84
Bob Stewart, NOBTS
Bob Stewart, NOBTS
““Collegiate Church Planning” Collegiate Church Planning” has been moved to Holcomb has been moved to Holcomb
208.208.
You can get this PPT file by You can get this PPT file by emailing me atemailing me at
[email protected] oror
Introducing the New AtheismIntroducing the New Atheism
Their Core BeliefsTheir Core Beliefs
• Science and Religion are Science and Religion are mutually exclusive ways of mutually exclusive ways of looking at life. In short, Religion looking at life. In short, Religion and Science are at war.and Science are at war.
Richard DawkinsRichard Dawkins
““An atheist before Darwin An atheist before Darwin could have said, following could have said, following Hume: ‘I have no Hume: ‘I have no explanation for complex explanation for complex biological design. All I biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we good explanation, so we must wait and hope that must wait and hope that somebody comes up with somebody comes up with a better one.’ I can't help a better one.’ I can't help feeling that such a feeling that such a position, position,
Richard DawkinsRichard Dawkins
though logically sound, though logically sound, would have left one would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although and that although atheism might have been atheism might have been logicallylogically tenable before tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an possible to be an intellectually fulfilled intellectually fulfilled atheist.” atheist.”
The Blind The Blind WatchmakerWatchmaker, 6, 6
Daniel DennettDaniel Dennett
““Almost no one is indifferent to Almost no one is indifferent to Darwin, and no one should be. The Darwin, and no one should be. The Darwinian theory is a scientific Darwinian theory is a scientific theory, and a great one, but that is theory, and a great one, but that is not all it is. The creationists who not all it is. The creationists who oppose it so bitterly are right about oppose it so bitterly are right about one thing: Darwin’s dangerous idea one thing: Darwin’s dangerous idea cuts much deeper into the fabric of cuts much deeper into the fabric of our most fundamental beliefs than our most fundamental beliefs than many of its sophisticated apologists many of its sophisticated apologists have yet admitted, even to have yet admitted, even to themselves.” themselves.”
Darwin’s Dangerous IdeaDarwin’s Dangerous Idea, , 1818
Atheistic ShrillnessAtheistic Shrillness
““It is absolutely safe It is absolutely safe to say that if you to say that if you meet somebody who meet somebody who claims not to believe claims not to believe in evolution, that in evolution, that person is ignorant, person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” not consider that).”
Review of Review of Blueprints:Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of EvolutionSolving the Mystery of Evolution, , Maitland A. Edey and Donald C. Johanson, Maitland A. Edey and Donald C. Johanson, New New
York Times Review of BooksYork Times Review of Books 9 April 1989, 35 9 April 1989, 35
Their Core BeliefsTheir Core Beliefs
• Science and religion are Science and religion are mutually exclusive ways of mutually exclusive ways of looking at life. In short, Religion looking at life. In short, Religion and Science are at war. and Science are at war.
• ““Faith” is a superstitious blind Faith” is a superstitious blind leap based on the denial of leap based on the denial of evidence.evidence.
Faith as SuperstitionFaith as Superstition
““What can be What can be asserted without asserted without proof can be proof can be dismissed without dismissed without proof.”proof.” ““Less Than Miraculous,’’ Less Than Miraculous,’’ Free Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 24, Inquiry magazine, Volume 24, Number 2, Number 2, http://secularhumanism.org/libraryhttp://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_24_2.html /fi/hitchens_24_2.html
Faith as SuperstitionFaith as Superstition
““Faith is the great cop-Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to out, the great excuse to evade the need to think evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”of, the lack of evidence.”
Their Core BeliefsTheir Core Beliefs
• Science and religion are mutually Science and religion are mutually exclusive ways of looking at life. In exclusive ways of looking at life. In short, Religion and Science are at short, Religion and Science are at war.war.
• ““Faith” is a superstitious blind leap Faith” is a superstitious blind leap based on the denial of evidence.based on the denial of evidence.
• Religion is inherently evil.Religion is inherently evil.
Nobel Prize Winner Steven Nobel Prize Winner Steven WeinbergWeinberg
““With or without With or without religion, you religion, you would have good would have good people doing people doing good things and good things and evil people doing evil people doing evil things. But for evil things. But for good people to do good people to do evil things, that evil things, that takes religion.” takes religion.” The New York Times, April 20, The New York Times, April 20, 19991999
Their Characteristic PracticesTheir Characteristic Practices• They have a superficial They have a superficial
knowledge of the Bibleknowledge of the Bible
Their Characteristic PracticesTheir Characteristic Practices• They have a superficial They have a superficial
knowledge of the Bibleknowledge of the Bible• They are theological novicesThey are theological novices
Terry EagletonTerry Eagleton
““Dawkins speaks scoffingly Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as of a personal God, as though it were entirely though it were entirely obvious exactly what this obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at with a white beard, then at least as some kind of least as some kind of chapchap, , however supersized. He however supersized. He asks how this chap can asks how this chap can speak to billions of people speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if rather like wondering why, if TonyTony
Terry EagletonTerry Eagleton
Blair is an octopus, he has Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be that word it would be perfectly coherent for perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition He is, rather, the condition of possibility of anyof possibility of any
Terry EagletonTerry Eagletonentity whatsoever, including entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something to why there is something rather than nothing. God and rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up the universe do not add up to two, any more than my to two, any more than my envy and my left foot envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objectsconstitute a pair of objects.”.”
