A very interesting critique on atheism and the methods used by atheists to explain their position. The author Edward Tingley, a philosophy professor, bases most of his arguments against the material written by Blaise Pascal on applying the scientific mind to discover the existence of God.
The professor goes on to demonstrate how, in his opinion, it is hypocritical for atheists who profess a scientific approach to disregard the very fundamentals of the scientific temper that they are supposed to defend.
He points out the mindset from where Pascal and other atheists begin their attempts at discovery:
He likes a world in which he can stop thinking about something when the hard evidence for it gives out: That is a beautifully simple world. “If I had to sum up my own atheism, I would have to say that it amounts to this: I have no interest in the supernatural.” Let’s “simply dismiss the whole issue of whether ‘God’ exists as not worth any discussion.” “It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”
He attacks the common point raised by atheists about the lack of evidence thus:
We need evidence that God exists. Agreed. What kind? Is there only one kind? Scientific evidence. And what is that: material evidence? Is that how science works? Didn’t the nature of evidence expand as science went deeper into what is? Aren’t there new and unexpected kinds of evidence?
Even scientists don’t quit when the old sort of evidence runs dry. Not quitting—going beyond the established sort of evidence—is a virtue of science.
What would we say to the pre-Darwinian who did not believe that biodiversity could be explained? (“It all had to be put here,” he insisted. “There is no material evidence for a mechanism of biodiversity.”) Was natural selection material evidence?
He sums up atheists or unbelievers thus:
Who, then, is this person? He is not a skeptic at all (someone who, for want of solid reasons, refuses to commit)—he commits. He is not a lover of reason over passion—he chooses the possibilities he cares about because those are the ones he likes. He is not a skeptic who in the absence of evidence withholds belief—he is a believer.
I found the article a bit dense at times but on the whole very well articulated, in fact the best skepticism of atheism that I have read till date. It made me think quite a bit about my belief in atheism. Come to think about it, there are so many things in common between atheists and believers:
- We think to some extent about our own “faith”, but mostly we rely on either a consensus of what people of our faith believe, or some seers (or great minds) who have done deeper thining for us. We normally don’t go the whole hog ourselves.
- Both of us don’t have evidence to either prove or disprove each other. But in the absence of an answer, we go ahead with what we are comfortable with and commit to our beliefs, most probably not bothering too much in enquiring further.
I believe professor Tingely has a very important point to offer which I am beginning to agree with, the more I think of it - the correct “faith” for a person who believes in science, logic and rationality, is Agnosticism, not Atheism. For being an atheist is to stop seeking. And whether it is the meaning of life, or God or the medicine for AIDS/Cancer, how can you find conquer new frontiers if you have stopped seeking?
But even after having convincing arguments on a lot of points, it still did not answer one of the questions that I always had - why should one be looking for this answer at all? What is all this frenzy about finding the “one larger being above us all”? Why should one perform such a spiritual quest at all? As in the words of Isaac Asimov -
I have never, in all my life, not for one moment, been tempted toward religion of any kind. The fact is that I feel no spiritual void. I have my philosophy of life, which does not include any aspect of the supernatural and which I find totally satisfying. I am, in short, a rationalist.
The conclusion to that statement might be debatable, and Edward Tingle has also partially talked about this line of thought, but professor’s article still doesn’t answer my question fully.
(Reference to prof. tingle’s article found here)
10 responses so far ↓
Zacharias // May 27, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Good article, I too have marveled sometimes at how some atheists use almost the same arguments to defend their disbelief as theists do to defend theirs!
I do have a serious question for you though, something that I have found curious for a long time: I might be just seeing a small side of it, but why do so many atheists seem to be obsessed with religion? If they don’t believe in it at all, then why spend so much time and energy talking about it?
Sandip Bhattacharya // May 27, 2008 at 10:36 pm
There might be some atheists who feel the need to “enlighten” the misguided faith loyals. In this regard they are not too different from the religious advocates.
But for most part, the atheists that I know, generally keep their views to themselves. Some like me, believe that faith is an important strength in the lives of the devout. Why take that away as long as it doesn’t take them “astray”?(In our cases, astray means performing harmful acts out of blind superstition). Some, partly me, don’t mention our views so that we don’t offend our otherwise devout family. And most of us, have chosen our position solely so that we do not need to be obsessed with faith. So, based on my, perhaps limited, experience of atheist people that I know, I do not thing we are obsessed or find the need to repeatedly talk about religion.
Of course, introspection is a part of everybody’s life. And many like to write aloud their otherwise private introspection of this part of their life. Maybe that might lead you to believe that we are obsessed with religion.
Rishi // May 28, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Sandeep sir, you should read this:
http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm
Wonderful essay written by Bertrand Russell
抱朴 // May 29, 2008 at 12:02 am
Nice article and nice review. However I noticed you said:
“He points out the mindset from where Pascal and other atheists begin their attempts at discovery”
Pascal was not an atheist; he was actually an unabashed theist at a time when it was becoming increasingly popular to become atheist in intellectual circles.
抱朴 // May 29, 2008 at 12:04 am
Forgot to add—if you feel you have to articulate a faith, I would suggest you describe yourself as a Humanist rather than an agnostic. You certainly sound like you have faith in humanity, and in humanity’s ability to know truth.
Sandip Bhattacharya // May 29, 2008 at 12:06 am
Thanks Baopu, for pointing that out. My mistaken assumption from the way the article was written.
Sandip Bhattacharya // May 29, 2008 at 12:49 am
I am not sure I can say I have faith in humanity. Yes, I am of the view that there are more good people than bad in this world. Yes, I know that man is capable of great things. And yes, in most circumstances, I would trust an unknown person before he/she gives me a reason not to.
But saying “I have a faith in humanity” to me is saying that I trust the judgment of the human kind to do good or to inspire good in others. Sadly, I do not have this trust as much as I want to. Humanity has shown itself time and again to be capable of enormous bad as well as good.
At the risk of sounding somewhat contradictory, I believe in being a humanitarian, and at the same time looking up to humanity and expecting it to break my heart from time to time.
抱朴 // May 29, 2008 at 1:13 am
That is a very practical attitude to adopt toward humanity, and it is quite similiar to my own stance. I don’t think it’s contradictory at all—as you say, humans can act with great compassion and intelligence but we can also be destructive and ignorant. The potential for both is always present.
Jeffrey Shallit // June 3, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Actually, I found Tingley’s article to be embarrassingly bad. You can read my response here:
http://tinyurl.com/4l7xfl
Ed Statue // July 30, 2008 at 1:22 am
I often thought of atheism as being as ridiculously absolute as theism…and though the author was right about that, I have to agree with Jeff that the article as a whole wasn’t dense but insubstantial fluff.
The author doesn’t say anything of any consequence until the very end, though he does a good job of selecting some of the shakier Dawkins quotes.
Bah humbug.
Leave a Comment