Dr. Matt Hickey and I are going to be starting a new short seminar beginning the Sunday morning after Easter (3/30 @ 10am). We’ll be taking six weeks to look at the current movement which has been dubbed “the new atheism.” Below is a general outline that Matt and I are working with. We’d love to have your feedback on any of it. Also, if you’re planning on making it to any of the classes, you might be interested in doing some preliminary reading and/or listen to some free downloadable audio files online now (though it certainly isn’t expected that you know anything about atheism when you show up). So, please take a look at the below schedule, give us any of your thoughts, and check out some of the below resources (we’ll try to add to the online resources over the next couple days so keep checking back).
WEEK 1: Worldviews
What is atheism & agnosticism & the new atheism?
Theism, Pantheism, Naturalism
How to test good argument
WEEK 2: The Case for Atheism
The strongest arguments for atheism (Problem of evil, Natural explanations make God’s existence unnecessary, The impossibility of miracles / Science has disproved miracles, Freud’s wish-fulfillment, etc.).
WEEK 3: Arguments for the Existence of God
The strongest arguments for theism (Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological, Moral, Desire)
WEEKS 4 & 5: The “New†Atheism
Responding to specific ideas of major thinkers (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens).
WEEK 6: Christian Strategies of engagement
Tactics of dialogue
RESOURCES:
Readings:
- “20 Arguments for The Existence of God” by Peter Kreeft
- “Is Atheism Logical?” by Hank Hanegraaff
- “The Presumptuousness of Atheism” by Paul Copan
- “Atheism, Pt 1: Imagine There’s No Heaven” by Bob and Gretchen Passantino
- “Atheism, Pt 2: Religion Truth and Value without God” by Passantino
- “Materialism’s Unsolved Mystery” by Regis Nicoll
- “Atheism on the Rocks” by Nicoll
Audio/Video:
- “Is Christianity the Problem” debate between Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens (video)
- “Why I’m Not An Atheist, Pt 1” by Ravi Zacharias (mp3)
- “Why I’m Not An Atheist, Pt 2” by Zacharias (mp3)
- “Atheism, Theism, and the Meaning of Life” by J. P. Moreland (mp3)
- “Debunking the New Atheism” by David Aikman (mp3)
- “The New Atheism as a Challenge to Christian Theology” four lectures by Albert Hohler (mp3)
- 15 min. discussion on the new atheism between Doug Groothuis and Hank Hanegraaff (mp3)
8 Comments on “The New Atheism — Class starting soon”
You might like to have one reference actually written by an atheist. Here’s one that’s not too long:
Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists
Some of references in Brent’s list attack views and arguments that I’ve never heard from atheists. If you want to be sure you aren’t just knocking over straw men, you might try to taking aim at the paper above.
Hi Gavin:
Thanks for this; it is very timely. I will be sure to alert those in class who do not regularly access the blog about this essay. Our intention in week 2 is to spend the entire time offering a case FOR atheism, on the basis of the “best” and most common philosophical arguments. We plan to simply let them stand for the week to allow our group to give them full consideration; no straw men! 🙂 The following week simply presents common arguments for theism; not a direct rebuttal of the case for atheism we present on week 2.
What you share speaks directly to one of the classic arguments for atheism; God is not needed to explain the existence of the universe (or anything else); the “God Hypothesis” is superfluous. I am reminded of Laplace’s famous remark to Napoleon regarding the absence of reference to God in one of his books on celestial mechanics; “I had no need of that hypothesis”. An interesting historical irony is that the scientific law of parsimony (“Keep it simple, stupid”, if you will) was formulated by a Franciscan friar, William of Ockham, nearly 700 years ago. “Ockham’s Razor” made the important point that relying on the fewest assumptions regarding any explanation is the best bet. Adding unnecessary complexity does not strengthen any explanation. It is obviously a great rule of thumb!
