Bob Stewart, NOBTS

You can get this PPT file by You can get this PPT file by emailing me atemailing me at

drbobstewart@yahoo.com or

rstewart@nobts.edu

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: Hume: ‘‘I have no I have no explanation for complex explanation for complex biological design. All I biological design. All I know is that God isnknow is that God isn’’t a 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.a better one.’’ I can't help 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: Darwinone thing: Darwin’’s dangerous idea 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.””

DarwinDarwin’’s Dangerous Ideas 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 Iwicked, but I’’d rather 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.

• ““FaithFaith”” is a superstitious blind is a superstitious blind leap based on the denial of leap based on the denial of evidence.evidence.

Faith as SuperstitionFaith as Superstition

““Faith is the great Faith is the great cop-out, the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the excuse to evade the need to think and need to think and evaluate evidence. evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps of, even perhaps because of, the lack because of, the lack of evidence.of evidence.””

Sam HarrisSam Harris

““Some propositions Some propositions are so dangerous are so dangerous that it may even be that it may even be ethical to kill ethical to kill people for people for believing them.believing them.””

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, and the Future of Reason, 52-53.52-53.

Their Core BeliefsTheir Core Beliefs

• Science and religion are mutually Science and religion are mutually exclusive ways of looking at life. exclusive ways of looking at life. In short, Religion and Science are In short, Religion and Science are at war.at war.

• ““FaithFaith”” is a superstitious blind leap 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

Christopher HitchensChristopher Hitchens

““[Organized religion is] violent, [Organized religion is] violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.coercive toward children.””

God is Not GreatGod is Not Great, 56, 56

Richard DawkinsRichard Dawkins““Revealed faith is not Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people because it gives people unshakeable confidence in unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. their own righteousness. Dangerous because it Dangerous because it gives them false courage gives them false courage to kill themselves, which to kill themselves, which automatically removes automatically removes normal barriers to killingnormal barriers to killing

Richard DawkinsRichard Dawkinsothers. . . . And others. . . . And dangerous because we dangerous because we have all bought into a have all bought into a weird respect, which weird respect, which uniquely protects religion uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. from normal criticism. Let’s now stop being so Let’s now stop being so damned respectful.damned respectful.””

““Has the World Has the World Changed?—Part Two,Changed?—Part Two,”” The The

GuardianGuardian, October 11, 2001, October 11, 2001

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 ‘‘existentexistent’’: in one sense of : 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, MispunchingLunging, 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

Naturalism, Atheism,Naturalism, Atheism,& Materialism& Materialism

• Naturalists can affirm the reality Naturalists can affirm the reality of abstract entities such as of abstract entities such as numbers or minds but these numbers or minds but these things exist naturally, not things exist naturally, not supernaturallysupernaturally

• Materialists can affirm the Materialists can affirm the existence of God (Mormons are existence of God (Mormons are materialists)materialists)

Naturalism, Atheism,Naturalism, Atheism,& Materialism& Materialism

• Atheists can be religious (most Atheists can be religious (most forms of Buddhism are forms of Buddhism are atheistic)atheistic)

• The New Atheists are all threeThe New Atheists are all three—naturalists, materialists, and —naturalists, materialists, and atheistsatheists

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 Godadjudicate the issue of God’’s 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.

JohnsonJohnson”” Scientific AmericanScientific American 267. 1 267. 1

July 1992, 119. July 1992, 119.

Francis CollinsFrancis Collins““For quite a while in my twenties I For quite a while in my twenties I was a pretty obnoxious atheist. 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 concept of the ‘‘equality of souls before equality of souls before God.God.’’ This concept furnishes the 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 of people ““disappeareddisappeared”” in ruthless 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 authorauthor’’s claim . . . that s claim . . . that ‘‘religion causes people to do religion causes people to do evil thingsevil things’’. Insofar as this is . Insofar as this is true, it has no tendency to 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 ISo Why Am INot a Naturalist Not 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 affairshould conduct our human affairs.s.””

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,When I am Dead,”” in 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, Patricia Smith Churchland, ““Epistemology Epistemology in the Age of Neurosciencein 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 oneone’’s brain is the 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 help others because it is ‘‘rightright’’ to help them 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 that this sense of ‘‘rightright’’ and the corresponding and the corresponding sense of sense of ‘‘wrong,wrong,’’ feelings we take to be above feelings we take to be above individual desire and in some fashion outside individual desire and in some fashion outside biology, are in fact brought about by ultimate biology, are in fact brought about by ultimate biological processes.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 doconnections . . . Therefore individuals donn ’’t bear ultimate originative responsibility t bear ultimate originative responsibility for their actions, in the sense of being for their actions, in the sense of being their first cause. Given the circumstances their first cause. Given the circumstances both inside and outside the body, they both inside and outside the body, they couldncouldn’’t have done other than what they t have done other than what they did. Nevertheless, we mustdid. 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, aren’t responsible? If we aren’t free, then why do we call Francis of Assisi a then why do we call Francis of Assisi a Saint and Jeffrey Dahmer a monster? If Saint and Jeffrey Dahmer a monster? If we aren’t free (or rational), then why do we aren’t free (or rational), then why do atheists even write books? It would atheists even write books? It would seem that we are all just determined to seem that we are all just determined to do what we do and there can be no do what we do and there can be no such thing as persuasion.such 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; itbyproduct of biology; it’’s in our glands, or 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, say, ‘‘Beats the heck out of me.Beats the heck out of me.’’ That is an honest thing to say, That is an honest thing to say, and I echo it. We don’t know. and I echo it. We don’t know. We don’t understand it.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,Consciousness,”” in in A Companion to A Companion to

