And, did you know, all of this was created just for humans? Yes, you’re that special!

(Download this thing and play it in full screen.)

All this has actually been formulated as a philosophical argument for atheism: The Argument from Scale.

Because I know everything, obviously.

Earlier, I invited my readers to ask me anything. You may ask more questions here, but please read the instructions first. Here are my fourth round of responses.

Question 013

Hermes asks:

Was mind-body dualism or belief in an afterlife realm a necessary or important part of your previous theistic beliefs?

Spirit-body dualism and belief in an afterlife were simply assumed. I probably would not have denied either of them unless I denied the supernatural altogether, which of course I eventually did.

Question 014

Hermes asks:

At the time you deconverted… did you have any strong reassessments of your previous thoughts on dualism or an afterlife realm?

Sure, I read some arguments for and against dualism and for and against the afterlife, and came away with a naturalist perspective. But I’m certainly not an expert on either subject.

Question 015

Hermes asks:

Regardless of your responses to the previous questions, are you currently aware of any non-theistic arguments or evidence for an afterlife realm?

If you consider any of those to be credible, are they mainly abstract theorems or ones based on tangible evidence?

Sure. Philosophy student David Staume has recently published a book called The Atheist Afterlife, in which he argues that an afterlife is somewhat plausible even though God is not. Reading over the Amazon reviews, it doesn’t look like the arguments would be compelling to me at all.

I am usually more impressed by scientific evidence than by philosophical argument.

(Listen to other episodes of Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot here.)

Today I interview philosopher of religion Andrei Buckareff. Among other things, we discuss:

• acceptance, belief, knowledge, and faith
• varieties of pantheism and panentheism
• how pantheism is like Thomism, but has certain advantages over it

Download CPBD episode 016 with Andrei Buckareff. Total time is 46:13.

Andrei Buckareff links:

• Andrei’s personal page
• Andrei’s Marist College faculty page
• Andrei’s Action Theory page
• Andrei’s posts on The Garden of Forking Paths
• Andrei Buckareff on Facebook

Links for things we discussed:

• Live-action role-playing game (LARP)
• Two documentaries on LARPing: Darkon and Monster Camp. Also see the movie Role Models.
• Richard Feldman
• William James’ “The Will to Believe“
• Pantheism and panentheism
• John Bishop
• “Faith as doxastic venture” by John Bishop, “Can faith be a doxastic venture?” by Buckareff, and “On the possibility of doxastic venture; a reply to Buckareff” by Bishop
• “Does Belief Have an Aim?” by David Owens (arguing that belief aims not just at truth, but knowledge)
• The Divine Relativity by Charles Hartshorne
• Mark Johnston
• John Leslie
• David Ray Griffin
• John Cobb
• Peter Forrest and his book Developmental Theism
• Natural Agency by John Bishop (on reconciliatory natuarlism)
• C.B. Martin
• John Heil
• Cartesian dualism
• Eliminativism
• Michael Levin
• William Rowe and “friendly atheism“
• William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins
• Thomism
• Escapism
• The Problem of Hell by Jonathan Kvanvig
• Open theism
• Wes Morriston interview

Note: in addition to the regular blog feed, there is also a podcast-only feed. You can also subscribe on iTunes.

• 46 articles & text interviews
• Why I am Not a Muslim (in French)
• 3 video lectures
• 4 audio interviews

Download here.

Of course, his best works are his hardcopy books:

• Why I am Not a Muslim
• Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out
• What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary
• The Quest for the Historical Muhammad
• The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book
• Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism
• Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, And the Influence of Pre-islamic Poetry
• Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays

When I had my crisis of faith, I felt like I was losing everything. Without God and the promise of immortality, what was the point of it all?

I’ve written before that in some ways, there is less purpose without God, and in some ways there’s more. And though I personally find naturalism to be enchanting, I know many people find it disenchanting. They think naturalism leaves them in a universe that is ultimately indifferent and absurd, and their two options are cynicism and postmodern irony.

Are cynicism and irony the only plausible responses to a universe without intrinsic meaning or value?

A growing crowd of passionate persons would say “No.” Their movement has been dubbed the New Sincerity.

What is the New Sincerity?

Jesse Thorn, host of The Sound of Young America, describes it in his Manifesto for The New Sincerity:

What is The New Sincerity? Think of… Evel Knievel. Let’s be frank. There’s no way to appreciate Evel Knievel literally. Evel is the kind of man who defies even fiction, because the reality is too over the top. Here is a man in a red-white-and-blue leather jumpsuit, driving some kind of rocket car. A man who achieved fame and fortune jumping over things. Here is a real man who feels at home as Spidey on the cover of a comic book. Simply put, Evel Knievel boggles the mind. But by the same token, he isn’t to be taken ironically, either. The fact of the matter is that Evel is, in a word, awesome…

So now, dear reader, you’re in on the Next Big Thing. Something more Hedwig than Rocky Horror; more Princess Bride than Last Unicorn; more Bruce Lee than Chuck Norris. Something new, and beautiful. So join us.

Our greeting: a double thumbs-up. Our credo: “Be More Awesome.” Our lifestyle: “Maximum Fun.” Throw caution to the wind, friend, and live The New Sincerity.

There’s nothing ironic or cynical about Evel Knievel. He’s just awesome. Sincerely awesome.

There was nothing ironic or cynical about Prince’s cover of “Creep,” which transformed Radiohead’s self-loathing lamentation into an uplifting celebration of humanity. Richard Thompson’s folk-guitar cover of “Oops I Did it Again” was conscious of the ridiculousness of the original song, but nonetheless earnestly embraced what is good and beautiful about the Britney Spears hit.

You can see the New Sincerity in the films of Wes Anderson. Wes’ characters are broken and pathetic, but Wes does not revel in irony and cynicism. Instead he cheers them on, warts and all.

You can see the New Sincerity on YouTube, where bug-eyed Noah Kalina became a star by photographing himself every day for 6 years and making a raw timelapse video from the photos. Where young Lim Jeong-hyun became aninternet superstar by playing a speed metal version of Pachelbel’s Canon, hunched awkwardly in a chair in his crowded bedroom. Where balding Jud Laipply’s evolution of dance video jump-started his career in inspirational comedy.

You can see the New Sincerity in the directness and wide-eyed wonder of poems by Dave Berman, Catherine Wagner, and Tao Lin. You can hear it in the neo-folk music of Devendra Banhart and Okkervil River.

You can see the New Sincerity in those who invest thousands and thousands of hours to master parkour or animated wall-painting or wingsuit base jumping… just because it’s awesome.

You can see the New Sincerity in the film The Cult of Sincerity. (Watch it online.) Money quote: “The right thing shouldn’t be doing what makes you happy. What makes you happy should be doing the right thing.”

You can see the New Sincerity in John Krasinski’s character in The Office, in Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character in 500 Days of Summer, and in Ze Frank.

You can see the New Sincerity at MaxFunCon, a gathering of people who just want to be more awesome. Speakers include John Hodgman and Andrew W.K.

What people loved about the Susan Boyle phenomenon was the New Sincerity of it all. Susan was deprived of oxygen during birth and later diagnosed with learning disabilities. She was bullied at school. After her father died, she lived alone in the family home with a cat.

Then she decided to be more awesome and live her dream. She took singing lessons and sang at every church and karaoke bar she could find.

