Fundamentalism Runs Both Ways
By: Brian Holdsworth
A recent strain of Fundamentalist-Atheist arguments against theism, popularized by personalities such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and, to a lesser extent, Bill Maher (with his crowning achievement: a movie called “Religulous”), tend to run along the lines of, “There is no evidence for God” (I say, ‘to a lesser extent’ with respect to Bill Maher because he is limited to a very unscholarly medium; pseudo Hollywood agenda-mentaries, which are not accountable to any form of bibliographical citation or standard forms of documented research). The argument they use makes an assumption that possibly helps to explain it a bit further. By ‘evidence’; they mean that the omnipotent omniscient God of monotheism, who created matter, space, and time, cannot be observed or understood via the Scientific Method, therefore, He must not exist. This is not the only argument that they use against theism, however; of what I’ve heard and read, it seems to be the most common which is why I want to consider it.
Before I continue, I feel like I have a house cleaning item to resolve. While I will have to refer to the previously mentioned authors (and comedian) several times in this article, I don’t want to have to recite all of their names each time I refer to them. Conveniently, they have dubbed themselves ‘The Four Horsemen’ because they consider their ideas, as well as their efforts to spread them, so effective and impactful, that they will see the end to superstitious and irrational religion forever (note: Bill Maher is not part of this elitist group). In order to make my work easier, I will refer to them by their chosen name because I find it amusing and I think it’s a fairly clever club name. I might add that far more powerful and aggressive individuals in history have promised the same thing, and while their actions are both notable and horrific, they ultimately failed
Before I address their argument I wanted to consider their style. Have you ever felt your beliefs attacked? Maybe you have a particular political affiliation, for example. You probably know what it feels like to have someone of a differing view (to whatever degree) talk about your beliefs in the form of a caricature and use this as their model of criticism throughout their arguments. It can be extremely frustrating because you find yourself trying to defend a version of your belief that doesn’t even exist simply to counteract their attacks on your creed or you end up having to educate them on the actual confessed creed before you begin to defend or explain it. This seems to be a common thread in the new anti-theistic style of the Four Horsemen. At its heart, I believe that this tactic is exactly what makes bigotry so heinous. Bigotry characterizes a group based on inaccurate qualities and uses this as an excuse to persecute them. In the lead up to WWII, the Nazi Party characterized the Jews as usurpers who sabotaged the war effort of WWI, crippling the empire. Because a large majority of Germans had little knowledge of this ethnic group which largely kept to itself, it was easy to begin to sway people into thinking that these characteristics were true and that the criticisms were valid. Of course, we don’t need to tell the rest of that story, because we’re all aware of where it led.
I find little difference in the style and approach of The Four Horsemen. I can say, confidently, that the version of religion that they criticize is a mere caricature because I am a religious person and the things that they accuse me of and the motivations for believing as I do are wildly inaccurate. Further they make accusations of religious people as being all ignorant, unintelligent and irrational. You don’t have to look far to make the case that theism has produced some of the greatest minds humankind has ever known; from Augustine to Aquinas, and to Pope Benedict XVI. Even Einstein would not deny the plausibility of God.
I realize that criticizing their method does not undo their argument, but I thought it was important to note because these types of aggressive persecutions against other people (especially groups) can easily grow into something much more severe. History has shown it to be true in every culture of every generation and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be just as cautious with it in this case.
I mentioned earlier that the argument they use makes an assumption. That assumption is that the scientific method would be adequate to understand or at least detect the transcendent, all powerful God. I find it extremely troubling that someone like Richard Dawkins, who is well respected in his field as a scientist, would have such a weak understanding of his own field. On the whole, I have to assume that he has a much greater understanding of science than I do, however; on the fundamental scope of science, he seems to neglect an extremely important point. The Scientific method is a process of inquiry based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] Based on this definition, and this is where their assumption as well as their argument starts to fall apart; we can clearly conclude that the scientific method is subject to man’s limited ability to understand what it is he observes (let alone use any reasoning to explain it). So their presumption is that using a method limited by the wielders ability to use reason as the means to understand any observation should be adequate to detect and even understand that which is far more complex than anything found in our universe. In other words, we should be able to reduce God to a chalkboard equation and since we can't, He must not exist. But of course, to do so, would mean that whatever it was that had become understood through our efforts, surely was not God. If we were able to reduce God to something beneath our own understanding, we would be gods ourselves because we would have conquered the most high. This is a ludicrous assumption and it is an extremely weak attempt to avoid the fact that we are not gods and that we are subject to either the universe or that which created the Universe (which makes us uncomfortable). It is clear that we are in control of neither.
We can confidently admit that even with a method as powerful as the Scientific, there are plenty of things about the universe (and ourselves for that matter) that we don’t understand. So I find it strange that The Four Horsemen would presume that we should be able to use this method as a way, not only to understand all that there is, but also that which created all that is.
