply too hard to indicate one book as 'truth'. Truth encompasses many topics of concern, from anthropology to zoology. I guess one ought to go through the entire list of subjects and pick out the most exemplary form out of that topic.

Now, the Ugly. Alistar McGrath and William Lane Craig will be in New Orleans next weekend for the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum held by the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I have been doing some side work on Craig's infamous Kalam cosmological argument. I am tempted to attend the forum to not only see Craig and McGrath possibly becoming trapped in a corner, but to see their adversary and guest speaker Daniel Dennett. I have read most of Dennett's works save his last one, so I've become quite familiar with his style, thinking, and worldview. It will be an interesting forum to attend, in my opinion, to see Dennett, one of the more prominent defenders of Darwinian thought, go up against Craig, champion of the incredulous intelligent design, and McGrath, the self-proclaimed adversary to Richard Dawkins. If I attend, I will let everyone know what I thought of the two day forum. Perhaps I can even get one of those men to sign something so I can sell it on EBay for college or book money.

A Lull in Publishing

My apologies for disappearing for an entire month. School has started in full swing, and I am not exactly in a position where I can dedicate a lot of time to this blog. I plan on revamping some of my old notes from discussion boards I used to attend daily and placing them here. I do not know when I'll have the time, but hopefully it will be soon.

Until then, I plan on commenting in full on this individual's attempt at satire. Also, I recommend reading this website and see how the Bush administration has been mixing political agendas in with scientific reports. My opinion is best described by a statement by Stu Ostro, Senior Director of Weather Communications at the Weather Channel: "PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, AND THERMODYNAMICS ARE NEITHER LIBERAL NOR CONSERVATIVE." To this statement, I would also add physiology and ecology. Essentially, science is apolitical, and it is ludicrous to believe that men in suits playing government have an obligation to censor scientific findings that go against personal and political ideologies.