And then frumpy Susan Boyle got on the stage of Britain’s Got Talent and blew the audience away with her performance of the very unironic “I Dreamed a Dream” from Les Miserables. Her performance got over 120 million views on YouTube, and her debut album marked “the best opening week for a female artist’s debut album since SoundScan began tracking sales in 1991.”

Very few people who dare to be more awesome will match the success of Susan Boyle. But we can all be more awesome in our own way.

Dozens of nearly broke people are traveling around the world, staying for free with strangers via a website called CouchSurfing. Does that interest you? What’s stopping you?

Thousands of average frustrated men are putting aside their egos and learning how to be cool, fun guys who can attract the women they want and show them a good time. Does that interest you? What’s stopping you?

Millions of people are embracing a notion of romantic love that is fully authentic – without dependency, jealousy, obligation, or ownership over another’s sexuality. Does that interest you? What’s stopping you?

You don’t even need to make big changes to live the New Sincerity. Throw water balloons in the summertime. Participate in a flash mob. High-five people without irony.

Of course, we all enjoy good irony at times. And we have our moments of cynicism. But don’t live your life that way.

You’ve got one life to live. Make it the best damn life ever.

My Atheism Search Engine now searches 518 sites written by atheists.

I updated my History of Common Sense Atheism.

I keep adding to my list of Living Philosophers of Religion. The list now has over 200 names, with links to their most important works.

Battleground God, from The Philosopher’s Magazine, is a fun game for wannabe philosophers. The point of the game is to design a God that is logically consistent. You may find it surprisingly hard to succeed! Click here to play.

Also see the other philosophy games by TPM.

But there’s a problem. Scientologists label critics of their religion as “suppressive persons,” a term originally reserved for anti-social people like “the Adolf Hitlers and the Genghis Khans, the unrepentant murderers and the drug lords.” Scientologists are encouraged to break off contact with such people.

Well, I’m not a Scientologist. And if you press me, there is plenty I can say that is critical of Scientology.

So maybe one day I’ll get kicked out of the Toastmasters group because I’m critical of Scientology.

I don’t speak against Scientology when I’m with Scientologists. That’s not going to help anything.

And I’m not dishonest, either. In my Scientology courses I wrote essays explaining that I’m an atheist and a naturalist. And in my first speech at this Toastmasters club I explained my journey to atheism and naturalism. I’ve told Scientologists that though I learned a few things from their classes, I don’t identify as a Scientologist.

Anyway, here’s what I think of Scientology.

The Bad

1. Scientology declares that founder L. Ron Hubbard answered all the Big Questions of life, and all we need to do is study his research and apply it. I asked my instructor about this, and she confirmed it. I think that’s wrong. We still have a lot more work to do, and many authors have written more clearly and more profoundly on these subjects than L. Ron Hubbard.
2. Scientology promotes faith and loyalty and discourages attempts to improve on Hubbard’s doctrines. People who modify original doctrine are called “squirrels,” and others are encouraged to cut off contact with them. Likewise for those “suppressive persons” who have anything critical to say of Scientology. It is well known as an “attack the attacker” religion, not a “turn the other cheek” religion. This is cult-like behavior. A worldview that really is true should be able to withstand criticism confidently, not run from it.
3. Scientology, like most organized religions, has its share of criminal allegations, member mistreatment, and other abuses.
4. There are many reasons to suspect that L. Ron Hubbard himself was a complete charlatan who launched the religion as a bullshit way to enrich himself.
5. Scientology really does preach, at the higher levels, the whole Xenu saga. That’s nonsense.
6. Scientology tells lies. Its promotional videos exaggerate Scientology’s positive statistics. And though there are many critical things I can say about psychiatry, Scientology often misrepresents that discipline.

The Good

1. Scientology classes contain some useful material (amongst plenty of questionable material, of course).
2. Scientology, though it may be run as a business scam from the top (as are many Christian organizations), is not a scam as practiced by hundreds of thousands of people like you and me. Scientologists want success in life just like everybody else, and they came to believe that Scientology had the answers. In many cases, the skills taught by Scientology did improve their lives. All of the Scientologists I have come to know well are skilled, loving, and genuine people.
3. Scientology ethics are pretty unobjectionable. The basic message is to maximize flourishing across all the “dynamics” – one’s personal life, one’s family, one’s community, one’s race, one’s planet, and one’s universe. There’s also a strong emphasis on human rights. Remember, Scientology is a religion formed in the 20th century, so it’s not left with any racist, sexist, barbaric, homophobic hangovers from millennia ago. Scientologists want to make the world a better place, and they often make great sacrifices to do so.
4. Scientology is called a “practical religion.” It offers some skills training and says, “Here, use this. It worked for me, and I think it will work for you.” So Scientologists generally don’t care what you believe. I told my Celebrity Centre tour guide I was an atheist who didn’t believe in free will and she said, “Yeah, that’s fine.” It’s a pretty inclusive religion.
5. Scientology encourages you to test its ideas for yourself. The Hubbard quote “If it’s true for you, it’s true” is not an endorsement of relativism, but rather a rejection of authoritarianism. He wanted people to test claims of knowledge for themselves, not accept them on faith.

Frankly, I would guess that even if Scientology got bigger, it would not be as harmful as Christianity or especially Islam. It’s a 20th century religion, after all. Scientology would still be pointlessly enriching the people at the top of the organization, but it wouldn’t be condemning condoms or encouraging human rights violations.

That’s my opinion of Scientology, anyway.

1. My Fondest Memories of God and My Story
   These are my most personal posts on this site. They tell the story of my best times with my best friend, Jesus, and how I later came to believe that he did not exist – perhaps the happiest and saddest moments of my life, respectively.
2. Do Atheists Have Less Purpose and Hope?
   The simplest explanation of what it’s like for me to be an atheist.
3. The Enchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality
   Some people think the world is empty and sad and meaningless without God. This posts explains why I’m so enchanted by the amazing, natural world I was born into.
4. The Moral Argument (Part 1)
   A careful examination of Mark Linville’s moral argument for God’s existence. Maybe my best piece of original philosophical writing so far.
5. Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman (review)
   Wherein I criticize one of the most popular atheistic books of the first decade of this century.
6. Who Designed the Designer?
   Wherein I criticize one of the most popular atheist arguments of all time.
7. Atheism and the New Sincerity
   An absurd universe need not lead us to cynicism and irony. This is a call to embrace life enthusiastically, in all sincerity.

‘Atheism’ is a much simpler concept than ‘Christianity’ or ‘Hinduism’, but the word atheism is still used in a wide variety of ways.

This can cause confusion. Someone may announce that she is an atheist, and her listeners may assume she is one type of atheist, when really she is a different type of atheist.

So to clear things up, here are 17 kinds of atheism, organized into 7 sets. Some kinds of atheism can be combined in a person, and some cannot. For example, it is perfectly consistent to be an agnostic, narrow, friendly atheist. But one cannot simultaneously be both a passive atheist and a militant atheist.

This list is not definitive. There are many ways to organize and label different kinds of atheism.

For brevity’s sake, I have substituted “gods” for the usual phrase “God or gods.”

1. Difference in Knowledge

A gnostic atheist not only believes there are no gods, he also claims to know there are no gods.

An agnostic atheist doesn’t believe in gods, but doesn’t claim to know there are no gods.

2. Difference in Affirmation

A negative atheist merely lacks a belief in gods. He is also called a weak atheist or an implicit atheist.

A positive atheist not only lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist. He is also called a strong atheist or an explicit atheist.

3. Difference in Scope

A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on.

A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.

4. Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism

An unfriendly atheist believes no one is justified in believing that gods exist.

An indifferent atheist doesn’t have a belief on whether or not others are justified in believing that gods exist.

A friendly atheist believes that some theists are justified in believing that gods exist.

5. Difference in Openness

A closet atheist has not yet revealed his disbelief to most people.

An open atheist has revealed his disbelief to most people.

6. Difference in Action

A passive atheist doesn’t believe in god but doesn’t try to influence the world in favor of atheism.

An evangelical atheist tries to persuade others to give up theistic belief.

An active atheist labors on behalf of causes that specifically benefit atheists (but not necessarily just atheists). For example, he strives against discrimination toward atheists, or he strives in favor of separation of church and state.

A militant atheist uses violence to promote atheism or destroy religion. (Often, the term “militant atheist” is misapplied to non-violent evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. But to preserve the parallel with the “militant Christian” who bombs abortion clinics or the “militant Muslim” suicide bomber, I prefer the definition of “militant atheist” that assumes acts of violence.)

7. Difference in Religiosity

A religious atheist practices religion but does not believe in gods.

A non-religious atheist does not practice religion.

Of course, there are many more “kinds” of atheism than this, for one may be a Republican atheist or a Democratic atheist, a short atheist or a tall atheist, a Caucasian atheist or an Hispanic atheist, a foundationalist atheist or a coherentist atheist, an enchanted atheist or a disenchanted atheist.

Eight more debates added to the atheism vs. theism debates page.

The ambitious Philosophical Disquisitions now has a Table of Contents. Sweet.

The list of people taking the Debunking Christianity / Ultimate Truth-Seeker challenge has been growing almost daily.

I updated the 20 Most Popular Atheism Blogs list. Biggest gainers were Stupid Evil Bastard (now #9) and Common Sense Atheism (now #5).

1. Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief
2. Jordan Howard Sobel, Logic and Theism

and in no particular order:

• Gregory Dawes, Theism and Explanation
• William Rowe, Can God Be Free?
• Van Inwagen, Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil
• J.L. Schellenberg’s trilogy: Prolegomena to a Philosophy of Religion, The Wisdom to Doubt, and The Will to Imagine
• John Foster, The Divine Lawmaker
• Yujin Nagasawa, God and Phenomenal Consciousness
• Marilyn Adams, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God
• Craig & Moreland, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology
• Plantinga & Tooley, Knowledge of God
• Howard-Snyder & Moser, eds., Divine Hiddenness: New Essays

SpaceX Falcon launcher

The ethical theory I currently defend is desirism. But I mostly write about moraltheory, so I rarely discuss the implications of desirism for everyday moral questions about global warming, free speech, politics, and so on. Today’s guest post applies desirism to one such everyday moral question. It is written by desirism’s first defender, Alonzo Fyfe of Atheist Ethicist. (Keep in mind that questions of applied ethics are complicated and I do not necessarily agree with Fyfe’s moral calculations.)

NASA will no longer have the responsibility of designing and building rockets for carrying people into space, if Congress approves the Obama Administration’s proposed budget for the space agency.

The Space Shuttle will be retired either late this year or early next year. Existing plans were to replace it with the Ares I rocket and a new Apollo-style space capsule called Orion. However, Obama’s budget does not contain any money for Ares I. Nor does it contain any allocations for a substitute to Ares I.

This is not to say that Obama will end human space flight in America. Quite the opposite – he has authorized extending the life of the Space Station until 2020.

For the foreseeable future, Americans will have to send their astronauts to Russia to get them to the space station. Russia and China will be the only two countries with the capacity to send humans into space. Europe does not have that capacity, and America will lose that capability once the Space Shuttle is retired. So, Americans will only be able to enter space on a Russian rocket.

However, the hope is that America will regain the capability of sending humans into space on commercial rockets. Eventually, the Obama Administration hopes that it will no longer need to pay a Russian company to deliver astronauts to a space station, but an American company. It would be a company such as SpaceX, with its Falcon 9 rocket and its Dragon space capsule.

In the debate to come, I fear that the advocates of human space flight – those interested in seeing America continue to send humans into space – will be that project’s worse enemy. I fear that they are going to argue for the status quo – for the traditional practice of having NASA directly involved in building and operating the rockets that carry humans into space.

They want another moon mission. They want to see Apollo: The Sequel and relive the glory days of the space race.

I think that the Apollo program was a terrific achievement. On my own blog, Atheist Ethicist, I am marking the 50th Anniversary of the milestone of that project. However, this does not mean that I think we need to duplicate it today. We do not need another set of “flag and footprint missions” owned and operated by a government agency.

However, it is time to let that paradigm go. Eventually, space travel is going to have to go commercial, like airline travel. Eventually, the government is going to have to quit building government planes to carry government officials and government cargo around the world, and to simply purchase tickets on commercial airplane flights – except for that which serves a distinctly military purpose. Similarly, the government needs to stop building and flying its own space missions and buy tickets on a private space launch vehicle.

The survival of humanity requires getting enough people off of earth and to create an infrastructure that could survive the destruction of all life – or, at least, all human life – on earth itself. It will happen, some day, that there will be no humans on Earth. Any descendents we have that survive that day will be living in space. If there are too few of them, or if they are not set up so as to survive the destruction of Earth, then on that day humans will become extinct.

There is also the fact of the vast amount of resources in space that is currently not being used. I have mentioned before, the asteroids alone have enough material to build space stations with the surface-area equivalent of 30,000 Earths. The amount of energy we have on earth is virtually nothing compared to the amount of solar energy we can harvest in space.

As you look at pictures of galaxies upon galaxies spread across the sky, there is reason to suspect that there have been civilizations that have suffered that fate. Their people did not leave their planet fast enough or in large enough numbers to survive some catastrophic event on their home planet. Now, all that is left are ruins that, themselves, will disappear over time.

It may well be the case that all civilizations are doomed to fail eventually. That is no more of a reason to opt for an early death than the fact that an individual life ends eventually is a reason to commit suicide at a young age. With a little bit of care, our civilization has at least a few trillion years ahead of it. And we remain so substantially ignorant of what the universe is really like that we can only guess at what future generations – if there are future generations – will find.

That future is best secured by a present that involves getting people off of the Earth in sufficiently large numbers and with a sufficiently well developed infrastructure to survive the destruction of the Earth. That is not going to come about through a string of government space projects. That will eventually require people putting time and energy into space development independent of government contracts. That requires the government using its money to give those private ventures a boost, rather than using its money on its own, isolated, private projects.

Because I know everything, obviously.

Earlier, I invited my readers to ask me anything. You may ask more questions here, but please read the instructions first. Here is my third round of responses.

Question 011

corn asks:

How is it you have become so knowledgeable about seducing women, and how were you able to identify body language and vocal tonality as being two principal mechanisms by which seduction could be realized?

This is off-topic but I think my answer will be valuable to some of my readers.

You’re asking about my short speeches How to Seduce Women with Body Language and How to Seduce Women with Vocal Tonality.

I am not some kind of Master of Seduction. I cannot attract any woman I want, or even most women I want. But I’m better than I used to be.

Here’s my story. I had no skills with women growing up, because I believed it was my religious duty to avoid not only sex, but also dating. So I was clueless about body language, style, attraction, dating, and flirting.

When I got tired of failure, I looked for good information on how to be successful with women. Unfortunately, most of the popular advice out there was crap: “Buy her a drink. Buy her flowers. Be nice to her. Blah blah blah.” That’s terrible advice. So I started to look for men who were actually successful with women, and watched what they did.

