New Atheism - A Survival Guide by Graham Veale
Chapter 1 -
How to Slay a Spaghetti Monster - Atheists are good at ridiculing the Christian's position of faith. They use this tactic all-to-often making it laughable that anyone would be a person of faith. They start with this and then take marks at certain points of faith, but they start with belittling the subject. They present that no rational human being would have a belief in God equating belief in God to a piece of pasta.
[In this world of tolerance it is interesting that the persecution of the church is rampant, possibly because people of faith put forth a division of secular-spiritual, Christian-non-Christian dichotomy of sorts. The world seems to be bent on the idea that all spiritual people are the same and to that end being religious is now an affront to this type of thinking. The world thinks that it is okay to be religious as long as everyone believes the same thing and religion is kind to society's ideals.]
Dawkins claims that since there is no rational evidence of God then the default belief holds true - atheism.
We are physical beings living in a physical universe, so does our knowledge of this universe rule out any transcendent and non-physical entities or is agnosticism (definition: existence of God unknowable) the only sensible conclusion?
History teaches us to prefer simple explanations or hypothesis. Theism seems to be a simple hypothesis teaching that one God with limitless power is the foundation for everything that exists. It's not only simple but this explanation explains something about our universe. And theism seeks to explain things about the purposed activity in our universe -- why good and evil are real and present and the reason for suffering. Therefore, saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a fairy tale or ghosts are an accurate comparison is incorrect because those things don't purport to define our universe.
Chapter 2 -
Science falls into a Gap - Only a few heed the call by a prophet. When Moses parted the red sea, only a remnant followed him. In movies, a scientist often follows this path. In Close Encounters of the Third Kind, a scientist (Richard Dreyfus) investigates UFO's; he sees something that others don't and comes upon a small relic of people gathering together to witness this encounter from aliens (not of this world).
Why the shift in Hollywood and society to the scientist? The scientist became the problem-solver. Engineers and inventors brought about the machine, replacing the power of man and beast (horse) and the notion was that science rather than man began to answer more and more of our questions. Yet, science was still a product of man and didn't disprove religion; many saw it making religion unnecessary and atheism loved this.
Scientism or
Dogmatic Scientism is the belief or worldview that physical science answers every question or every eventual question. Scientism is more akin to philosophy than scientific theory. However, there is a difference between saying "science answers questions" and "science answers every question." Literature, history and philosophy teach that science does not explain everything.
- Are people only products of their environment, their genetics and life experiences?
- Can people be held accountable for their actions?
- Are we agents or persons that have purposes and can act on them or are we only products?
Science is impersonal. It is based on observation and as events occur, there is measurement of how events follow other events and this in turn helps explain events. For example, in determining Mars' (the planet) current location, there is the study of the solar system and where planets reside and also the law of gravity - to conclude and explain the location of mars. Yet people (agents) are personal, are individuals and we don't observe one person's actions to then explain another person's actions or movements.
Yet, some do think humans are not agents but instead a product of genetic nature, of a person's environment, and of a person's life experience. There is no choice in behavior, but rather events happen and as they do, we react and act. But, then how can a person be held accountable for their actions?
An example of this comparison - scientific explanation vs personal explanation is from the movie Iron Giant about a robot that, sent to our planet to attack it but upon its arrival, hurts its skull and thus wipes out its programming. A boy, Hogarth, who finds it, tries to hide it from the paranoid government but eventually the government catches up to the giant. In the struggle, Hogarth is knocked unconscious, but the giant thinks the boy is dead and this triggers his programming and he attacks those trying to seize him. Now the giant follows its programming to attack the planet. Then Hogarth comes back into the giant's life and tells him "You are who you choose to be!" The giant flies into an incoming missile, kills himself, but saves his friend and his friend's planet. So at one point the giant is at the mercy of his programming, but once he interacts with a human, the Giant acts as an agent and not a machine.
God-of-the-Gaps
Thus far:
scientific explanations - explain events by appealing to impersonal laws and objects
agent explanations - appeal to the purposes and abilities of persons
Dawkins said in the past we appealed to religion to explain events we did not know about but now we can get answers solely from science because science defines and governs nature. Science explained God away.
Think of Princess (Lady) Diana and the possible reasons for her death (car accident in an underpass by the River Seine) in 1997. Diana at the time was dating a Muslim man. British conservatism was horrified by their courtship. Both die in the crash. Complex conspiracy theories gave way to a simple explanation of a tragic accident. The evidence is complex and starts to seem irrational. In the first chapter, we said if a complex theory can be avoided it should be.
After research, the conclusion was the driver had been drinking a lot, the passengers (Lady Di and boyfriend) were not wearing seat belts and the driver was trying to escape the paparazzi and drove dangerously. Thus, the hypothesis explains away the need for a complex conspiracy theory.
New Atheists believe that science now explains away any evidence for the existence of God. For example, Newton said God guaranteed the predictable order of the planets, but then LaPlace showed we don't need this hypothesis. William Paley believed that God designed the body plans of complex organisms, but Darwin could do this without divine tinkering.
Key thought -- One explanation can explain another away only when the two explanations are incompatible.
But theism and science are not incompatible. Our universe is ordered by a rational agent and the science proves this. In the example of Lady Di, the conspiracy theory speaks of the power of the media, but this helps to understand why the accident took place. Thus, they work together, and are not incompatible. Theism and science are compatible because theism encourages us to seek laws and mechanisms out; they are not in conflict.
Explaining the Bloodlands
Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews of Europe. Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, wanted to eliminate Jews. He set up Belzec, in Poland, not as a concentration camp, but an extermination camp, where hundreds of thousands were transported to the gas chambers and die within a few hours of arrival. Himmler's opportunism does not explain away Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust, rather they confirm it.
---- April 2023 -- I finally finished this book. Never did post this summary and obviously wish I would have done a summary on each chapter, but going ahead and submitting this.