On these same grounds and with the same sneering tone, they turn their sites on the concept of faith. They accuse all those who admit to the use of faith as being irrational and superstitious. Again, I believe that this is based on a characterization of what faith is. Faith is a very broad concept and can and has been used in many ways. One aspect of faith that I think is relevant to this conversation is the fact that most of what we know is told to us by someone else. The media reports the findings or their investigations or historians record the events as they understood them and passed that knowledge onto others in good faith that it would be relayed accurately and without the stain of agenda. The Four Horseman make an assumption that all of their acquired and accepted knowledge was discovered on their own. Otherwise they would be forced to admit that the majority of what they know has been told to them by someone else which, if they accept it, is an act of faith. They believe that what they have been told is true. Nobody has the time or resources to thoroughly investigate every claim that is presented to them, so at the end of the day, if we are to know anything, most of it comes by faith.
Even science itself employs faith. When a study is completed and presented to the wider scientific community, there is an assumption that the method was followed properly and that the conclusions are accurate with enough supporting evidence. Again, nobody has the time or resources to evaluate every conclusion of every study, so we must choose to either accept or deny the claims of a scientific study based on faith. Proof is rarely the contributing factor in any of our decisions. Most of our decisions are based on the unknown. Accepting a job offer is based on the belief that it will provide for my material needs without too heavy a cost. People invest in their futures by going to post secondary school and spending thousands of dollars in the hope (or faith) that it will help them find a stable future. There’s certainly no proof of that outcome. People get married because they believe (on faith) that the other person truly loves them. There may be evidence to support that, but that’s not proof. The rest needs to be filled in by faith.
Lastly I want to point out that there is evidence for God. It’s sociological, historical, archaeological, philosophical, and at times scientific. But that will have to wait for another article.
[1] Scientific Method, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Science is an excellent tool for helping to understand the laws of nature but it is far from all encompassing. For example I seriously doubt any of the Four Horseman used science--ie a set of rigorously repeatable experiments--to determine who they love. Clearly in interpersonal relations something other than science holds sway. If we are created in God's image then should it surprise us that if something other than science is needed to understand how people behave we need something other than science to understand God? The essential flaw in the Four Horsemans reasoning is that there is no transcendent spiritual reality. Now that's a fine assumption for them to make but it's just an assumption. Effectively they're engaged in invalid reasoning. They assume that God must be addressable by the scientific method which assumes that God is a material not spiritual entity and then they conclude that God does not exist. Effectively they're really saying that a God who exists in the material world does not exist. On that religious people can agree with them. Unfortunately the Horseman either don't realize the assumption they're making--possible because they don't really seem to understand the concept of a spiritual God--or they don't care.
One last note. In our modern world people tend to misuse the concept of science. Science is only objective when it involves repeatable experiments that eliminate human bias. Unfortunately many people call logical reasoning by scientists science even when it's not supported by experiments. I haven't read the Four Horsemans writing but I doubt they developed experiments that could be repeated by anyone that show there is no God. In fact any scientist will tell you that it's effectively impossible to prove a negative in most cases--you can see this in the case of alternative theories of gravity that require decades to disprove and when they are disproved their creators modify them so they require more decades to disprove again. In the absence of experiments to prove that God exists we don't have science we have philosophy. Philosophy is simply secular faith. Hence the Four Horsemen are essentially saying that their faith is right and ours is wrong based on nothing more than their own personal, biased, reasoning. At least Christians have miracles and historical documents. Atheists have only their own personal bias to support their disbelief in God.
“By ‘evidence’; they mean that the omnipotent omniscient God of monotheism, who created matter, space, and time, cannot be observed or understood via the Scientific Method, therefore, He must not exist.”
Not that “he must not exist”, that it is extremely improbable, and because of that, maybe we should not use the idea of God as the basis for all learning and critical thinking. I think their argument is misunderstood, more to the point: they have a problem with the idea that evolution and creationism should be taught side by side in schools in the US; as if there is as much evidence for creationism as there is for evolution so they should be thought of as equal. This is a problem. We need to teach children to ask questions, be critical thinkers, blind faith is their problem.
Also, THEY did not choose the name the Four Horsemen; it was used the first time at an informal discussion in 2007, in a later interview, Hitchen’s asked not to be referred to as such.
Can you give an example? I’m just curious.
“ [T]hese types of aggressive persecutions against other people (especially groups) can easily grow into something much more severe.”
Violent acts are not being committed in the name of the Four Horsemen’s teachings (which cannot be said in the case of Catholicism), they are challenging people to think critically, I think that is a very good thing. You believe (and correct me if I am wrong) I don’t believe in God, and because all those of other faiths don’t believe in YOUR God, we will go to hell, where we will burn and suffer for eternity. As far as aggressive persecutions go…
You see all the things mentioned in the last paragraph as matters of faith. The Four Horsemen do not use that word because they believe it has a different meaning than what you suggest. They define faith as ‘believe without evidence’, otherwise it’s believe with evidence; you use the term ‘faith’ much more liberally. One gets a post secondary education because studies show that they are more likely to get a higher paying job as a result (based on evidence); you marry someone because they have given you reason to believe their claim of love through evidence; and so on. Faith in God is very different.