Surprise, surprise: they were all “bad boys,” which I didn’t understand. Women said they liked nice boys, but they fucked the bad boys. Actions speak louder than words.

Then I read The Game by Neil Strauss. In that book, Strauss recounts how he was a loser with women. Then, he met a guy called Mystery who had also been a loser, but had figured out on his own how to seduce and date some of the most beautiful women in the world. Mystery had a whole system for seduction, and when he taught it to Strauss, Strauss became one of the most successful “pickup artists” in the world.

That was my introduction to the seduction community. Scientists haven’t bothered to tell us guys very much about how to get laid more often, so hundreds of average guys around the world took it upon themselves to figure it out. They went out night after night after night, trying thousands of combinations of clothing and behavior and words, keeping track of what worked and what didn’t.

The result is a series of skills in social dynamics called “pickup.” Unfortunately, many so-called “pickup gurus” teach things that are false, harmful, immoral, dishonest, or misogynistic. There’s a lot of crap in the seduction community, and you’ve got to have a pretty sensitive filter for it.

But I did find an approach to seduction that fit my own style and, especially, my values. My approach has no pickup lines, no memorized routines, no mind tricks, no dishonesty, and no “using” of women. Instead, my approach is basically this:

1. Be the most high-value man I can be (fun, adventurous, confident, authentic, and above all, me).
2. Use the basic skills of flirting and attraction to play “The Game” that women enjoy so much.
3. Create fun and exciting relationships with women I enjoy and respect.
4. Love without needing.

Trust me, women like cool guys. They want to be swept off their feet. They want men to be more confident, and more fun. And they like sex.

If men want to learn more about this, I recommend starting with some important episodes of Pickup Podcast (1, 2, 3, 4, 17, 50, 53, 54).

The best beginners book is probably Savoy’s Magic Bullets. (I know, it’s got a really awful and shady sales page, but trust me; I’ve read dozens of these books and this is one of the best.)

If you want to learn this stuff in person, I recommend The Art of Charm. They train people in N.Y.C. and L.A., but sometimes visit other major cities as well.

Remember, this is not about tricking women into sleeping with you or something awful like that. This is about becoming the best man you can be and creating special relationships that are valuable to both you and the women you date. Whether you want to be a playboy or attract the wife of your dreams, the same skill set is required.

Attraction is a skill set that can be learned and practiced just like piano, football, writing, or acting.

Moreover, women want you to develop this skill set. They want men to be more fun and more confident. They want to be with men like that. They don’t want to keep settling for men who don’t get it.

Question 012

Matt McCormick asks:

The problem of evil is alleged by most to show that an all good, all knowing, all powerful God doesn’t exist. So if there were one of those Gods, what exactly would our existence be like with regard to suffering? I take John Hick’s point that such a good wouldn’t put us in a hedonistic paradise, to be a pretty good point.

I agree with you and John Hick that an all-good God probably wouldn’t just plug our brains into pleasure machines and be done with it, even though this would maximize pleasure.

Unfortunately, there’s no simple answer to your question. It depends very much on what you mean by “all-good” or “perfectly moral.” If the universe was such that categorical imperatives existed, then this would mean that God always obeyed whatever categorical imperatives existed, and this would presumably affect our existence in profound ways. Or, if the universe was such that intrinsic value existed, then presumably God would maximize that which had intrinsic value, which would affect our existence in profound ways.

As many of you know, I see no reason to think that categorical imperatives or intrinsic value exist in our universe. Rather, we must offer a “reforming definitions” for terms like ‘good’ and ‘moral’ such that they refer to things that are real while still capturing what we generally mean by those terms. This is analogous to how we redefined ‘atom’ to mean something different than it’s original meaning of ‘indivisible,’ while still capturing what we generally meant by the term ‘atom.’

I have argued that as far as I can tell, desirism offers the best reforming definitions for moral terms. So, if an all-powerful God existed in our universe, and he was “all-good” in the sense described by desirism, this might mean something like “God only has desires that tend to fulfill other desires.”

So, what kind of universe would such a God create and maintain? I have no friggin’ clue. But it wouldn’t look anything like our current universe. If you or I or most people reading this blog were omnipotent, we could easily make this world “better,” given any definition of “better” in common use.

Several episodes have concerned philosophy of religion. Here they are:

• Kierkegaard (Lanier Anderson)
• How Relevant is Jesus? (Andrew Fiala)
• Faith, Reason, and Science (Nancey Murphey)
• Islamic Philosophy (Mashhad Al-Allaf)
• Worship (Daniel Speak)
• Immortality and the Afterlife (Anne Ashbaugh)
• Believing in God (Philip Clayton)
• The Problem of Evil (Michael Tooley)
• Evil (Peter van Inwagen)
• Concept of God (Richard Swinburne)
• Intelligent Design (Daniel Dennett)
• Jewish Philosophy (Paul Franks)
• The Existence of God (Walter Sinnott-Armstrong)
• Religion and the Secular State (Robert Audi)
• Has Science Replaced Religion? (George F. R. Ellis)

To my atheist brother

Dear Karl,

Greetings from your brother Paul. Long time no see!

As you know, Zeitgeist will be publishing our letters. So let me set the stage for the 400,000 people who will be peeking over your shoulder as you read this.

You and I were raised in Blaine, Minnesota by two loving Christian parents. We went to church together, we went to a private Christian school together, you dated my ex-girlfriend (but don’t worry; I’ve forgiven you), and we even attended the same University of Minnesota.

At university, the things we learned about biology, cosmology, and the Bible really tested our Christian faith. I came out the other side with what is, I hope, a more mature understanding of God. You came out the other side having lost your faith completely.

I’ve always respected you for your willingness to submit to what you think is the truth, even at high cost. Your crisis of faith strained some of your closest relationships. You lost Chloe, your fiancé. And you had to chart a course for a new career, because you had been planning to enter the ministry.

But I still think you’ve made the wrong choice. God is real, and I know he’s calling you back to Him.

We haven’t spoken much about these issues since our undergraduate studies. But as it turns out, we both decided to become professional philosophers! So I’m sure we both have some familiarity with the usual reasons given for believing or disbelieving in God.

My specialty is philosophy of religion, and I know yours is not, so I’m not sure how much you’ve read on the topic. But I do know that I now have pretty good answers to the tough questions you were asking during your crisis of faith, when I had no answers to give.

I’d also like to assure you that we all agree the cute syllogistic arguments from Anselm and Aquinas provide no reasons for believing in God. The case for God – what we call “natural theology” – jumped forward leaps and bounds in the last 60 years.

But I suspect that the arguments for and against the existence of God are not the real problem. I think we can both admit that even we philosophers rarely change our mind because of the arguments. We usually change our mind when something seems right to us, or seems wrong to us.

Given enough time, I think I can make a good case for the existence of God. But I doubt that would persuade you. What will persuade you is a personal encounter with the living God. So what I’d like to ask is not for you to read the latest arguments from Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne and others. Instead, I’d like to ask you to keep your heart open.

Keep your heart open to the possibility that God is real, and that He loves you. You could even ask Him to speak to you. If He’s not there, then no big deal. But if He is there – no matter how unlikely you think it to be – then opening your heart to his presence could make all the difference in the world.