I share a link below for those interested in further research; it includes the essay Gavin shared, and a variety of others. The site prominently features Quentin Smith, a productive/prolific contemporary atheist philosopher, who argues that the universe caused itself, and has no need of a “creator” (i.e., it is simpler than positing the existence of a creator) . We will, of course, consider theistic cosmological arguments on week 3.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/cosmological.html
Again, thanks Gavin!
Matt
In the cosmological argument for God, one of the pillars of the argument is that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”. Is that a fair pillar? Why can’t things just be without having a cause? I understand that this is a long accepted premise going back to Aristotle’s unmovable mover or maybe before, but for some reason I can’t seem to get my mind around it. Any thing you can add to my understanding?
Also, I would encourage people to listen to the debate between Hitchens and D’Souza (link above) to hear people who are very well spoken take each other’s points and respond to them in a formal and moderated forum. I learned a lot there, and I appreciate the easy link you have provided. It is a shame that the debate is so long that it is hard for people to watch the whole thing, but it really has to be in order to cover the many facets of the issues. Thanks for all the extensive groundwork you two have done to give us this class.
Nancy,
Our best theories of how the world works do not claim that “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” In fact, quantum mechanics is full of events that have no cause. For example, an atom of carbon-14 will eventually decay to nitrogen-14, but there is no telling when. We can calculate the probability that the atom will decay will within a certain time (there is 50% chance of it decaying in the first 5730 years), but the actual time of decay has no cause. The atom is just sitting there, and then it falls apart spontaneously.
Many physics find this a little creepy, and there are interpretations of quantum mechanics that eliminate this “uncaused cause” by adding a vast number of parallel universes in which the atom to decays at every possible time. Many physicists find this remedy even creepier than the original problem.
Using spontaneous decay as a model, many scientists have tried to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing by asserting that nothing must be unstable. If nothing is unstable, it will decay into something without any cause. This is very difficult to put on solid theoretical footing, but some thought provoking work has been done, in particular by James Hartle and Stephen Hawking. They describe a method for calculating the quantum mechanical wave function of the universe which has no cause. The complete calculation is too difficult for us to do at present. However, parts of the calculation have shown correct results. (For example, the answer satisfies the Wheeler-deWitt equation, which makes it consistent with general relativity.)
String theory is our best current theory of quantum gravity, but we do not know how to do string theory calculations in the heavily curved space-time that emerges from nothing. This is an area of active research. I find it very exciting, but it is still very speculative. None the less, we do not have reason to believe that everything has a cause. On the contrary, events that do not have a cause are common.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
Hi Nancy and Gavin:
I attach a link to an essay by William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, who addresses cosmological arguments in some detail. Like much of what we’ve discussed in the past few weeks, there are strong opinions on both sides. In addition, the link I shared above/in my earlier post has several essays by Quentin Smith (and others) as I mentioned before. Smith argues for a self-caused universe. Further discussion of cosmological arguments are contained therein.
I would respectfully quibble with the radioactive decay example on 2 points. First, while Gavin is obviously right about the unpredictability/randomness of decay within any given atom of carbon 14 (or any other radioisotope), all radioactive decay (and radiometric dating) methodologies rely on “Predictable” decay rates in large numbers of similar atoms. Whether we are using carbon 14 dating or techniques relying on uranium-lead or potassium-argon dating, from which we obtain dates for geological samples that are very old, the “clock” presupposes a statistically appropriate or predictable rate of decay (an “average”). So, from the carbon dating perspective, one would not say that that there is a 50% “chance” of decay within 5730 years, but that the half-life of carbon 14 is 5730 years (meaning that it’s activity is reduced by 50% in that time span). Radiometric dating relies on a “clock” that is predictable, not one that may or may not work…
The more important point is that the daughter species in this example (nitrogen 14) does not appear from “nothing”; it arises in a random but predictable fashion from carbon 14. The fact that for a single atom of carbon 14, we cannot know WHEN it will decay to nitrogen 14 is not the same as saying nitrogen 14 appears without a cause (or appears from nothing). Random and uncaused are not synonymous, are they?