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 the withdrew your hand from the flame because you 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 in speaker, you are mistaken in every case. In each case the every case. In each case the effect was a physical event effect was a physical event and therefore must have an and therefore must have an entirely physical 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 donAs strictly physical beings, we don’’t exist as 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 doesndoesn’’t necessarily lead to Naturalism.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

doesndoesn’’t necessarily lead to Naturalism.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 doesBecause even if Darwinism is true, it does

nn ’’t necessarily lead to Naturalism.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 hoc solutions, such as ““Memes.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 related to ‘‘memorymemory’’, or to the French , or to the French word word mêmemême. It should be pronounced . It should be pronounced to rhyme with to rhyme with ‘‘cream’.”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.Use their authorities.• DO DO NOTNOT ARGUE EVOLUTION. This is ARGUE EVOLUTION. This is

like trying to get to Baton Rouge by like trying to get to Baton Rouge by going through Australia.going through Australia.

• Don’t argue the age of the earth.Don’t argue the age of the earth.• Focus on Physics and Cosmology Focus on Physics and Cosmology

rather than Biology.rather than Biology.• Use questions.Use questions.

Strategy #1Strategy #1• Ask them if they think they freely Ask them if they think they freely

dondon’’t believe in God.t believe in God.• Ask them if they think they are Ask them if they think they are

rational and can reason their way to rational and can reason their way to the truth on important issues.the truth on important issues.

• Ask how certain they are.Ask how certain they are.• Ask them how this can be the case if Ask them how this can be the case if

naturalism, i.e., materialism is true.naturalism, i.e., materialism is true.

Strategy #1Strategy #1• Ask them which they are more Ask them which they are more

certain about—materialism or certain about—materialism or their own freedom and their own freedom and rationality.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 the intensity of their Ask them if the intensity of their

investigation has been proportional investigation has been proportional to the importance of the issue.to the importance of the issue.

Strategy #3Strategy #3• Ask them how old the universe is.Ask them how old the universe is.• They will generally say that the They will generally say that the

universe is more than 13 billion universe is more than 13 billion years old (because that’s what years old (because that’s what standard big bang cosmology standard big bang cosmology indicates). They often assume indicates). They often assume that all Christians believe in a that all Christians believe in a young universe.young universe.

Strategy #3Strategy #3• Point out to them that if something Point out to them that if something

has an age, it has a beginning.has an age, it has a beginning.• Point out that if something has a Point out that if something has a

beginning, it has a cause—and that beginning, it has a cause—and that they have already agreed that the they have already agreed that the universe has a beginning. universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe has a Therefore the universe has a cause.cause.

Strategy #3Strategy #3• Note: We have not proved “God,” Note: We have not proved “God,”

and certainly not the Christian and certainly not the Christian God, but this “cause” is consistent God, but this “cause” is consistent with the Christian view of God.with the Christian view of God.

• Note: The age of the universe is Note: The age of the universe is NOT an issue with this approach. NOT an issue with this approach. The key is getting them to admit The key is getting them to admit that the universe has an age!that the universe has an age!

Strategy #3*Strategy #3*• When you ask them how old the When you ask them how old the

universe is, they may say that the universe is, they may say that the universe is eternal.universe is eternal.

• Ask them why it is that every part of Ask them why it is that every part of the universe that we know of shows the universe that we know of shows signs of age, thus indicating that signs of age, thus indicating that each and every part of the universe each and every part of the universe is temporal, i.e., not eternal.is temporal, i.e., not eternal.

Strategy #3*Strategy #3*• Note: I am Note: I am NOTNOT suggesting that we suggesting that we

argue from the fact that every part argue from the fact that every part of the universe is temporal to the of the universe is temporal to the universe itself being temporal. To universe itself being temporal. To do so would be to commit (or as do so would be to commit (or as least appear to commit) the fallacy least appear to commit) the fallacy of composition. Asking questions is of composition. Asking questions is not making arguments.not making arguments.

Strategy #3*Strategy #3*• Also ask why it is that they don’t Also ask why it is that they don’t

accept the standard big bang accept the standard big bang cosmology. In other words, why cosmology. In other words, why they are going against the they are going against the scientific consensus on this point.scientific consensus on this point.

• They may say that they believe in They may say that they believe in either an oscillating universe or a either an oscillating universe or a universe ensemble (multiverse).universe ensemble (multiverse).

Strategy #3*Strategy #3*• Point out to them that there is no Point out to them that there is no

evidence of either (though each is evidence of either (though each is logically possible).logically possible).

• Ask them how either is a scientific Ask them how either is a scientific hypothesis, given that neither is hypothesis, given that neither is falsifiable (or observable).falsifiable (or observable).

• Ask them how either is simpler than Ask them how either is simpler than the standard big bang cosmology.the standard big bang cosmology.

Q & AQ & A

www.defendthefaith.netwww.defendthefaith.netDefend the Faith is a five-day, five-night conference in Christian Apologetics training that includes outstanding worship. It’s held on the NOBTS main campus January 5-10, 2014, and features speakers such as Gary Habermas, Greg Koukl, Nancy Pearcey, Douglas Groothuis, Sean McDowell, Mary Jo Sharp, James Walker, Robert Bowman, Brett Kunkle, Bob Stewart, and many others.

You can get this PPT file by You can get this PPT file by emailing me atemailing me at

drbobstewart@yahoo.com drbobstewart@yahoo.com oror

rstewart@nobts.edu rstewart@nobts.edu

I’m on Facebook as I’m on Facebook as ““Bob Bob Stewart.Stewart.”” If you want to If you want to

friend me, please send me a friend me, please send me a message saying where you message saying where you

heard me speak and I’ll heard me speak and I’ll confirm you.confirm you.

Thanks and God bless you.Thanks and God bless you.