Love,

Paul

To my Christian brother

Dear Paul,

It’s always great to hear from you, though these 400,000 people staring over my shoulder make me a bit nervous. They weren’t there when I published “Physicalism, Supervenience, and the Ontology of Morals” in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. I wonder why that is?

I appreciate your respect for my honest pursuit of truth. Of course I know you have the same passion; that’s why we both became philosophers!

You’re right that I’m not as familiar with contemporary philosophy of religion as you are, though I have read some Plantinga. You’re also right that we all usually believe things based on what seems right to us, though I do my best to follow the arguments where they lead.

My reasons for disbelief in God, especially, are probably the same reasons that most atheists have for disbelieving in God:

The world is full of pointless suffering that an all-powerful, all-good God would not permit. The universe does not appear benevolent, but instead indifferent to our pain or pleasure.

The major religions look exactly like what we would expect from ancient superstition, full of wild mythology and a grandiose picture our place in the world that doesn’t fit with what science has taught us.

There are hundreds of religions. If God wanted people to know him, why wouldn’t he communicate more clearly, so that billions of people weren’t mislead by a false religion? And why would he allow nearly a billion people around the world like me to see no evidence of him at all?

…and so on. I know there are Christians answers for these questions, but they were never convincing to me.

Finally, let me assure you I have kept my heart open to the possibility of God. In some ways, I would be quite relieved to rediscover God. I wish very much that I could live forever, and never be truly separated from the people I love. I wish I could believe that in the end, those who are persecuted on earth will be blessed in the afterlife, and those who are evil on earth will be punished. I wish I could believe that the Creator of the universe is my personal friend; that I’m on the winning team. So yes, I will always keep my heart open to the possibility of God.

Paul, you might think I wish you would “see the light” and give up Christianity. But I’m not sure I do. I see how your faith inspires you to serve others and help the poor, for example with the wells you helped dig in Zambia. I wouldn’t want to interfere with that.

Whatever Christopher Hitchens says, religion has not poisoned you. It has only made you a better humanist – ha! – and I wish you well.

Love,

Karl

The world today is captivated by a competition between two worldviews: theism and naturalism. Most people, including 3.7 billions Christians, Muslims, and Jews, are theists. They believe in one almighty, loving God who created everything there is. But most scientists and philosophers are naturalists. They think there are no gods; the natural world is all there is.

True believers never doubt the existence of God. They may not see a point in comparing theism and naturalism: “Isn’t it obvious that God exists? Why bother?”

True disbelievers see belief in God as an idiotic superstition. “Why talk to believers?” they say. “They fell for the old Sky Cake routine when they were children, and they’ll never let it go.”

This series won’t be of much interest to either true believers or true disbelievers. But I hope it will be of interest to the many people who have the humility to know they could be wrong even about things that feel certain, who realize that whether or not God exists matters a great deal for how we live our lives, and who think the issue deserves our best thinking.

This series is a organized as a series of letters between two fictional characters: a theist and a naturalist.

Their story: Paul and Karl are brothers. They attended the same church, and later went to the same university. At university, their naive faith was severely challenged by what they learned. Paul recovered and grew into a more informed, mature Christian faith. Karl lost his faith altogether and became a naturalist.

Years passed, and they each went to different graduate schools, both for philosophy. A national newspaper, Zeitgeist, heard of their story and asked each of them to write a letter to the other about their worldview. These two letters were published in the newspaper. The letters were so popular that Zeitgeist asked Paul and Karl to continue their exchange, and each new pair of letters was published in a weekly column in Zeitgeist.

Here is the index of their exchanges:

1. The Opening Letters
2. …

(more to come)

Dear Luke,

I’m suspecting it would be take too much energy exploring the difference between our epistemoligies that this format affords us. I suspect we’re a bit of an oddity in the world of atheist/theist dialogue. You are too thoughtful and generous to be lumped in with the atheistic characatures like Hitchens or Dawkins (or “Ditchkens” as Terry Eagleton names them). And I’m something of a slippery fellow because of my mystical postmodernish approach.

But let me just address one issue quickly: the matter of reliability. You suggest that mystical experience and fideism “have been horribly unreliable guides to truth.” Sure. But that doesn’t negate them. That assumes that all mysticisms are basically the same, and that mysticism is just some sort of mushy arbitrary thing. It also assumes that truth is a relatively monolithic impersonal thing. I suggest (obviously) that there is more to it than that. If mystical “things” exist (and I believe they do), then mysticism makes sense. It may seem, intellectually speaking, putting the cart before the horse.

In your letter, you laid out some goals for a better world. You said that the world would be a better place if:

• Power was less centralized, and more equally distributed.
• People had desires that tend to fulfill other desires, rather than desires that tend to thwart other desires.
• Slavery did not exist.
• Starvation did not happen.
• More cures for more conditions were available to more people.
• Violence was uncommon.
• More people had the opportunity to engage in fulfilling and meaningful work, rather than demeaning and meaningless work.
• Humans did not treat other animals with such cruelty.

I agree. Though, I suspect the vast majority of humanity would agree. There are many things I would probably add to the list, but, in the end, there is a lingering obstacle: HOW. After all, so much oppression has been perpetrated in the name of alleviating oppression.

So even if we could agree on a perfect list, the method shapes the outcome. This is the political version of “the medium is the message.”

Which raises some questions:

1. How do we know the best “path” towards utopia? Is anarchism the best “system” to achieve this? Or is there a better approach? How do we get from here to there?
2. How would being an atheist or a “believer” factor into the development of that “path?” In other words, is there an approach that is intrinsically truer to atheism?
3. What challenge do religious belief present to achieving these goals?
4. What challenge does atheism present to achieving these goals?

- Mark

Why is this the biggest victory for religion in years? First, because the Republicans will take over indefinitely, and they will continue to use religion to unite the faithful behind their despicably selfish and uncaring policies.

Second, because this decision will increase the fear, poor health, and insecurity of the vast majority of Americans. And that, quite frankly, is a recipe for religion. The leading scientific theory of what causes atheism is this: people don’t need comforting superstition anymore once they have a modicum of personal and financial security, and have their basic health needs met. (As they do in Scandinavia, for example.)

The decision to let corporations purchase our ‘elected’ officials outright spells doom for personal security, financial security, and health, and it smells of victory for religion.

This is also yet another sign that the United States is truly dying, for much the same reason that Rome did. Unfortunately, the rest of the world is so dependent on the USA that when the USA collapses, most other nations will also suffer greatly. That’s 195 more major victories for religion.

(But maybe I’m making too much of this. Here is an alternate view.)

First, John Loftus put up the Debunking Christianity Challenge:

I have a challenge for Christians. It’s a challenge few will take up… even though many expert Christian apologists have done it without a loss of faith. Other Christian thinkers… end up rejecting [their] former faith.

Do this. I’ll call this the Debunking Christianity challenge… Read up on all of the top Christian apologetics books and then [decide] in fairness to read all of the top skeptical books…

What are you afraid of? If your faith can withstand our arguments then you will be a better informed Christian with a much stronger faith. If your faith cannot withstand our arguments then your faith wasn’t worth having in the first place. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE!

Later, I provided my own suggested reading list and called it the Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge.

Whatever you want to call it, several people have decided to test their faith and read through the best that each side has to offer: theism and atheism, faith and doubt.

This page is a continuously updated index of who those people are and how their journey has affected them.

