Laughing at the Abyss

I’ve decided to start a semi-regular feature here at nicolecushing.com, Skeptical Sunday.  While church-goers are in their pews, the rest of us can get together and cast a skeptical eye on some particularly notable or outrageous  article making claims that lack support. Here’s a brief orientation before we get started.

What Is Skepticism?

I’m no authority on this, but — to the best of my understanding — skepticism is a view of the world that highly values critical thinking in general and the scientific method, in particular.

One of the best known Skeptics out there right now is Michael Shermer of The Skeptics Society.  He’s a fairly high profile guy, and you can find him on Youtube, debating Deepok Chopra or being cast into the fires of Hell by Mr. Deity.

The Skeptic Society web site describes Skepticism this way:

“Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.”

Skeptics are known for debunking everything from astrology and other New Age beliefs to orthodox Christianity (and everything in-between).

Skeptics are frequent collaborators with atheists and agnostics.  At the present time, I’m practically an atheist.  But I’m certainly a skeptic.

Why Bother “Stepping Into” This Mess?

People tell me that I’m shy.  Sometimes people even use the phrase “painfully shy”.  It follows that I’m a little hesitant to talk about my skepticism on my blog.  I’ve almost-always thought that religion (and therefore the lack of religion) was a private matter.   Moreover, I have many dear friends who count themselves as believers:  some in a-more-0r-less orthodox interpretation of Christianity, others in a more unconventional way, who see themselves as “spiritual but not religious”.  The last thing I want to do is alienate them or hurt their feelings.

I hope they don’t take any of this personally.

I’m also aware that some of the likely targets for Skeptical Sunday are easy marks.  Sometimes, the whole exercise is going to seem unsporting — like shooting fish in a barrel.

But the fact is, “the other side” of this debate has long ago taken off the kid gloves and went public with their thoughts and feelings about this.  In fact, most organized religions see promotion of (and conversion of others to) the faith as one of their duties.

I have no interest in converting others to skepticism.  But I — like Penn & Teller, or the Mythbusters team — do feel a stake in calling “Bullshit!” when I see it.  Particularly when that bullshit hurts people directly (by popularizing prejudice against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, sending airplanes into skyscrapers, or  polluting childrens’ minds with pseudo-scientific quackery) or indirectly (by encouraging people to mistrust their own thoughts and feelings and submit their intellect, will, and actions to the authority of an invisible genie in the sky).

Silence implies consent.   So, I can no longer be silent.

Skeptical Sunday #1:  Critique of the Article “Atheist Become  Apologist” (a profile of Christian apologist Alister McGrath)

Like any good conversion story, this one begins by describing the dire straits our friend Mr. McGrath was in prior to his conversion.  His was a “dismal” world of “radical” atheism, “a world that lacked meaning and purpose” (cue the violins).

Perhaps that is how Mr. McGrath saw his situation prior to his conversion, but it’s certainly not how I see my situation.  To me, atheism is neither “dismal”, “radical”, or suggesting a world lacking in meaning and purpose.

To the contrary, what is more “radical” than literally believing that an obscure itinerant preacher from first century occupied Judea  rose from the dead, is now invisible, and intercedes on your behalf if you close your eyes and think hard enough?  What lacks meaning more  than taking a place among a congregation of “sheep”, bleating out a creed that was cobbled together through negotiation among a group of men who still thought the sun revolved around a flat earth?

I find great meaning in the processes of learning, reading, and writing.  It’s not an inherited meaning.  It’s meaning that I make.  For more about “meaning making”, see the book The Atheist’s Way:  Living Well Without Gods by Eric Maisel.

But I digress, we’ve barely gotten into the introduction of the article and already made quite a ruckus. 

The article continues on the wayward path our hero traveled before finding faith:

“He was smug and knew he was superior,and what happened was that he learned about the philosophy and history of scientific study.  What he learned was that explanation is what science offers but it cannot explain everything, and that it operates on certain bases that cannot be surrendered — and neither can they tell the whole story…”

Wow.  It’s like…”Who farted?”  Where do I even begin?

We’ll chalk up the “smug” and “superior” comments up to ad hominem  attack.  There’s no supporting evidence provided here to demonstrate that McGrath was really “smug” and “superior” — and of course, such designations are generally subjective and unhelpful, anyway.

But let’s take the meat of this section — “explanation is what science offers but it cannot explain everything….(it can’t) tell the whole story.”

Scientists could take issue with the idea that “explanation” is what science offers.  It could be said that science offers description, rather than explanation.  Or, at least, that any explanations offered are based on probabilities rather than certainties.  The scientific community is, in general, tentative and conservative — always couching their conclusions as provisional and open to reasonable debate.

But putting that aside, the real point to take objection to here is the idea that everything must be explained, and that science doesn’t explain everything, so therefore science must be joined with “something else” (enter the Trojan Horse of religion) to truly understand the world .

This clunky syllogism reveals the inability or unwillingness of the Christian mind to tolerate the ambiguity of not knowing.   It leads to what Neil deGrasse Tyson calls “The God Of The Gaps” — of human beings inserting God in at the limits of their knowledge.  Good men have done this.  Newton even did it.  But we should know better now.  For a fantastic explanation of “The God of The Gaps”, see Tyson’s seminal lecture about this on Youtube.

The article goes on to say that Mr. McGrath “learned that atheism is itself is a belief system”

I’d argue atheism isn’t based so much on belief as it is on data.  “God” has repeatedly been dethroned as an explanation for phenomenon in the universe (see the aforementioned talk by Dr. Tyson).  Religion has been proven wrong more times than Lindsay Lohan’s defense attorney.  Coming to see that doesn’t take “belief”, all it takes are open eyes and an open mind.

And then there’s this charge that  atheists fail “to understand the Christian concept of God.  Dawkins thinks of God as an ‘entity’ in almost empirical terms and here’s why:  he argues that empirical data do not exist for God.  Therefore, God doesn’t exist.  But what this shows is:

God can’t be shown by empirical sciences; therefore, God doesn’t exist.  But this proves not that God does not exist but that God cannot be proved by empirical sciences or that God is not empirical, which is just what Christians do believe; that God is not one of us but outside of empirical reality.”

So the absence of evidence is claimed as evidence itself!  How sad it is that a man with a brilliant mind undergoes such intellectual contortion to arrive at this conclusion.  The only way orthodox Christians can win this argument is by  making God a refugee from “empirical” reality and giving him a realm that is literally impervious to reason and observation.

I have another name for this sanctuary outside of empirical reality:  fantasy.

There’s lots of other nonsense in this article, about how “science is not enough”, and “Christian faith goes where science cannot go”.

Certainly, Christian faith arrives at conclusions that science doesn’t arrive at.  Many of those conclusions may result in some emotional benefit to the people who believe them.  Many of those conclusions may result in emotional problems for the people who believe them.  But Christian faith goes places that Christians would rather go.

Just because Christians want to go there, though, doesn’t mean they should.  In other words, sure, there’s “something extra” added to a worldview that incorporates faith of any sort (Christian or otherwise).  Something that science doesn’t provide.  The real question is:  is that “something extra” of any value?  Is it a gift or an albatross?

I think you know my answer.