This is simply not true. This is why scientific studies must be repeatable (not necessarily repeated), and peer reviewed. There has never been a scientific paper published without scrutiny and criticism by other experts in the respective field. Are you saying that since not every study is repeated, the whole scientific body of evidence can simply be written off as questionable? Furthermore, the Four Horsemen draw on hundreds of study’s to back some of their claims not just one. The goal is reason and to be reasonable.
I don't write off Bill Maher because he's not a scientist, I write him off because his medium, which is docudramas that have no accountability to citation or reference is unscholarly. He's not a historian, theologian, scientist, philosopher, or political scientist. He has no right to pretend he is any of those things or comment on them as if he were.
I agree with your point on Creationism. I don't think evolution and creationism have anything to do with each other because they are wrought from different fields. One is a scientific theory the other is a theological theory (the latter being a poor one at that).
Regarding examples of the powerful trying to stamp out religion and specifically Christianity? It's a long list. In the past century alone, millions have been murdered by secularist leaders. Let's start with Lenin (who is widely regarded as a heroic communist still). He wrote in a letter: "We must... put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades... The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing... the better."
The USSR murdered millions of Christians in an attempt to create a secular utopia. Mao and Pol Pot did the same. These were violent acts in the name of Atheism as Marxism is fundamentally atheistic and that is why they attacked religious institutions from the very beginning. You can't deny that reality.
During the Spanish Civil War, tens thousands of innocent clergy were murdered, not to mention merely faithful Catholics.
The Nazi's of Germany also sent countless Catholics to concentration camps as a retaliation after Pope Pius XI wrote "Mit Brennender Sorge" which was the first encyclical written in German, which condemned Nazism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI#Mit_Brennender_Sorge).
There is overwhelming historical and non biblical evidence that Jesus did the things that are recorded of him and was who he said he was. I'm not going to get into that because it's a long list, but I certainly don't cling to my belief in Christianity out of blind insanity. Furthermore, the claims that they make regarding Christianity are completely unsupported by any evidence. I've yet to hear them bring anything more than mere rhetoric on that point. They say there is no evidence when there is and when someone presents it to them they say it's not good enough. Then they continue to hold their beliefs ranging from; there never was a person named Jesus to he was merely a normal human being. Both ends of that spectrum are mere speculation for which there is no supporting evidence. You might say, how can you provide evidence for a negative affirmation (there never was a Jesus)? I would reply that you have to at least come up with evidence that contradicts the volumes of evidence that support the claim that he did live, teach, and do the things that are recorded of him. On this point, there is an overwhelming and embarrassing silence from Atheist detractors.
For an atheist, however; the argument can be made that he is justified (by his own beliefs) in committing violent acts against his neighbors. After all, if I protest against him and say, it is immoral, by what objective morality am I appealing to? After all, if there is no God, I am only his equal and cannot make any appeal to a higher morality. Each of us defines our own rules and any law imposing rules are merely arbitrary and not based on any objective principle. Basically, as an atheist, if anyone objects to your conduct, you can simply reply, "Says who?" and be logically justified in doing so.
When a Christian commits an immoral act, I can appeal to a moral code defined by Christianity and it's author, Jesus, and point out to them how they have contradicted that. You cannot do the same with an Atheist because they live in moral anarchy.
Can you show me in the atheist handbook where it shows us who and what to kill? Because I can do the same for you in yours very easily. :)
We can have our own morals and ethics which are both *reasonable* and *right* without reading some work of fiction. The Bible apparently condones raping if you pay the father of the daughter 50 shekels of silver and if the rapist marries her. We know it's wrong, you know it's wrong, but it's still in your book. Problem?
Regarding Atheists killing people... it is a light burden:
Wikpedia points out that, Militant atheism was central to the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union carried out a systematic persecution on anyone who wasn't an Atheist with a specific emphasis on Christians. By 1921, almost 600 monasteries/convents had been liquidated with widespread executions of monks and nuns. When Church leaders objected calling for freedom of religion, the communists responded by murdering the metropolitan of Kiev and executed twenty-eight bishops and 6,775 priests. During the intensified purges of 1937, over 100 000 clergy were shot. That's just clergy. The number of laity would be proportionally higher.
In just Stalin's regime (a fraction) estimates are from 3 - 60 million people murdered. This leaves out the persecution of all religious groups by China's atheistic regime, North Korea's, Cambodia's, Cuba's, and many more.
Now, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims. Please give actual citations rather than vague references out of context because I can give you countless Biblical references that contradict the ones you say it "advocates".