• Andrew Atkinson. Began in 2007. Converted from Christianity to atheism.
• Phil Porvaznik, amateur Catholic apologist. Began January 2010.
• Bobby Kern, student pastor. Began January 2010.
• Scott “Noophy”, real estate agent, believer. Began January 2010.
• Greg Whitfield, pastor. Plans to begin in 2011.
• Nathan Brown ”Aeiluindae”, student, believer. Plans to begin in 2010.
• Kyle, 15 years old, believer. Beginning in 2010?
• Alec, 16 years old, atheist. Beginning in 2010?
• JuliantheApostate, student, atheist. Beginning in 2010?
• Micah Cobb, student, believer. Began January 2010.
• Jordan Peacock, software, agnostic theist. Began in 2009.
• J.K. Jones, student, Christian. Beginning in 2010.
• Wade Anes, atheist. Began in 2009?
• Chris Hallquist, atheist. Began in 2008?
• Kai Haswell, student, recent atheist. Beginning in 2010.
• Mitchell LeBlanc, student, agnostic atheist. Beginning in 2010.
• Michael, student, began in 2006.

Who am I missing? Who else wants to try it?

Both believers and atheists are welcome to take the challenge.

]]> http://commonsenseatheism.com/?feed=rss2&p=6551 43 http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6419 http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6419#comments Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:28:57 +0000 lukeprog http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6419 I’ve begun logging my updates to 100+ Living Philosophers of Religion and Their Best Work.

The two biggest problems with the USA in one sentence:

Corporations have the rights of persons, but “enemy combatants” do not.

See Professor Pink’s Guide to Taking Philosophy Classes. Good advice for dealing with philosophy in general.

I added another paper to my Intelligent Design Bibliography. A paper from 1918.

Mike Licona, whom I interviewed in 2009, has scheduled several upcoming debates. But the really great news is that InterVarsity Press is going to publish his 600-page dissertation on the resurrection of Jesus.

It’s hard to say, but here are some interesting facts.

Let’s look at philosophy departments. At the top seven philosophy departments in the USA, how many times do onsite philosophy faculty specialize in each major subject area?

1. Metaphysics (54)
2. Ethics (54)
3. Language (49)
4. Mind (47)
5. Epistemology (46)
6. Historical (45)
7. Science (27)
8. Logic (25)
9. Political (17)
10. Cognitive Science (12)
11. Social (12)
12. Action (10)
13. Math (9)
14. Aesthetics (8)
15. Law (6)
16. Religion (4)

Even if we consider the top 10 philosophy departments in the USA, philosophers of religion are a small bunch:

• Dean Zimmerman at Rutgers
• Mark Johnston at Princeton
• Edwin Curley at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
• Gregory Ganssle at Yale
• John Hare at Yale
• Lara Buchak at University of California, Berkeley

So there does seem to be a dearth of philosophers of religion in the top philosophy departments.

Now, what if we look at top 99 philosophy departments in the world, comprising 931 philosophers, and ask only what is their #1 area of specialization?

1. Historical (168)
2. Ethics (130)
3. Science (91)
4. Metaphysics (90)
5. Mind (83)
6. Language (81)
7. Epistemology (80)
8. Social + Political (53)
9. Logic (39)
10. Cognitive Science (28)
11. Aesthetics (15)
12. Religion (12)
13. Action (10)
14. Law (9)
15. Math (9)

Also note that, among these top 99 philosophy departments, here is the breakdown of belief in god:

• Non-believers: 78.1%
• Believers: 14.5%

But fear not, philosophy of religion fans! Philosophy of religion is still awesome.

1. Funniest Clips from Atheist Stand-Up Comedians
2. White Wine in the Sun (atheist Christmas ballad, Tim Minchin)
3. Godless Comedy
4. High Stakes Intelligent Designing (NonStampCollector)
5. The Christian Story is Absurd and Evil (NonStampCollector)
6. Hilarious Atheist Videos (7 videos from NonStampCollector)
7. Sell the Vatican, Feed the World (Sarah Silverman)
8. The Bible’s Buried Secrets (NOVA documentary)
9. From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians (PBS documentary)
10. Marjoe, the Atheist Revival Preacher (documentary)
11. Living By the Book (atheist parable)
12. From Big Bang to Us, Made Easy (fantastic educational series)
13. Critical Thinking (5 min)
14. Atheist Alliance International 2009 Videos
15. Kissing Hank’s Ass (the absurd story of salvation)
16. An atheist lives with a Christian family for 30 days
17. The Story of Creation (is ridiculous)
18. Faith Healing: A Question of Miracles (documentary; faith healers exposed)
19. The Universe is the Ultimate Rube Goldberg Machine
20. Embarrassing Facts About Christians (Edward Current)
21. What is Morality? (my video trailer for desirism)
22. Storm (Tim Minchin beat poem about critical thinking)
23. What if God Disappeared? (Edward Current)
24. Jesus Loves You (well sorta)
25. Tragedy Follows Moment of Hope (Haiti girl dies; but don’t worry, God has his reasons)
26. The Jesus Timeline (it doesn’t make sense)
27. William Lane Craig Answers Cosmologists
28. The Invisible God (2 min)
29. The Deconversion of TheraminTrees (16 min)
30. Why Christian Morality Scares Me (my thoughts on Douglas Wilson)
31. Superstition in Pigeons and Humans
32. Closer to Truth (dozens of interviews with leading philosophers and theologians)
33. The Holy Gospel of the Easter Bunny
34. Baloney Detection Kit (Richard Dawkins Foundation TV)
35. 80 Short Quotes About Atheism
36. Brainwashing Children to Love Death
37. Some Hot Chick Answers 22 Questions About Atheism
38. Atheist Stand-Up Comedy in Church
39. Bill and Ted’s Excellent Moral Philosophy (better than theistic morality)
40. A Courageous Young Atheist (10 min ABC piece)
41. Refuting William Lane Craig’s Proofs of God (a failed attempt, if you ask me)
42. Why Christians Should Help Fight Sharia Law (10 min)
43. Reshaping the Destiny of Earth (10 min Scientology promotional video)
44. Let’s Make Christmas More Christlike (2 min inspirational video)
45. Atheists Depicted in a Good Light on TV

I’ve ranked them in order of how aesthetically good I think they are.

1. The White Ribbon
2. Winter Light
3. Begotten
4. The Magdalene Sisters
5. Frailty
6. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
7. Star Trek – “Who Watches the Watchers?”

(more to come)

The White Ribbon, one of the best films of 2009, presents the religious oppression of the children of a pre-WWI German village as the root of fascism and terrorism.

The leader of the village is the Baron, who basically still rules as a feudal lord, employing half the village. He deprives people of their livelihood on a whim, in one case leading a former employee to kill himself in despair.

Below him is the Pastor. His moral decrees are as arbitrary as those of his God, and nearly as binding. He upholds the “children, kitchen, church” role for women, which would later become associated with Nazism. And he is most ruthless with his own children. He ties his young son’s hands to the bed every night to prevent him from masturbating.

The final member of the terrible trio is the town doctor, who molests his daughter and treats his mistress like a piece of dirt.

It’s Old Lutheran authoritarianism at it’s finest. The children are oppressed ruthlessly, and they turn their inexpressible anguish and hatred on each other and back on the adults, by way of several mysterious violent crimes, the precise perpetrators of which are never identified. One of them involves a young retarded boy who is tortured and left tied to a tree with a note quoting the Bible about how punishment for the sins of a father will be visited upon his children.

