D’Souza on “The Grounding Problem”

In a lovely moment of providence, and picking up the theme of my last post, the blog over of Stand to Reason just posted this:

Dinesh D’Souza does a good job critiquing attempts to explain morality in Darwinist terms.  Morality, along with consciousness, remains one of the stubborn features of reality that we all know intuitively, which cannot be explained in purely naturalistic terms.  The lack of explanatory power in Darwinism is called “the grounding problem.”

One key point about the catalog of evolutionary arguments D’Souza cites is that evolutionary explanations always change the definition of what we’re talking about in morality.  D’Souza notes one way this is done by pointing out that the morality we want explained is prescription; but any scientific explanation, by the very nature of science, will be descriptive.  Science can only observe and explain what occurs in nature.  It doesn’t have the capacity to explain why morality has a prescriptive incumbency on us that the laws of nature don’t have.  We have moral duties that are quite different in nature than the law of gravity, for example.  We follow the law of gravity, but we don’t have a prescriptive moral duty with the subsequent moral guilt if we don’t obey it.

Here’s another way the terms are changed in evolutionary explanations.  Note in the article that each and every attempt to give an evolutionary account for morality has to change any self-sacrificial and altruistic act a selfish explanation because that’s the only way evolution works.  Survival of the fittest produces “selfish genes,” as Richard Dawkins coined it.  But if so-called self-sacrificial and altruistic acts actually have a selfish explanation for how they evolved, then they really aren’t sacrificial or altruistic, are they?  The definition has been changed because evolution can’t explain morality.

Atheism and the “Grounding Problem”

From the New York Times online:

Starting next Monday, a coalition of local groups will run a monthlong advertising campaign in a dozen Manhattan subway stations with the slogan “A Million New Yorkers Are Good Without God. Are You?” The posters also advertise the Web site BigAppleCoR.org, which provides a listing of local groups affiliated with the Coalition of Reason, the umbrella organization that coordinated the campaign.

This campaign is intended to 1) heighten awareness of the atheist movement in New York City, and 2) to coincide with the release of Greg Epstein’s upcoming book, Good without God.  Though the table of contents for Epstein’s book isn’t posted just yet, I sure hope that he addresses what’s known as the “grounding problem” for atheists when it comes to morality. Before I explain this a little bit more, there are a couple of things that I think need saying.

1) I believe that the Coalition of Reason has every legal right to post these signs, and no one (especially Christians!) should rob them of our freedom of speech.

2) I do not believe that one must believe in God in order to be a morally praiseworthy person. Too often non-Christians seem to think that Christians claim that atheism automatically leads to a life of depravity and evil. Sadly, many Christians do believe this, but the best Christian thinkers have never stated the case this way. The issue of dispute is the grounding problem (more in just a second).

3) The reason I believe that atheists often lead better ethical lives that their position would seem to imply is because I believe in the doctrine of common grace.

Okay, now to the grounding problem. Naturalism and atheism deny the existence of the Triune God of the Bible.  On a Christian worldview, what is right and wrong, what is beneficial for the glory of God and the flourishing of human beings is 1) that which is consistent with the being, character, and nature of God, and 2) that which is in accordance with His verbal revelation (made known to us in the Bible). That is all to say Christians have an objective standard for what is good and bad, one not rooted in personal preference or a numbers game.

So the question isn’t if one can still perform good deed if they don’t believe in God. The question is what are the grounds for making a distinction between good and bad in an atheistic world? The Why be good? question simply will not go away no matter how long it is ignored or mocked? As a Christian, the fact that atheists are often stand-up citizens isn’t a challenge to my worldview. Despite their denial of the Triune God, He is still the Creator and the One who inscribed His moral law on their hearts (cf. Rom. 2).

It is because the world is precisely what the atheist denies (i.e. under the rulership and direction of the sovereign Lord) that they can act in ways that they deceive themeselves into thinking are independent of God.

New and Unimproved: The New Atheism

Salvo magazine online has a great new article on the New Atheism. Click here to check it out. The conclusion?

While the New Atheist “rails against God, denying us any transcendent point of reference,” explains Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias, “he fully embraces God’s life-defining prerogatives.” It is what Wilson calls “sentimental” atheism. And it doesn’t sound at all like the death of God as pronounced by atheists of days gone by; it sounds rather more like the kids sending God out on a Caribbean cruise and having a party at his house while he’s gone. In other words, the New Atheists want to have their cake and eat it, too.

More Michael Ruse on Richard Dawkins

The New Atheism Denounced by Leading Atheist

From Between Two Worlds:

Interesting article here from atheistic philosopher of science Michael Ruse, who says that Dawkins’s The God Delusion makes him “ashamed to be an atheist,” that the New Atheists are a “bloody disaster.” In particular, he thinks that the New Atheists are doing a “grave disservice” to (1) the cause of science, (2) the cause of scholarship; (3) the cause of fighting Creationsim, and (4) the cause of fighting to keep Creationism out of schools. On Dawkins in particular: Ruse says that he would fail any introductory course in philosophy or religion.