“ “Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching” Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching” London Review of BooksLondon Review of Books, , http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eaglhttp://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html01_.html
Terry EagletonTerry Eagleton““All I can claim in this All I can claim in this respect, alas, is that I think respect, alas, is that I think I may know just about I may know just about enough theology to be able enough theology to be able to spot when someone like to spot when someone like Richard Dawkins or Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens—a Christopher Hitchens—a couplet I shall henceforth couplet I shall henceforth reduce for convenience to reduce for convenience to the solitary signifier the solitary signifier DitchkinsDitchkins—is talking out of —is talking out of the back of his neck.”the back of his neck.”
2008 Yale University Terry 2008 Yale University Terry LectureLecture
Their Characteristic PracticesTheir Characteristic Practices• They have a superficial They have a superficial
knowledge of the Bibleknowledge of the Bible• They are theological novicesThey are theological novices• They are primarily anti-They are primarily anti-
Christian and anti-MuslimChristian and anti-Muslim
Their Characteristic PracticesTheir Characteristic Practices• They have a superficial They have a superficial
knowledge of the Bibleknowledge of the Bible• They are theological novicesThey are theological novices• They are primarily anti-They are primarily anti-
Christian and anti-MuslimChristian and anti-Muslim• They are materialistsThey are materialists
Their Characteristic PracticesTheir Characteristic Practices• They have a superficial They have a superficial
knowledge of the Bibleknowledge of the Bible• They are theological novicesThey are theological novices• They are primarily anti-Christian They are primarily anti-Christian
and anti-Muslimand anti-Muslim• They are materialistsThey are materialists• They are evangelistic copycatsThey are evangelistic copycats
Atheistic Spirituality?Atheistic Spirituality?
Apparently Naturalists recognize that spirituality Apparently Naturalists recognize that spirituality is not going to go away. This quote, from is not going to go away. This quote, from Naturalism.org, seems to imply as much.Naturalism.org, seems to imply as much.
Although naturalism may at first seem an unlikely basis Although naturalism may at first seem an unlikely basis for spirituality, a naturalistic vision of ourselves and the for spirituality, a naturalistic vision of ourselves and the world can inspire and inform spiritual experience. world can inspire and inform spiritual experience. Naturalism understands such experience as Naturalism understands such experience as psychological states constituted by the activity of our psychological states constituted by the activity of our brains, but this doesn't lessen the appeal of such brains, but this doesn't lessen the appeal of such experience, or render it less profound. Appreciating the experience, or render it less profound. Appreciating the fact of our complete inclusion in nature can generate fact of our complete inclusion in nature can generate feelings of connection and meaning that rival those feelings of connection and meaning that rival those offered by traditional religions, and those feelings offered by traditional religions, and those feelings reflect the empirical reality of our being at home in the reflect the empirical reality of our being at home in the cosmos. cosmos. http://www.naturalism.org/spiritua.htmhttp://www.naturalism.org/spiritua.htm
Atheistic Spirituality?Atheistic Spirituality?• Spirituality Without Faith—Spirituality Without Faith—explores the spiritual explores the spiritual
possibilities inherent in naturalism, and how these possibilities inherent in naturalism, and how these compare with traditional approaches to spirituality. compare with traditional approaches to spirituality.
• Enlightenment: Myth and Reality—Enlightenment: Myth and Reality—an imagined dialogue an imagined dialogue in four parts about naturalizing the enlightenment in four parts about naturalizing the enlightenment experience, by Paul Breer, author of experience, by Paul Breer, author of The Spontaneous The Spontaneous SelfSelf..
• Reason and Reverence—Reason and Reverence—a review of William R. Murry's a review of William R. Murry's fine book on humanistic religious naturalism.fine book on humanistic religious naturalism.
• Debunking Enlightenment—Debunking Enlightenment—a review of John Horgan's a review of John Horgan's Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality. Science and Spirituality.
