Huxley Quote

"[T]he question as to what Jesus really said and did is strictly a scientific problem, which is capable of solution by no onther methods than those practised by the historian and the literary critic."

T.H. Huxley, 'Agnosticism', 1889

The Atheist's Guide to Reality: A Review

Rosenberg, Alex. The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions. New York: Norton, 2011.

At first look the title is perhaps what one would expect to adorn a book featuring similar content to Richard Dawkins', The Magic of Reality. Instead of that, Rosenberg offers a treatise on 'where to from the assumption of God's non-existence'. Linking this to the previous post I thought Rosenberg's intention would have been better suited if he had labelled the book, Beyond Atheism.

Rosenberg is open about the fact that this book does not aim to provide arguments for atheism or disproof of the divine. Recent attempts at such (Dawkins - The God Delusion, and Hitchens - God is Not Great) he sees as showing "relative lack of originality" because the arguments they present "have been around for quite some time and achieved little effect" (i.e. they have not wiped out theism) [p.x]. In this regard I believe he misses the point of what was offered by those books. Yes, the arguments they listed and discuss have existed for upwards of a century. However, outside of academic or learned circles many of the arguments are not known (or known only in a poorly vulgarised form). Therefore, the work of Dawkins, Hitchens, and their colleagues may be regarded more as popularisation than any effort at providing new arguments. That task alone is a significant one at a time when broad education is sorely lacking.

What then does Rosenberg see as the purpose of his book? Aiming at those who already consider God's non-existence to be established, Rosenberg seeks to rehabilitate the term 'scientism' as a replacement for 'atheism', seeing the latter as too much of a "public relations problem" [p.5]. This is a rather odd choice as scientism is equally pejorative, connoting an ideological adherence to science as the only epistemological process of value. Often this is extended to imply that all that can be known is known by the available tools and theories of science as they currently stand. This is very close to the way that Rosenberg argues in suggesting that the answers to "persistent questions" (meaning of life etc) are provided with answers by science but these answers are rejected on more or less grounds of taste and tradition.

Here we see that the title is a little erroneous. The book deals largely with providing a positive identity (scientistic people - those who believe science provides the only reliable answers) as opposed to a negative one (atheists - those who do not believe in God). Directly reiterating the point I mentioned above, Rosenberg writes, "Our project is not to provide another argument for atheism, but to explore the God-free reality." [p.82] Much of this extends little further than suggestions for a nihilistic moral code (the only one Rosenberg sees as validated by science), and waxing on the meaninglessness of history and human life.

There are a few more qualms worth mentioning. Firstly, Rosenberg seems to have things around the wrong way. He suggests that this endorsement of science follows from the acceptance of atheism. Rather, I believe it more accurate to argue that atheism is a logical outgrowth of science - just one of the many implications of the findings that have thus far been made. Secondly, there are moments of lax consistency with regards to historical matters. In one chapter Isaac Newton is lauded for driving divine purpose out of physics [p.44], but subsequently it is stated that Newton viewed "the laws he discovered [as] God's commands to the universe" [p.84]. Newton is a complex figure due to his own occult and (idiosyncratic) theological leanings; too complex in fact to be invoked in Rosenberg's argument. Even now physics is the primary scientific recourse for those who want a little extra validation with their theistic beliefs. Finally, I found his discussions of C.P. Snow's 'Two Cultures' to be less than nuanced, and thought that his treatment of the subject implied giving a pseudo-priestly authority to scientists.

Overall the book suffers from a lack of clarity. The lucid writing that one finds in Sagan and Dawkins is sadly lacking here. I genuinely mean sadly as I think Rosenberg's idea is a particularly interesting one that only falls short in its execution.

Although he did not intend to provide further arguments for atheism, it was a point that could well be considered such an argument which I found most intriguing. Usually when entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is mentioned with regards to evolution it as a refutation of Darwin's grand idea. Rosenberg however, argues persuasively that entropy and chaos is a benefit to evolution on the molecular level: the random distribution of molecules and the lack of any inevitable outcome providing the stage for random occurrences that eventually lead to the development of complex organisms sufficient opportunity to occur despite the low probabilities.

I would not suggest this book to anyone looking for an easy read. Those who do read it bear in mind that you must bring many elements of existing knowledge with you (for examples, there is no clear description of the Second Law that would render it explicable for absolute beginners).

More Agnostic or Atheist

Agnosticism, by its very conceptual status as a statement of uncertainty, implies there is a reasonable probability of either position - atheism or theism - being true. That probability doesn't have to be 50/50, it just needs to be enough to provide each position with credibility. No reasonable probability of theism's accuracy exists. That is to say, no arguments or evidence provide a compelling enough case to make theism a viable option. More than the mere fact of possibility is required to leave one undecided. Therefore agnosticism is an inappropriate position to hold.

I agree with Lovecraft's take on the situation:

"In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of rational evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. The chance's of theism's truth being to my mind so microscopically small, I would be a pedant and a hypocrite to call myself anything else."

However, I also concur with Penn Jillette's sentiments as expressed in The Portable Atheist (a compendium of work put together by the late Christopher Hitchens). Specifically I am thinking of his statement about being "beyond atheism". Not believing in God is a starting point that allows one to move beyond the metaphysical confines of archaic culture and open up new vistas of thinking, feeling, and life experience.

Atheism is not an identity. It is a position held in the context of a certain debate - an answer to a very specific question. It doesn't even cover every notion of God nor belief in the supernatural. It neither provides nor supplements anything beyond one's stance as to the existence of the theistic God.

A HPL Quote for 29 Feb

"...when I found the poets and artists to be loud-voiced pretenders whose quaintness is tinsel and whose lives are a denial of all that beauty which is poetry and art, I stayed on for love of these venerable things."

Dawkins the Agnostic?

During the course of his discussion with the archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins described himself as an agnostic (i.e he doesn't know whether or not God exists). Superficially this is a fine sentiment to have. The agnostic position is somewhat distorted nowadays because it is used by those with a sense of humility towards knowledge (such as Richard Dawkins) and those who simply do not want to express an opinion or be held to having to prove their case.

Agnosticism was intellectually invented by T.H. Huxley. Formerly the position that Huxley used it to describe was called negative atheism. Negative atheism is the position that there is no evidence for the existence of God. One holds it by expressing a view that all the arguments for the existence of God are inconclusive. However, it does leave open the possibility of new evidence changing that assessment. So it is effectively a 'provisional undecided' vote.

What I found disheartening about the subsequent comments was that there was no firm line drawn between a particular conception of God (in this case, Christian views) and the broad notion of a "supernatural creator". I say above that agnosticism is superficially fine because if it were the most general notion that were in debate it would be impossible to totally refute the claim that the universe was created by a being outside of nature. This does not translate to not being able to disprove particular beliefs or conceptions though. There is ample evidence that the God of Christianity (and the various deities of other faiths) are mythological constructions. Therefore one could rightly challenge the assertion of a particular God's existence with the purpose of disproving that claim.