Comments on: Book Review: The Making of an Atheist by James Spiegel

By: Roger Overton

Roger Overton — Sat, 01 May 2010 18:51:55 +0000

Benjamin,
I didn’t reply to most of your comments because I don’t believe they are relevant to either the thesis and arguments of Spiegel’s book or my statements of agreement here (eg- no one argued against science). It seems that on both sides we don’t believe we’re understanding each other here. Given that the source of this discussion is Spiegel’s material, I really don’t see how we can go forward without the book. Otherwise, it seems likely you’ll continue to build straw men against it.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:55:54 +0000

Considering that the supernatural is, also by definition, “Of or relating to existence outside the natural world,” … well, yeah. Saying that a method by which to approach the natural world doesn’t account for things that don’t exist in the natural world is quite accurate. It does nothing to invalidate said method, nor does it make any sort of a case for said things that don’t exist in the natural world existing, but it’s a true statement. Similarly, “cats are cats” is a true statement. Admitting this does not grant that cats are self-refuting, though, and pointing out that naturalism doesn’t bother with the likely nonexistant does not mean that naturalism is self-refuting, either.

I feel at this point I can simply copy and paste my last comment, since you haven’t actually poked any holes in it, but you’ve already had a chance to read it, I assume.

However, if you’re changing your review to “Spiegel makes certain cases, and the burden is on you to read his book if you’d like to see what they are and whether they’re any good” then it’s fair and accurate. However, scrolling up, it appears to be the same review that I read two weeks ago, sprinkled with your own assertions, which you’re apparently unable to back up, as to the validity and value of his arguments and the nature of other peoples’ beliefs.

My claim is that these evidently unsupportable assertions of yours appear to be you badmouthing people and concepts you don’t understand, and that EITHER he doesn’t know what he’s talking about or that your summary of his points is misleading. I freely admit that it could be the latter rather than the former.

In any event, being closed-minded, over-generalizing large groups, and corroborating everything written by someone on your “side” without understanding how or why are probably bad habits to get into for a philosopher.

By: Roger Overton

Roger Overton — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:42:01 +0000

“If methodological naturalism could account for the existence of everything, it would not be methodological naturalism.”

Naturalism attempts to account for all of reality by strictly natural means. By definition, it rules out the existence of anything supernatural. That is a belief and a claim to knowledge. The case that has been made is that such naturalism can’t account for all of reality and is self-refuting. Spiegel cites a few atheists who clearly advocate this belief, and I’m not sure there’s an atheist around who doesn’t believe this. If an atheist were to allow for any sort of supernatural entities, the allowance would likely bring into question their atheism.

Speigel very accurately and fairly portrays the typical arguments put forward by leading atheists today. The burden is on you, if you want to claim he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, to show exactly where he has misrepresented a particular atheist or what is common to atheism these days. Otherwise, you’re guilty of your own accusations.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 03:49:33 +0000

If your summary is accurate, than Spiegel simply does what many people who prefer unexamined answers to intelligent questions do and relies on his own complete and utter ignorance of what science even IS to discount it. If methodological naturalism could account for the existence of everything, it would not be methodological naturalism. Science is, and always has been, a process by which one asks questions and then works, perpetually, to find answers. It’s not a body of knowledge, and it’s nothing close to a belief or a notion. Christians telling Atheists that Naturalism is invalid because it doesn’t account for the existence of the cosmos or values is akin to an Atheist telling a Christian that God can’t exist because sometimes he gets stomach aches. It’s not an argument, it’s just a proud demonstration that the person offering it as such has no idea what in hell he’s even trying to refute.

Besides, whether or not something can account for the existence of something else is no measure of value; Paul Bunyan’s axe can account for the existence of the grand canyon. This does not invalidate the theory of erosion.

If his purpose is to provide a Christian perspective of a non-Christian belief system to Christian readers of his Christian book, maybe he should stick to what works: preaching to the choir about how everything unlike them is inherently evil or the fault of evil in some way or another, and not wasting time demonstrating his own ignorance by clumsily attacking people he doesn’t understand with irrelevant arguments he fails to comprehend.

And, meanwhile, you might want to hold off on making unsupported judgments on strangers’ immorality or about what does or does not “cut to the very heart of atheistic belief” until you have at least a vague sense of what you’re even talking about.

Or not. ‘Syour blog, I guess.

By: Roger Overton

Roger Overton — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:03:14 +0000

americanatheist,
The book only deals very briefly with atheists’ arguments; less than 10 pages. As I noted, Spiegel sees the primary arguments as the problem of evil and the notion that science can account for all of reality.

In regard to the problem of evil, the response is rather simple. “Even if successful, it only undermines certain beliefs about the nature of God… At most, evil should prompt us to reconsider what kind of God exists, not whether God exists. To give up belief in a world creator because of the existence of evil is a blatant non sequitur.” (p26-27)

Spiegel responds to the second argument in a few ways:
1) Naturalism cannot account for the existence of the cosmos or values of any kind.
2) Naturalism’s methodology, positivism, is self-refuting. “The notion that all beliefs must be scientifically verifiable is, well, not scientifically verifiable.” (p29)
3) Naturalism cannot confirm or dispute the vast majority of non-scientific beliefs that are commonly held- such as differences between good and evil and the meaning of life.

I don’t expect Spiegel’s brief responses to atheist arguments will satisfy anyone who is already an ardent atheist, but it’s important to keep in mind that that’s not the purpose of the book. As Spiegel states in his introduction, his purpose is to provide a Christian account of atheism. And since it is Christian in nature, it is primarily based on biblical doctrine. I understand his assessment of atheist arguments as being a point of support of his biblical diagnosis.

By: americanatheist

americanatheist — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:24:45 +0000

Roger,
Your review does not state how the arguments put forth by atheists are inadequate. Please enlighten us.

By: Roger Overton

Roger Overton — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:43:54 +0000

Benjamin,
You said, “Yes, I suppose it IS easier to simply dismiss somebody’s entire system of arguments as simply Bad so you don’t have to actually think about them.” If you actually read the book, you’ll see that nothing like that is going on here. As I note in the review, Spiegel examines the arguments put forward by atheism and finds them woefully inadequate. Ultimately there’s no good reason to believe in atheism; the cause for atheism lies elsewhere.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:07:43 +0000

Yes, I suppose it IS easier to simply dismiss somebody’s entire system of arguments as simply Bad so you don’t have to actually think about them. If only we could see that nature clearly debunks all we’ve learned about nature and reveals the ultimate intuitive truth of a 6000 year old world populated by a single boat and governed by a giant invisible collection of personified logical fallacies. If only we had a glimpse of true morality to convert us to theism and give us the moral fortitude to engage in such moral practices as child rape, wife-stoning, and suicide bombings that our lamentable wickedness and genuine ignorance tragically deny us.

You guys are jackasses. 😀