• How to be a religious atheist—How to be a religious atheist—interview with Tom Clark atinterview with Tom Clark at Science and Theology NewsScience and Theology News (cached, image is not Clark). (cached, image is not Clark).
http://www.naturalism.org/spiritua.htmhttp://www.naturalism.org/spiritua.htm
Their Characteristic PracticesTheir Characteristic Practices• They have a superficial knowledge of They have a superficial knowledge of
the Biblethe Bible• They are theological novicesThey are theological novices• They are primarily anti-Christian and They are primarily anti-Christian and
anti-Muslimanti-Muslim• They are materialistsThey are materialists• They are evangelistic copycatsThey are evangelistic copycats• They feel marginalizedThey feel marginalized
Does ScienceDoes Science(or Darwin)(or Darwin)
Disprove God?Disprove God?
Believing ScientistsBelieving Scientists• Nicholas Copernicus, Heliocentric Solar System• Galileo, Observational Astronomy, Kinematics• Johannes Kepler, Laws of Planetary Motion• Isaac Newton, Laws of Motion• Joseph Lister, Antiseptic surgery • Louis Pasteur, Bacteriology • Robert Boyle, Chemistry and Gas Dynamics • Georges Cuvier, Comparative Anatomy • Charles Babbage, Computer Science • Lord Rayleigh, Dimensional Analysis • John Ambrose Fleming, Electronics • James Clerk Maxwell, Electrodynamics • Michael Faraday, Electromagnetics and Field Theory • Lord Kelvin, Energetics • Henri Fabre, Entomology of Living Insects • George Stokes, Fluid Mechanics • Sir William Herschel, Galactic Astronomy • Gregor Mendel, Genetics • Matthew Maury, Oceanography
Agnostic Stephen Jay Agnostic Stephen Jay GouldGould
““To say it for all my colleagues To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth and for the umpteenth millionth time . . . science simply cannot time . . . science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists. . . .comment on it as scientists. . . .
. . . Either half my colleagues . . . Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or elseare enormously stupid, or else
Agnostic Stephen Jay Agnostic Stephen Jay GouldGould
the science of Darwinism is the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with fully compatible with conventional religious beliefsconventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible —and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of that the two great realms of nature’s factuality and the nature’s factuality and the source of human morality do source of human morality do not strongly overlap.” not strongly overlap.”
““Impeaching a Self-Appointed Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge: Book Judge: Book Review of Darwin on Trial by Phillip E.Review of Darwin on Trial by Phillip E.
Johnson” Johnson” Scientific AmericanScientific American 267. 267.
1 1 July 1992, 119. July 1992, 119.
Francis CollinsFrancis Collins““For quite a while in my twenties For quite a while in my twenties I was a pretty obnoxious atheist. I was a pretty obnoxious atheist. At the age of 27, after a good At the age of 27, after a good deal of intellectual debating with deal of intellectual debating with myself about the plausibility of myself about the plausibility of faith, and particularly with strong faith, and particularly with strong influence from C. S. Lewis, I influence from C. S. Lewis, I became convinced that this was became convinced that this was a decision I wanted to make, and a decision I wanted to make, and I became by choice a Christian, a I became by choice a Christian, a serious Christian, who believes serious Christian, who believes that faith is not something that that faith is not something that you just do on Sunday, but if it you just do on Sunday, but if it makes any sense at all, it is part makes any sense at all, it is part of your whole life. It’s the most of your whole life. It’s the most important organizing principle in important organizing principle in my life.” my life.”
Does Religion Poison Does Religion Poison Everything?Everything?
Friedrich NietzscheFriedrich Nietzsche
““Another Christian concept, no less Another Christian concept, no less crazy, has passed even more deeply crazy, has passed even more deeply into the tissue of modernity: the into the tissue of modernity: the concept of the ‘equality of souls before concept of the ‘equality of souls before God.’ This concept furnishes the God.’ This concept furnishes the prototype of all theories of equal prototype of all theories of equal rights: mankind was first taught to rights: mankind was first taught to stammer the proposition of equality in stammer the proposition of equality in a religious context, and only later was a religious context, and only later was it made into morality.” it made into morality.” Friedrich Nietzsche, Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to PowerThe Will to Power, , Aphorism 765Aphorism 765
Keith WardKeith Ward““But consider a parallel case: politics But consider a parallel case: politics could also be said to be one of the could also be said to be one of the most destructive forces in human most destructive forces in human life. In Russia and Cambodia, life. In Russia and Cambodia, millions of people have been killed millions of people have been killed in the name of socialist political in the name of socialist political ideologies. In Latin America, millions ideologies. In Latin America, millions of people “disappeared” in ruthless of people “disappeared” in ruthless campaigns of violence propagated campaigns of violence propagated by right-wing politicians. Deception, by right-wing politicians. Deception, hypocrisy and misrepresentation are hypocrisy and misrepresentation are commonplace in political life. Might commonplace in political life. Might we not be better off in a world we not be better off in a world without politics too?without politics too?
