What is the Christian response to the New Atheism, especially in light of the recent release of the major motion picture of Philip Pullman’s The Golden Compass–the first part of his fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials, an atheistic reaction to Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia?
Consider this article in the Wall Street Journal, especially this quotation from Pullman’s third book: “I met an angel. . . . She said that all the history of human life has been a struggle between wisdom and stupidity. She and the rebel angels, the followers of wisdom, have always tried to open minds; the Authority and his churches have always tried to keep them closed.”
This sentiment seems commonplace today–reason and faith are mutually exclusive. This is evident also from the rising popularity of works by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. In a Newsweek article published earlier this year, Sam Harris, atheist scientist and author of the best-selling books The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, is set in a moderated debate with the evangelical Rick Warren, author of the best-selling spirituality book The Purpose Driven Life. And Harris handles Warren in a most embarrassing way, mopping the floor with every argument Warren poses.
Harris contends that he wishes to believe nothing that is unreasonable. This presumably means that he wishes to believe nothing that cannot be proven by means of the scientific method. On this basis, Harris proudly takes on the title atheist. Belief in God, any god, is ill-proven on empirical data and, thus, unreasonable. This strikes me as peculiar because the scientific method, by its very nature, does not allow for any supernatural explanations of any data with the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
What, however, would an Aquinas have to offer against such claims? What if theologians were able to employ philosophy and metaphysics, both rooted in the Aristotelian empirical epistemology, in arguments with such men? Then we may at least have a common ground upon which to base any conversation at all. If all human knowledge begins with the senses, then, at the very least, a conversation could be begun. It may not ultimately prove the existence of the Christian God, i.e., the Trinity, but it could go miles in denying that no god at all exists.
Sphere: Related Content
6600 N. Clinton Street
{ 10 } Comments
Who voted for Rick Warren as the apologist of the faith?
Alister McGrath is a much better candidate. Here’s an excellent little video interview with Richard Dawkins and McGrath: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626
There is a place for reason but not in our current climate of unreasonableness.
I don’t see Pullman as all that groundbreaking. He treads an already well worn path.
Even Star Wars took a twist in Episode III as Anakin and Obi-Wan are preparing to duel. Obi-Wan says, “Only Sith deal in absolutes.”
It would seem that George Lucas would agree with Pullman. Absolutes are evil, whether they come from Sith Lords or the Authority.
A generation of Christians grew up identifying with the Jedi. Now it would seem to be impossible to believe in absolute truth (the Gospel, natural Law, a knowable God, etc.) and still unite with the benevolent caretakers of the galaxy, the Jedi.
What impact does this have on the greater scope of morality? The Sith think in absolutes and they act immorally. The Jedi act morally and think in terms of relative truth.
We read the transcript of the debate between Warren and Harris in Christian Apologetics at CSL with Dr. Okamoto. My comment to Dr. Okamoto was, “don’t you just want to hit both in the back of the head?”
Chris - I don’t know, but I was none too happy about it. In the interview, Harris mopped the floor with Warren. Warren didn’t challenge Harris’s thesis at all because he was always on the defensive. What troubles me is the prevailing thought that the scientific method allows the data to speak for itself, which is simply put, a lie. The scientific method decides before any data is collected that everything has a natural, i.e., empirically provable, cause without recourse to supernatural causes. That is what methodological naturalism presumes. This is what I wish Warren would have challenged Harris on. So from the very outset the thesis runs the data even though the claim is that the data runs the thesis. The scientific method, therefore, while helpful, actually and unwittingly makes the very transgression that it purports to overcome.
Phil - While I might agree that Pullman isn’t groundbreaking, his children’s books are assigned in schools and will be common reading for many of America’s youth. This gives it immediate standing. Couple this with the rising popularity of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and the church has something to contend with. Is it all that different than what the church has engaged in the past? I’m not so sure that’s the right question. I think we still need to ask what our response is. It doesn’t just go away. The church doesn’t reject human reason out right. It simply notes that reason is still corrupted with the fall and doesn’t replace that which is revealed in Scripture. If we’re able to play ball on the same field and these men, then at least we can have a conversation and intellectually call into question their presuppositions.
I was impressed with how Sam Harris mopped the floor with Rick Warren. As a result of this interview Sam Harris made me think! Some of his arguments were convincing to me. Sam Harris exuded a confidence that Rick Warren completely lacked. Harris arguments concerning natural selection and morality were quite convincing at first. It wasn’t until I tuned into Issues Etc. and listened to Frank Turek, I believe of Southern Evangleical Seminary, speak on atheism that I had peace again. I wonder if it would be helpful to provide a link to this site on Issues Etc. That way the blog subject would be complete….arguments from Harris but a great answer by Frank Turek on Issues Etc. Thanks for creating this blog. As a pastor I am loving it so far.
What, however, would an Aquinas have to offer against such claims? What if theologians were able to employ philosophy and metaphysics, both rooted in the Aristotelian empirical epistemology, in arguments with such men? Then we may at least have a common ground upon which to base any conversation at all.
Jason,
I have no idea what you are talking about in the above excerpt. Please explain your thoughts regarding Aquinas and define some of those big words for a simple, rural pastor.
Cheerio,
JCO
Jon,
One of the things Thomas Aquinas is known for are his arguments for the existence of God based in natural revelation, which is essentially an empirical epistemology (that how we come to know God is through observation). Aquinas would likely take Harris on at his main thesis not his secondary thesis, which is to say that Aquinas first would have addressed Harris’s contention that it is unreasonable to believe in any god at all not that it is unreasonable to believe in the Trinity or the Christian God.
I hope this makes my statements more clear. If not, give me a call and I’d be happy to chat about it. Maybe I’m losing clarity in writing.
Thank you Jason.
I believe what you are saying is that one could argue with Harris by using the distinction between natural and special revelation as a starting point.
A blessed Epiphany to you and Loren.
JCO
“The scientific method decides before any data is collected that everything has a natural, i.e., empirically provable, cause without recourse to supernatural causes. That is what methodological naturalism presumes.”
Hi Jon,
I do not believe this is true. The Scientific Method makes no predictions about nature, except to include proofs that already exist. If, through the scientific method, we find that in fact great green elephants are what makes gravity work, then that’s what we have to deal with. As scientists, we want to know why and how green elephants make gravity work. The problem is that no problem we’ve ever come across has been solved by belief or desire, or a supernatural phenomenon.
I don’t know of any predictions that religion has made that have come true. Adam and Eve were not created “as is” by god, the Earth is not the center of the universe, using forks does not lead people to the devil (a real belief!). Religion has been wrong about every scientific fact ever put forth.
Hi Christopher,
If my statement isn’t true, what is methodological naturalism? This presupposition decides before any data is collected that supernatural causes are not allowed to answer the question. This you have proven and demonstrated in your proofs for how religion has never been correct on any scientific fact put forth.
What is your proof, based on the scientific method, that man has evolved from nothing, or single-cell organisms, etc? Have you ever been able to experiment and reproduce those experiments to come to your conclusion?
How do you explain the existence of DNA? It is information encoded into our bodies that makes us human, fish, etc. Are asking me to believe the encoded information just appeared one day? That’s seems a bit irrational, doesn’t it?
Post a Comment