I will leave the theoretical and practical implications of the assertion made in refrence to models such as those proposed by Hawking and others that “nothing” must be unstable to individuals better equipped to wrestle with it than I am. I am inclined to agree with Gavin’s observation that this borders on the “creepy”. How can “Nothing” have any properties at all?
Many thanks for the stimulating post, Nancy, and your thoughtful reply, Gavin! This is an interesting area, to say the least.
Matt
Nancy,
As we stated our current class, there is no such thing as “the†cosmological argument. That is to say, there are many different versions of it (several versions making different arguments). “Cosmological,†in its broadest sense, just refers to where the beginning data comes from—the cosmos.
Since we covered the Kalam version in class, let me offer another one which argues from efficient causality (which I think might address be relevant to the above discussion).
There are two categories which are pertinent when thinking about “thingsâ€â€”essence and existence. Now, think of two different things—a horse and a unicorn. Both have perfectly good essences. However, only the horse has existence. So, think of existence like a gift which is only given to a limited number of possible things. For example, I, Brent, am a contingent being—I didn’t have to exist (i.e., it’s possible that my parents would never have met). But I do exist. So, where did my existence come from? Well, it came from my parents (as a sort of gift). Well, where did my parents get their existence from? From their parents. And the question could be asked ad infinitum.
Here’s the rub though. Existence must come from somewhere—like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who ‘has’ existence by his one essence or nature, then it cannot be passed down the line of receivers. Here’s an illustration: suppose you wanted to burrow a book from me (a riveting book on cosmological arguments for the existence of God!). Now suppose that before I gave it to you, I first had to get it from another friend, who first had to check it out from the library, which first had to get it from the publisher, etc.
The obvious point is that if there is no author who wrote the book, published it, etc., then you would never get the book. There must be a source of the book if you have any hope of receiving this ‘gift.’ Similarly, the argument from efficient causality asserts that for us to possess existence there must be an ultimate source of existence which can be passed down the line of receivers. But existence has been passed down the line of receivers. Therefore, there must be a source of existence.
Ok, that example made a whole lot of sense to me,Brent. I think I get stuck on the word “cause”. Also, thanks for the helpful link, Matt. You guys have given us many helpful resources to study all of this. Just wish I had that infinite time and infinite brain to get it all!
Matt asks:
Matt,
It isn’t really a property of “nothing,” but is better understood as a property of the things that can come from nothing. If anything has the property of being able to come from nothing, then we say that nothing is unstable. Some things, like the book in Brent’s example, don’t have a good probability of coming from nothing (they are too big), and it looks like the probability of them appearing in our space-time is actually zero.
Space-time, however, seems to have the property of being able to come from nothing. They do this by having the past direction change smoothly into the future direction. To get an idea of how this might work, imagine walking to the south pole. When you step over the south pole the direction you are traveling changes from south into north even though you are walking straight forward. Replace “south” with “past” and “north” with “future” and you get sort of a picture of what is going on. The space-time gives itself existence.
Space-times that appear this way are tend to be very small (much smaller than a book), but they can grow very rapidly through a runaway explosive process called inflation (something that books don’t do, thankfully). Inflation is a fairly well understood and widely accepted way to get a small space-time filled with matter and energy and to undergo a big bang.
The theory of inflation gives predictions that we can test with observations. During inflation, tiny quantum fluctuations in the density of energy and matter were stretched to huge sizes. Inflation models predict that those fluctuations now cover the whole sky and should be visible with sensitive telescopes that look at the faint microwave radiation left over from the early days of our universe. In fact, those sensitive instruments have been built and the fluctuations can be seen. They are in terrific agreement with the predictions of inflation, giving us confidence that we are on the right track.
I’m not sharing all of this because I want people to stop believing in God. None of this proves that God doesn’t exist. I share this because I think it is wonderful and exciting. I really don’t care what people believe, but I do object to bad science. The cosmological argument for God, in all the forms I have seen, is built on obsolete ideas about how the world works.
Gavin