Keith WardKeith Ward
Even science, often thought of as Even science, often thought of as an uninterested search for truth, an uninterested search for truth, produces terrifying weapons of produces terrifying weapons of mass destruction, and the most mass destruction, and the most advanced technology is used to advanced technology is used to destroy human lives in ever more destroy human lives in ever more effective and brutal ways. Would effective and brutal ways. Would we be better off without science we be better off without science as well?”as well?”
Keith Ward, Keith Ward, Is Religion Is Religion Dangerous?Dangerous?,,
179-80179-80
Thomas CreanThomas Crean
““Still, one point is worth Still, one point is worth making in answer to the making in answer to the author’s claim . . . that author’s claim . . . that ‘religion causes people to do ‘religion causes people to do evil things’. Insofar as this evil things’. Insofar as this is true, it has no tendency to is true, it has no tendency to show that religion is itself a show that religion is itself a bad thing, or that its bad thing, or that its message is false. Love message is false. Love causes people to do evil causes people to do evil things; so does patriotism. things; so does patriotism. The love of a man and a The love of a man and a woman can lead to woman can lead to unfaithfulness, to theunfaithfulness, to the
Thomas CreanThomas Crean
destruction of families and destruction of families and even to murder. Patriotism even to murder. Patriotism can lead to hatred and to the can lead to hatred and to the indiscriminate bombing of indiscriminate bombing of cities. None of this means cities. None of this means that either love or patriotism that either love or patriotism is a bad thing. It simply is a bad thing. It simply means that the weakness of means that the weakness of human nature is such that human nature is such that any great object or cause any great object or cause may stir our emotions as to may stir our emotions as to lead us to act against our lead us to act against our better judgment. If religion better judgment. If religion occasions evil as welloccasions evil as well
Thomas CreanThomas Crean
as good, this is no sign of as good, this is no sign of its falsity, but simply of its its falsity, but simply of its power of attraction over power of attraction over human nature. That in the human nature. That in the name of religion good men name of religion good men may do bad things is no may do bad things is no argument against religion, argument against religion, unless crimes of passion unless crimes of passion are arguments against are arguments against human love.” human love.”
Thomas Crean,Thomas Crean,God is No DelusionGod is No Delusion, 118-19, 118-19
So Why Am I So Why Am I Not a NaturalistNot a Naturalist
(an Atheist)?(an Atheist)?
Why I Am Not a NaturalistWhy I Am Not a Naturalist
• Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.
Naturalism.orgNaturalism.orgNaturalism as a worldview is based on the Naturalism as a worldview is based on the premise that knowledge about what exists premise that knowledge about what exists and about how things work is best achieved and about how things work is best achieved through the sciences, not personal revelation through the sciences, not personal revelation or religious tradition. . . Scientific empiricism or religious tradition. . . Scientific empiricism has the necessary consequence of unifying has the necessary consequence of unifying our knowledge of the world, of placing all our knowledge of the world, of placing all objects of understanding within an objects of understanding within an overarching causal context. Under overarching causal context. Under naturalism, there is a single, natural world in naturalism, there is a single, natural world in which phenomena arise.which phenomena arise. http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htmhttp://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm
Naturalism as Self-RefutingNaturalism as Self-Refuting
One reason that I am not a naturalist is One reason that I am not a naturalist is that naturalism cannot be proved that naturalism cannot be proved according to its own methodology, i.e., according to its own methodology, i.e., the scientific method. What sort of the scientific method. What sort of scientific experiment could possibly be scientific experiment could possibly be constructed to test such a hypothesis? constructed to test such a hypothesis? The answer is none. This would not be a The answer is none. This would not be a problem if the scientific method were not problem if the scientific method were not viewed as the viewed as the onlyonly meaningful test for meaningful test for truthtruth, but given that it is this becomes a , but given that it is this becomes a deal-killer. deal-killer.
Dawkins Contradicting DawkinsDawkins Contradicting Dawkins
““As an academic scientist, I am a As an academic scientist, I am a passionate Darwinian, believing passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature. But at who contemplate nature. But at the same time as I support the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we comes to politics and how we should conduct our human should conduct our human affairs.”affairs.”
A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and LoveHope, Lies, Science, and Love, 10-11., 10-11.
Why I Am Not a NaturalistWhy I Am Not a Naturalist
• Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.• Because Naturalism undermines Because Naturalism undermines
human rationality.human rationality.
Naturalism and ReasonNaturalism and Reason
Naturalism undermines reason by insisting that reason is the result of an organ produced by a random process. Why should we believe that reason is a reliable guide to truth if naturalism is correct? Why should we believe that any theory produced by an organism that is itself produced by random processes is true?