He also doesn’t like Ben Stein!

Tim Keller on the New Atheism

Books on the New Atheists

Here are some recent titles that have been released in response to the work of the New Atheists. Obviously, I can’t say I agree with everything in these books, first because they come from multiple points of view, and second, because I haven’t read them all!

1) The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion

2)  God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens

3) The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith 

4)  The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists 

5) The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine

6) The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity

7)  Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God

8)  The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

9) The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens 

A Little Atheism is Good for the Soul (Part 2 of 2)

In the brief first part of this series I disclosed a bit of personal information about myself. Now, I’d like to give the reasons why I believe that the study of atheism is a good thing. Now, for the record, what I mean by “study of atheism” is not reading books or article against atheism by Christians (though that is good, helpful, and ought to be done). What I mean here is actually reading books and articles written by actual atheists.

Here I’d like to list some benefits of reading atheists, some of the things to look for, and then list of few books worth looking into.

Benefits of reading atheists. Here are some of the positive things one gets out of reading works on atheism:

1) It exposes us to attacks against the faith

2) It forces us to deal with real objections by real unbelievers (reading too many books about atheists usually causes us to think we already know what they’re going to say, and that’s not listening. We don’t like it when they do it to us, let’s not do it to them.)

3) It prepares us for real-world engagement with unbelief.

4) Through careful examination of atheist argumentation and objections we come to confidently learn that our faith isn’t a blind leap. Atheist arguments in defense of their stance really aren’t good arguments (My atheist books are thoroughly marked with red ink).

Things to look for when reading atheists. Now I pick up from point 4 above. What kinds of things ruin atheistic arguments? (for an extended, and more thorough treatment on this subject, see here) Here’s where things go bad:

1) Lots of emotion-raising language instead of actual evidence and argument.he In other words, many atheists like to depend on flash rather than substance. (Richard Dawkins is really good at this, especially in his latest work, The God Delusion). For instance, compare these two types of statements:

a) To believe in a God that allows and even ordains the amounts of evil in our world is rationally unacceptable.

b) Who in their right mind would believe that there’s an invisible man in the sky who arbitrarily decides to allows children to be tortured?

Notice that the first claim is something that we can discuss and debate fairly. The second statement is loaded with lots of emotional baggage that first needs to be addressed and in fact turns the audience against anybody who would make a Christian defense. After all, no one wants to be told that they’re not “in their right mind.”

2) Ignorance of Christian theology. I’ve addressed this problem elsewhere. How can the atheist attack Christian belief if he or she doesn’t even understand what they’re talking about?

3) Double standards. It not a good argument to say something against your opponent that with a few word changes he can say right back to you.

*Example:
Objection by Atheist: “Christianity cannot be true because look at all the evil that’s been done by ‘Christians.’”

Response by Christian: “Atheism cannot be true because look at all the evil that’s been done by atheists (such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Nero, Mao, and Vlad the impaler, to name a few).”

If it cuts both ways, just drop it.

4) Appealing to notions that don’t have any foundations in a atheistic worldview. If a naturalistic, atheistic worldview cannot provide a foundation for the objective existence and value of logic, the uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, etc., how can it appeal to such things in it’s attack against Christianity? Answer: It’s shouldn’t. (I’ve also dealt with this here and here).

Books promoting atheism. Here’s list of books to keep in mind when wanting to hear “the other side”:

1) Atheism: A Very Short Introduction- by Julian Baggini. This is a great little introduction to atheism, and is one of the few books on the subject written by an atheist that actually admits that atheism is a worldview.

2) Why I am Not a Christian- by Bertrand Russell. This is a classic work in atheistic literature and is made up of short essays, so you don’t have to read the entire thing straight through (for an excellent Christian response to the essay that the book is named after see here).

3) Atheism: The Case Against God- by George Smith. Many atheists believe that his is still the classic work on the subject. Herbert also fails prey to many of the logical and argumentative errors noted above.

4) The God Delusion- by Richard Dawkins. In this work, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins steps outside of his area of expertise and unto the court of apologetics and philosophy of religion. If one were to remove all of his emotionally charged rhetoric this 374 pg book would probably be reduced to a 100 pg booklet. And when you examine the material that’s left you’ll discover nothing new that hasn’t been responded to before. Of course Dawkins, with Sam Harris, is the most outspoken contemporary atheist, so knowing this material when speaking to atheists is helpful.

I read atheists because they strengthen my conviction that only Christianity provides meaning, and atheism is irrational. Thus, exposing oneself to a bit of atheism can indeed be good for the soul.