The only light of sanity is the schoolteacher, who at the end of the movie begins to figure out who committed the violent crimes. He tells the Pastor first, but the Pastor threatens him, telling the schoolteacher to bury the truth to avoid bringing disgrace upon any families.

In addition to its anti-religious themes, the movie is a fictional illustration of the ‘Mayer thesis’ found in Arno Mayer’s The Persistance of the Old Regime, which contends that the Old Regime, in which an aristocracy owned most of the wealth and the middle and lower classes were politically divided, slowed down the progress of Europe and laid the foundations for both world wars.

And it’s here that we see the film’s message for contemporary America, where we have frequent eruptions of religious small-town idiocy, proudly flaunted by poster-girl Sarah Palin and her fellow birthers and teabaggers. More importantly, the persistence of the Old Regime in America has slowed its progress – at the cost of thousands or millions of human lives. The feudal lords of the USA continue to hoard most of the country’s wealth through military contracts and finance schemes while keeping the lower classes divided and oppressed. Even “progressive” Obama permits the suffering of millions to protect the “noble class” of oil sheikhs and wall street bankers. As a result, the USA has greater income inequality and greater social problems (violent crime, teen pregnancy, etc.) than any other advanced Western nation.

The White Ribbon is haunting, edgy, bold, riveting, and thoroughly anti-religious. It is also very well-shot and well-acted, like something Carl Dreyer would have directed if he had still been improving on his masterpieces these past four decades since his death.

The White Ribbon opened on December 30th in the U.S.

The ethical theory I currently defend is desirism. But I mostly write about moraltheory, so I rarely discuss the implications of desirism for everyday moral questions about global warming, free speech, politics, and so on. Today’s guest post applies desirism to one such everyday moral question. It is written by desirism’s first defender, Alonzo Fyfe of Atheist Ethicist. (Keep in mind that questions of applied ethics are complicated and I do not necessarily agree with Fyfe’s moral calculations.)

Luke asked me to write this series to deal with the application of desire utilitarianism to practical moral problems. In line with that, I recently received the following email:

Is it ethical, according to Desire Utilitarianism, to torture a terrorist with fundamentalist convictions bent on destroying the planet if he activated a weapon so powerful as to put an end to all life on earth, and he is the only one who can disarm it? How would you answer this?

I would begin by saying that the question itself lies outside of the realm of morality.

Morality is an institution set up to deal with the every-day interactions of every-day people. We live in a world where we are surrounded by lies, theft, fraud, assault, rape, and murder. Morality, as an institution, aims to reduce (or eliminate) these practices. We live in a world where earthquakes destroy whole cities and whole populations suddenly find themselves in a metropolis without food or water, needing massive amounts of medical care.

When it comes to molding malleable desires so as to fulfill the desires of others, these are the types of situations that sit at the top of the list. We do not need to be wasting time and energy molding desires so as to deal with situations that will almost certainly never arise and will never have a real-world impact on our desires.

This also applies to trolley car examples that are all the rage in the study of ‘morality’ these days. “You are in a run-away trolley car that is speeding down the track. If it continues on its current route it will kill give people. But, if you change course by throwing the switch up ahead you will go down another track where you will kill only one person.”

If this type of event was happening on a regular basis, we would then have reason to bring the social tools of praise and condemnation to bear to mold malleable desires in a particular direction. However, because this is not an every-day problem, we would be wise to mold desires to deal with real-world issues.

This means that when an exotic situation such as this comes up, we simply allow the cards to fall where they may.

I do use stories such as this in my writing. However, I use them to illustrate a different kind of point.

Here’s one of my stories.

Aliens have come to earth. They have a weapon that can destroy all life on earth. However, they say that they will spare the Earth and move on if you were to torture – over the course of several days – one young child – your own 10-year-old daughter. However, whether the aliens destroy the Earth or not, they will spare you and your daughter. What does Desire Utilitarianism say about such a case?

It says . . . almost nothing.

It’s not about alien visitors coming to Earth threatening to destroy all live on Earth unless you torture your child. We have no reason to mold people’s desires so that they have a ready answer to this type of situation.

It is about a world where a lot of children suffer from all sorts of abuse and neglect, and where abused and neglected children grow up into adults who behave in all sorts of ways harmful to themselves and others. Therefore, it is about promoting a concern for the well-being of children – and particularly one’s own children – that is far greater than the concern that nature provides us with. Because nature obviously does not give us the strength of concern for the well-being of children that it is good for us to have, so we have reason to design social tools to augment this concern.

One of the effects of this is that, if aliens should visit the earth threatening to destroy all life on earth (except the specific father and daughter in question) unless a specific father tortures over the course of days his own daughter, we may well discover that the father simply cannot bring himself to do such a thing.

Is that wrong?

Well, what reason do we have to bring our tools of praise and condemnation to bear to mold the desires of fathers to make it easier for them to torture their young children for days?

Practically none.

If such a situation should arise, and the father cannot torture his daughter, then that’s just the way that things worked out. In the real world, we are still dealing with real-world concerns where far too many children suffer from abuse and neglect. So, as far as our real-world is concerned about, we are well advised to bring our social tools to bear to strengthen parental affection for the care of their children, and general concern over the welfare of all children.

One thing I can say about such a case, given desirism, is that no good person would enjoy torturing the child. The parent who finds himself in this type of situation, who gleefully tortures his child – which is something he has always wanted to do and now he can do it while claiming it was to save humanity – is a villain. That man is evil. A good person would have an aversion to doing this type of harm and our agent, in this case, is far from being a good person.

The same applies to another story I sometimes use.

In this story, a terrorist has hooked up a bomb in a distant city to a vending machine. You find out about this. You rush to the vending machine to stop anybody from using it. You are quite some distance from the machine when you see a child standing at the machine making a purchase. The child will not be able to hear you shout because of other noises. You have mere seconds to act – and you do not have time to close the distance. But, you have a shotgun and you can stop the child by shooting him.

Do you shoot the child?

What if it is your own child?

Desire utilitarianism does not say whether you should or should not shoot the child. This is one of those exotic situations that we simply are not prepared to deal with. However, it does say that the good person in this type of situation has smashed full speed into a moral brick wall that will probably destroy him. He’s either going to have to live with the fact that a whole city was destroyed when he could have prevented it, or with the fact that he shot and killed his own child. Chances are, he’ll be dead within the year at his own hand.

This is not the type of answer that one typically gets from a moral theory. Yet, I hold that it is the only answer that makes sense. A theory that says that a person should kill his own child is telling us that it should come with no emotional baggage – that the virtuous person would find it easy to kill his own child. That’s a wrong answer. The parent who can kill his child and shrug it off as something that just had to be done is, himself, a moral monster.

There are people who use these types of stories about torturing terrorists to argue that there should be no general prohibition on torture. However, that argument is clearly flawed. Certainly, we would not argue that the alien story that I invented argues that people generally should engage in a lot more child abuse – that because aliens might come to Earth and make such demands we must learn to allow more parents to abuse their children.

If we ever come across a case in which a terrorist has planted a bomb that will go off in just a few minutes unless we get the disarming code from him – where he refuses to tell us voluntarily – the people who are there at that time will need to make a decision. It will not be . . . it should not be . . . an easy decision to make – like the cop needing to shoot and kill his own child.

The problem with weakening the aversion to torture is that, in the real world, it results in huge swarms of people getting tortured by self-important political leaders who think they have a good reason to do so. Not only is it the case that nobody – or almost nobody – has ever been tortured to prevent a bloody act of terrorism that will occur in the near future, countless people end up getting tortured for no reason other than that they had the wrong last name, or a neighbor who did not like them whispered some false accusations to those willing to torture, or some violent dictator is struggling to hold onto power.