J. B. S. HaldaneJ. B. S. Haldane
““If my mental processes are If my mental processes are determined wholly by the determined wholly by the motions of atoms within my motions of atoms within my brain, I have no reason to brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no true . . . and hence I have no reason to believe that my reason to believe that my brain is composed of atoms.”brain is composed of atoms.”
““When I am Dead,” in When I am Dead,” in Possible WorldsPossible Worlds ed. Carl A. Price (New ed. Carl A. Price (New
Brunswick: Transaction, 2002), 209.Brunswick: Transaction, 2002), 209.
Patricia ChurchlandPatricia Churchland
““Boiled down to essentials, a Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body systems is to get the body parts where they should be in parts where they should be in order that the organism may order that the organism may survive . . . Improvements in survive . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer sensorimotor control confer an evolutionaryan evolutionary
Patricia ChurchlandPatricia Churchland
advantage: a fancier style advantage: a fancier style of representing is of representing is advantageous advantageous so long as it is geared to the so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and organism's way of life and enhances the organism's enhances the organism's chances of survivalchances of survival. Truth, . Truth, whatever that is, definitely whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.”takes the hindmost.”
Patricia Smith Churchland, “Epistemology Patricia Smith Churchland, “Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience” in the Age of Neuroscience” Journal of Journal of
PhilosophyPhilosophy, 84 (October 1987), 548., 84 (October 1987), 548.
Richard RortyRichard Rorty
““The idea that one species of The idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward others, oriented not just toward its own uncreated prosperity but its own uncreated prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral being has a built-in moral compass—a conscience that compass—a conscience that swings free of both social history swings free of both social history and individual luck.”and individual luck.”
“ “Untruth and Consequences,”Untruth and Consequences,” The New RepublicThe New Republic, 31 July 1995, 32-36., 31 July 1995, 32-36.
Why I Am Not a NaturalistWhy I Am Not a Naturalist
• Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.• Because Naturalism undermines Because Naturalism undermines
human rationality.human rationality.• Because Naturalism undermines Because Naturalism undermines
human free will.human free will.
Naturalism.org Naturalism.org From a naturalistic perspective, there are no From a naturalistic perspective, there are no causally privilegedcausally privileged agents, nothing that causes agents, nothing that causes without being caused in turn. Human beings act without being caused in turn. Human beings act the way they do because of the various the way they do because of the various influences that shape them, whether these be influences that shape them, whether these be biological or social, genetic or environmental. We biological or social, genetic or environmental. We do not have the capacity to act outside the do not have the capacity to act outside the causal connections that link us in every respect causal connections that link us in every respect to the rest of the world. This means we do not to the rest of the world. This means we do not have what many people think of as have what many people think of as free willfree will, , being able to cause our behavior without our being able to cause our behavior without our being fully caused in turn. being fully caused in turn. http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htmhttp://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm
Naturalism and FreedomNaturalism and FreedomOne way that naturalists will try to show that One way that naturalists will try to show that we are physically determined is to show that we are physically determined is to show that we can track certain types of reactions in the we can track certain types of reactions in the brain scientifically. This shows only that our brain scientifically. This shows only that our thoughts are processed by the brain and that thoughts are processed by the brain and that certain brain states can tracked under the certain brain states can tracked under the right conditions. But what cannot be observed right conditions. But what cannot be observed without some reference to the world beyond without some reference to the world beyond one’s brain is the one’s brain is the specific contentspecific content of that of that mental activity. mental activity. A scientist might be able toA scientist might be able to
Naturalism and FreedomNaturalism and Freedomidentify the part of the brain that is involved in identify the part of the brain that is involved in meditation or prayer but he cannot discern meditation or prayer but he cannot discern what an individual is praying for—or to whom. what an individual is praying for—or to whom. This is because the This is because the content of thoughtcontent of thought is not is not found in the brain but in the mind. You can look found in the brain but in the mind. You can look in my laptop and find the data that translates in my laptop and find the data that translates to the words of this presentation but you will to the words of this presentation but you will not find the thoughts behind the words in my not find the thoughts behind the words in my computer because those thoughts are in my computer because those thoughts are in my mind, not the instrument that I use to mind, not the instrument that I use to communicate those thoughts. communicate those thoughts.
Why I Am Not a NaturalistWhy I Am Not a Naturalist
• Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.• Because Naturalism undermines Because Naturalism undermines
human rationality.human rationality.• Because Naturalism undermines Because Naturalism undermines
human free will.human free will.• Because Naturalism undermines Because Naturalism undermines
morality.morality.
Atheists Michael Ruse and E. O. Atheists Michael Ruse and E. O. WilsonWilson
““Human beings function better if they are Human beings function better if they are deceived by their genes into thinking that deceived by their genes into thinking that there is a disinterested objective morality there is a disinterested objective morality binding upon them, which all should obey. We binding upon them, which all should obey. We help others because it is ‘right’ to help them help others because it is ‘right’ to help them and because we know that they are inwardly and because we know that they are inwardly compelled to reciprocate in equal measure. compelled to reciprocate in equal measure. What Darwinian evolutionary theory shows is What Darwinian evolutionary theory shows is that this sense of ‘right’ and the that this sense of ‘right’ and the corresponding sense of ‘wrong,’ feelings we corresponding sense of ‘wrong,’ feelings we take to be above individual desire and in some take to be above individual desire and in some fashion outside biology, are in fact brought fashion outside biology, are in fact brought about by ultimate biological processes.”about by ultimate biological processes.”
“Moral Philosophy as Applied Science,” Philosophy, 61 (1986): 179.
Naturalism.orgNaturalism.org
From a naturalistic perspective, behavior From a naturalistic perspective, behavior arises out of the interaction between arises out of the interaction between individuals and their environment, not individuals and their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal behavior independently of causal connections . . . Therefore individuals connections . . . Therefore individuals don’t bear ultimate originative don’t bear ultimate originative responsibility for their actions, in the responsibility for their actions, in the sense of being their first cause. Given the sense of being their first cause. Given the circumstances both inside and outside the circumstances both inside and outside the body, they couldn’t have done other than body, they couldn’t have done other than what they did. Nevertheless, we mustwhat they did. Nevertheless, we must
Naturalism.orgNaturalism.org
still hold individuals responsible, in the still hold individuals responsible, in the sense of applying rewards and sanctions, sense of applying rewards and sanctions, so that their behavior stays more or less so that their behavior stays more or less within the range of what we deem within the range of what we deem acceptable. This is, partially, how people acceptable. This is, partially, how people learn to act ethically. Naturalism doesn’t learn to act ethically. Naturalism doesn’t undermine the need or possibility of undermine the need or possibility of responsibility and morality, but it places responsibility and morality, but it places them within the world as understood by them within the world as understood by science. science.
http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htmhttp://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm
Naturalism and MoralityNaturalism and MoralityHow do we hold people responsible who How do we hold people responsible who aren’t responsible? If we aren’t free, then aren’t responsible? If we aren’t free, then why do we call Francis of Assisi a Saint why do we call Francis of Assisi a Saint and Jeffrey Dahmer a monster? If we and Jeffrey Dahmer a monster? If we aren’t free (or rational), then why do aren’t free (or rational), then why do atheists even write books? It would seem atheists even write books? It would seem that we are all just determined to do that we are all just determined to do what we do and there can be no such what we do and there can be no such thing as persuasion.thing as persuasion.
Why I Am Not a NaturalistWhy I Am Not a Naturalist
• Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.• Because Naturalism undermines human Because Naturalism undermines human
rationality.rationality.• Because Naturalism undermines human Because Naturalism undermines human
freedom and free will.freedom and free will.• Because Naturalism undermines Because Naturalism undermines
morality.morality.• Because Naturalism undermines human Because Naturalism undermines human
relationality.relationality.
Naturalism and RelationshipsNaturalism and Relationships
If our actions are the result of physical If our actions are the result of physical causes, then what of love? Why does your causes, then what of love? Why does your husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, love husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, love you? Why do you love your significant you? Why do you love your significant other? Does he/she do so freely? Do you? other? Does he/she do so freely? Do you? Not in a naturalist world. Love is simply a Not in a naturalist world. Love is simply a byproduct of biology; it’s in our glands, or byproduct of biology; it’s in our glands, or some other physical source. In a very real some other physical source. In a very real sense, then, in a naturalist world we can say sense, then, in a naturalist world we can say that love is in our genes—but so is that love is in our genes—but so is psychosis. On a material level, it seems, psychosis. On a material level, it seems, then, that love and mental illness are then, that love and mental illness are roughly the same.roughly the same.
Why I Am Not a NaturalistWhy I Am Not a Naturalist
• Because Naturalism cannot explain Because Naturalism cannot explain human consciousness.human consciousness.
Richard Dawkins on Richard Dawkins on ConsciousnessConsciousness
““Neither Steven Pinker nor I Neither Steven Pinker nor I can explain human subjective can explain human subjective consciousness—what consciousness—what philosophers call qualia. In philosophers call qualia. In How the Mind WorksHow the Mind Works Steven Steven elegantly sets out the problem elegantly sets out the problem of subjective consciousness, of subjective consciousness, and asks where it comes from and asks where it comes from and what’s the explanation. and what’s the explanation. Then he’s honest enough to Then he’s honest enough to say, ‘Beats the heck out of say, ‘Beats the heck out of me.’ That is an honest thing to me.’ That is an honest thing to say, and I echo it. We don’t say, and I echo it. We don’t know. We don’t understand it.”know. We don’t understand it.”
Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, “Is Science Killing Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, “Is Science Killing The Soul?”The Soul?” http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/debate_p4.html http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/debate_p4.html
Ned Block on ConsciousnessNed Block on Consciousness
““We have no conception of our We have no conception of our physical or functional nature that physical or functional nature that allows us to understand how it could allows us to understand how it could explain our subjective experience. . . explain our subjective experience. . . . In the case of consciousness we . In the case of consciousness we have nothing—zilch—worthy of being have nothing—zilch—worthy of being called a research programme, nor called a research programme, nor are there any substantive proposals are there any substantive proposals about how to go about starting one. . about how to go about starting one. . . . Researchers are stumped.” . . Researchers are stumped.”
““Consciousness,” in Consciousness,” in A Companion A Companion toto
Philosophy of MindPhilosophy of Mind, 210-12., 210-12.
John SearleJohn Searle““Physical events can have Physical events can have only physical explanations, only physical explanations, and consciousness is not and consciousness is not physical, so consciousness physical, so consciousness plays no explanatory role plays no explanatory role whatsoever. If, for whatsoever. If, for example, you think you ate example, you think you ate because you were because you were consciously hungry, or got consciously hungry, or got married because you were married because you were consciously in love with consciously in love with your prospective spouse, oryour prospective spouse, or
John SearleJohn Searlewithdrew your hand from withdrew your hand from the flame because you the flame because you consciously felt a pain, or consciously felt a pain, or spoke up at a meeting spoke up at a meeting because you consciously because you consciously disagreed with the main disagreed with the main speaker, you are mistaken speaker, you are mistaken in every case. In each case in every case. In each case the effect was a physical the effect was a physical event and therefore must event and therefore must have an entirely physical have an entirely physical explanation.”explanation.”
The Mystery of ConsciousnessThe Mystery of Consciousness, 154, 154..
Why I Am Not a NaturalistWhy I Am Not a Naturalist
• Because Naturalism cannot explain Because Naturalism cannot explain human consciousness.human consciousness.
• Because Naturalism denies the Because Naturalism denies the substantial reality of the self.substantial reality of the self.
Naturalism.orgNaturalism.org
As strictly physical beings, we don’t exist as As strictly physical beings, we don’t exist as immaterial selves, either mental or spiritual, immaterial selves, either mental or spiritual, that control behavior. Thought, desires, that control behavior. Thought, desires, intentions, feelings, and actions all arise on their intentions, feelings, and actions all arise on their own without the benefit of a supervisory self, own without the benefit of a supervisory self, and they are all the products of a physical and they are all the products of a physical system, the brain and the body. The self is system, the brain and the body. The self is constitutedconstituted by more or less consistent sets of by more or less consistent sets of personal characteristics, beliefs, and actions; it personal characteristics, beliefs, and actions; it doesn’t exist apart from those complex physical doesn’t exist apart from those complex physical processes that make up the individual. It may processes that make up the individual. It may strongly seem as if there is a self sitting behind strongly seem as if there is a self sitting behind experience, witnessing it, and behind behavior, experience, witnessing it, and behind behavior, controlling it, but this impressioncontrolling it, but this impression
Naturalism.orgNaturalism.org
is strongly disconfirmed by a scientific is strongly disconfirmed by a scientific understanding of human behavior. understanding of human behavior.
Tenets of Naturalism Tenets of Naturalism http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htmhttp://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm
Naturalism.orgNaturalism.org
We are the evolved products of natural selection, We are the evolved products of natural selection, which operates without intention, foresight or which operates without intention, foresight or purpose. Nothing about us escapes being purpose. Nothing about us escapes being included in the physical universe, or escapes included in the physical universe, or escapes being shaped by the various processes—physical, being shaped by the various processes—physical, biological, psychological, and social—that science biological, psychological, and social—that science describes. On a scientific understanding of describes. On a scientific understanding of ourselves, there’s no evidence for immaterial ourselves, there’s no evidence for immaterial souls, spirits, mental essences, or disembodied souls, spirits, mental essences, or disembodied selves which stand apart from the physical world. selves which stand apart from the physical world.
Tenets of Naturalism Tenets of Naturalism http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htmhttp://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm
Why I Am Not a NaturalistWhy I Am Not a Naturalist
• Because Naturalism cannot explain Because Naturalism cannot explain human consciousness.human consciousness.
• Because Naturalism denies the Because Naturalism denies the substantial reality of the self.substantial reality of the self.