These are the real-world effects of weakening the aversion to torture. And, in the end, morality is all about real-world effects.

I find the philosophy of religion immensely interesting. Recently I watched a YouTube video in which a well known Christian philosopher/theologian, William Lane Craig, explained how the Anglo-American world had been “utterly transformed” and had undergone a “renaissance of Christian philosophy” since the 1960s… Do you agree with these statements? Moreover, how well respected is Dr. Craig? Is he generally viewed as a top notch philosopher? I also wonder whether the very best arguments on the atheistic side are really being discussed. It seems there is some disdain among philosophers regarding the so-called “new atheists”: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. Who are the top contemporary atheists working in philosophy today? I’d really be interested in reading some of their work.

Currently, Peter Smith and Louise Antony have responded, but I’m disappointed with their responses. So, here is my own:

Has there been a renaissance of Christian philosophy?

First, has there been a “renaissance of Christian philosophy” since  the 1960s?

Yes.

However, this is not as impressive as it may sound at first. This “renaissance” did not take Christian philosophy from an average position of respectability to unquestioned influence in broader philosophy. Rather, it took Christian thought from a position of complete banishment from philosophical discourse to, at least, active development. So the starting point was lower than you might have thought.

Let me explain.

In the first half of the 20th century, a view called logical positivism dominated analytic philosophy. According to logical positivism, metaphysical and supernatural claims were not just false but meaningless. They were not even a proper study of philosophical inquiry.

This was the darkest time for philosophical theism. But in the 1950s and 60s, certain (atheistic) philosophers provided powerful criticisms of logical positivism, which led to its demise. So by the 1960s, talk of God was – while not necessarily correct – at least meaningful in philosophy again.

In the 1960s and 70s, several Christian philosophers took the powerful new philosophical tools that had developed over the preceding decades and applied them to the classical problems of theism. These new tools allowed them to reformulate the old arguments for God so that they avoided their earlier refutations (see Swinburne). Or, they allowed theists to sidestep common objections to theism altogether by developing brand new accounts of what it means to be rational (see Plantinga).

Due to the extreme sophistication of certain Christian philosophers, theism is again “back on the table” in philosophy. However, it remains true that the vast majority of philosophers are atheists, and work in philosophy of religion is often ignored in other fields. Indeed, many leading philosophy universities don’t even have a resident philosopher of religion, or perhaps only one.

The renaissance in Christian philosophy is perhaps best summed up in two books. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology contains several of the most sophisticated reformulated arguments for God, and Warranted Christian Belief contains the most thorough account of how it might be rational to believe in God even if all the arguments for theism fail.

How well respected is Dr. Craig?

Dr. Craig has made few significant contributions outside philosophy of religion – namely, he has written a bit on philosophy of time. But he is respected as a professional philosopher who knows the history of philosophy, knows the contemporary literature, knows how to use the latest philosophical tools, and has published dozens of articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Mostly, I hear other philosophers object to his unabashed apologetic approach to philosophy. Most philosophers see philosophy as a means of inquiry, not a means of defending an unassailable axiom of belief. But Craig has made it very clear that he does not treat philosophy as a means of inquiry, but as a means of defending his unassailable belief in God:

…it is the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit that gives us the fundamental knowledge of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role… The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel… and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith…

Atheistic Philosophers of Religion

It is true that the best atheistic arguments are not being discussed at large. The New Atheists are not trained in religious studies or philosophy of religion, and often provide weak or ill-formed arguments.

Today’s leading atheistic philosophers of religion include William Rowe, John Schellenberg, Michael Martin, Graham Oppy, Paul Draper, Nicholas Everitt, Robin le Poidevin, Evan Fales, Jordan Howard Sobel, Quentin Smith, Patrick Grim, Matt McCormick, Keith Parsons, and many others. (Also read Wes Morriston. He’s a Christian philosopher, but he spends all his time composing good arguments against Christianity.)

For recommended reading, see Best Atheism Books of the Decade and Top 10 Atheism Articles, 1975-2010.

Because I know everything, obviously.

Earlier, I invited my readers to ask me anything. You may ask more questions here, but please read the instructions first. Here is my second round of responses.

Question 006

Christopher asks:

Would you say that you were ever “saved,” as the term is understood by Christians, back when you were a practicing Christian?

There is no question I was saved. I was saved in the same way every other Christian I know has ever been saved. I believed in God, I accepted atonement theology, I loved Jesus, I read the Bible and worshiped and prayed and served. I had religious experiences. I saw miracles. God (or what I believed to be God) transformed my life. See My Fondest Memories of God.

Question 007

Haecceitas asks:

If (for whatever reason) you became convinced that substance dualism is the correct view in the area of the philosophy of mind, what kind of implications (if any) would this have on your thinking about theism vs. atheism?

Of course this would eliminate some major objections to theism, but dozens of objections remain, and a positive case for theism would still have to be erected. I doubt such a case would be successful unless the world was radically different than it is.

Question 008

Haukur asks:

Let’s say that all the traditional atheistic arguments succeed, and all the traditional theistic arguments fail. Let’s say the modal ontological argument fails to establish the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good being. Cosmological arguments fail to establish a creator of the universe. Design arguments fail to establish that the universe was designed to host intelligent life. Historical analysis fails to establish any miraculous events. Let’s say all that is true.

My question is, Why are you not religious? It seems to me that the worthlessness of religious activities (such as worship and prayer) is not established even if all the arguments above are granted. And in fact, there are people who agree with you on those arguments but still do engage in religious activities.

No, the worthlessness of religious activities is not established even if atheism is proven true.

There are some studies on whether prayer or worship or other religious activities do any good. Prayer doesn’t seem to do any good. I’m less familiar with studies on other religious activities, but my general impression is that it’s community that does a person good, not submission to supernatural beings.

But the reason I am not religious is that, in addition to my naturalistic worldview, I do not get much benefit from religious activities. I’m happier and more productive without them.

Question 009

TH asks:

Given the exponential growth of technology and the likelihood that physicalism is correct that consciousness is an emergent property of matter and energy, will you have your head frozen when you die?

If I’m lucky, I’ll survive until we can upload our consciousnesses and basically live forever. But I doubt I’ll last that long.

Will I have my head frozen, in the hopes that future technology will be able to revive my consciousness? I don’t know. I suppose it depends on cost and the likelihood of revival. I wouldn’t rule it out.

Question 010

Lee A.P. asks:

Is there any defense in the philosophy of religion for the following problem:

Much is said, especially with regards to William Lane Craig, about the witness of the Holy Spirit. Apparently, one can know things for certain when the “Holy Spirit” communicates with a person.

I do not know exactly how Craig views Satan but in Christian belief he is generally regarded as a being adept at trickery.

Given a supernatural world view that accepts evil beings adept at trickery, and given the fact that many Christians regard Satan as a brilliantly deceptive being, how can one ever know that they themselves are not the ones being tricked?

Many religious groups that have Plantingan-type epistemologies are likely to say that Islam/whatever is true and Christian experiences are deceptions of the devil, while Christians are likely to say that Christianity is true and religious experiences in other traditions are deceptions of the devil. Special thinking as usual.

My mom’s answer to this question about why she thinks other religions are deceived but she is not was “Because I know that I know that I know that I know.” I think that about sums it up.