• Because even if Darwinism is true, it Because even if Darwinism is true, it doesn’t necessarily lead to Naturalism.doesn’t necessarily lead to Naturalism.
Why I Am Not a NaturalistWhy I Am Not a Naturalist• Because Naturalism cannot explain Because Naturalism cannot explain
human consciousness.human consciousness.• Because Naturalism denies the Because Naturalism denies the
substantial reality of the self.substantial reality of the self.• Because even if Darwinism is true, it Because even if Darwinism is true, it
doesn’t necessarily lead to Naturalism.doesn’t necessarily lead to Naturalism.• Because Naturalism has no answer to Because Naturalism has no answer to
the problem of evil.the problem of evil.
Why I Am Not a NaturalistWhy I Am Not a Naturalist• Because Naturalism cannot explain human Because Naturalism cannot explain human
consciousness.consciousness.• Because Naturalism denies the substantial Because Naturalism denies the substantial
reality of the self.reality of the self.• Because even if Darwinism is true, it Because even if Darwinism is true, it
doesn’t necessarily lead to Naturalism.doesn’t necessarily lead to Naturalism.• Because Naturalism has no answer to the Because Naturalism has no answer to the
problem of evil.problem of evil.• Because Naturalism often appeals to ad Because Naturalism often appeals to ad
hoc solutions, such as “Memes.”hoc solutions, such as “Memes.”
Richard Dawkins on Richard Dawkins on MemesMemes
““We need a name for the new We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of or a unit of imitationimitation. ‘Mimeme’ comes . ‘Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ‘gene’. I hope my classicist friends will ‘gene’. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to memememe. If it is any consolation, it could . If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being alternatively be thought of as being related to ‘memory’, or to the French related to ‘memory’, or to the French word word mêmemême. It should be pronounced . It should be pronounced to rhyme with ‘cream’.” to rhyme with ‘cream’.”
The Selfish GeneThe Selfish Gene, 11 , 11
Simon Conway Morris on Simon Conway Morris on MemesMemes
““Memes are trivial, Memes are trivial, to be banished by to be banished by simple mental simple mental exercises. In any exercises. In any wider context, they wider context, they are hopelessly, if are hopelessly, if not hilariously, not hilariously, simplistic.” simplistic.”
Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universein a Lonely Universe, 324, 324
Practical Strategies for Practical Strategies for talking to Atheists talking to Atheists
General StrategiesGeneral Strategies• Use their authorities rather than Use their authorities rather than
Christian authorities.Christian authorities.• DO NOT ARGUE EVOLUTION—this DO NOT ARGUE EVOLUTION—this
is like trying to get to Baton Rouge is like trying to get to Baton Rouge by going through Australia.by going through Australia.
• Talk Physics and Cosmology rather Talk Physics and Cosmology rather than Biology.than Biology.
• Use questions.Use questions.
Strategy #1Strategy #1• Ask them if they think they freely Ask them if they think they freely
don’t believe in God.don’t believe in God.• Ask them if they think they are Ask them if they think they are
rational and can reason their way rational and can reason their way to the truth on important issues.to the truth on important issues.
• Ask them if they think certain evils Ask them if they think certain evils are in fact evil.are in fact evil.
• Ask how certain they are.Ask how certain they are.
Strategy #1Strategy #1• Ask them how this can be the case Ask them how this can be the case
if naturalism, i.e., materialism is if naturalism, i.e., materialism is true.true.
• Point out that many atheists deny Point out that many atheists deny freedom, etc.freedom, etc.
• Ask them which they are more Ask them which they are more certain about—materialism or certain about—materialism or their own freedom and rationality.their own freedom and rationality.
Strategy #2Strategy #2• Ask them if they believe in Ask them if they believe in
investigation and research.investigation and research.• Ask them how they have investigated Ask them how they have investigated
the question of God.the question of God.• Ask them how important this issue is.Ask them how important this issue is.• Ask them if their investigation has Ask them if their investigation has
been proportional to the importance been proportional to the importance of the issue.of the issue.
Q & AQ & A
We are excited to announce the 2012 Defend the Faith Apologetics Boot Camp. Defend the Faith is a five-day, five-night conference in Christian Apologetics training that includes outstanding worship. This event, held on the New Orleans campus January 8-13, 2012, will feature speakers such as Gary Habermas, Paul Copan, Mary Jo Sharp, Mike Licona, Robert Bowman, Bob Stewart, and many others.
You can get this PPT file by You can get this PPT file by emailing me atemailing me at
I’m on Facebook as “Robert I’m on Facebook as “Robert Stewart.” If you want to Stewart.” If you want to
friend me, please send me a friend me, please send me a message saying you heard message saying you heard
me at Glorieta.me at Glorieta.Thanks and God bless you.Thanks and God bless you.
