I really wasn’t going to comment on the recent disagreement that seems to have erupted among folks in the online atheist community. It stems from this tweet from Peter Boghossian, author of “A Manuel for Creating Atheists:”
Taylor Carr has chimed in in sharp disagreement, calling Boghossian the “Deepak Chopra of Atheism:”
Many of the most devastating critiques of religion have come from philosophers of religion. The field may have a majority of religious believers in it, but there have been quite a few notable atheists published in philosophy of religion journals, too, such as J.L. Mackie, Paul Draper, Ted Drange, Graham Oppy, Erik Wielenberg, Stephen Maitzen, and William Rowe. Theistic philosophers have also done their share of worthwhile criticism of theistic arguments, among which would be Tim and Lydia McGrew for their attack on fine-tuning, as well as Wes Morriston for his work against the cosmological argument.
These philosophers who Boghossian would exclude from “the adult table” are far more deserving of those seats than Peter and (many of) his New Atheist buds. I say this not just because of Boghossian’s childish behavior, but also because each of them writes on an academic level that just is miles above the others. Many of the arguments against god proliferated in atheist circles today are owed to these philosophers of religion. Dr. Boghossian frankly doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and his principal objection seems to stem solely from the fact that “religion” is part of the philosophy of religion name.
I’ve seen a few comments on Facebook calling Boghossian “our version” of young earth creationists, saying that he almost seems like a viral marketing gimmick for the God’s Not Dead film. To this I’ll add that he’s like the Deepak Chopra of atheism. Chopra is a new age ‘guru’ who spouts wisdom that’s eaten up by his followers, yet is less wisdom than it is gibberish. In similar fashion, Boghossian plays to an audience that he knows, one that disdains anything and everything remotely connected to religion. These “cultured despisers” of religion, as Schleiermacher once called them, are quite happy to agree with whatever fits the us vs. them narrative they’ve constructed, along with its clear emphasis on the inherent and unavoidable evils of religion, while little things like arguments, facts, and honest dialogue take a backseat.
And Ed Brayton, from Free Thought Blogs, reposted parts of Carr’s post in agreement.
On the flip side, former pastor John Loftus has written a blog post in defense of Boghossian (so has Chris Hallquist). Loftus concluded:
I’ve spoken with Peter and he stands by what he said, although he didn’t exactly say why. Let me try to be charitable with him.
The only reason the philosophy of religion exists is because there are people who believe without sufficient evidence and seek to defend by logic what doesn’t have sufficient evidence for it. The only reason why atheist philosophers enter this discipline is because, as C.S.Lewis said, “Good philosophy must exist because bad philosophy must be answered.” In other words, if no one accepted anything based on insufficient evidence this discipline wouldn’t even exist.
When talking he and I agreed that we have no respect for a scientifically uninformed philosophy, or a scientifically uninformed philosophy of religion. But look at what this does. Any scientifically informed philosophy of religion authors worthy of the name are atheists, and they only enter in the field because of bad philosophy, the kind that Peter is writing about. So people who do bad philosophy of religion without sufficient evidence should be disqualified to sit at the proverbial adult table, and if this were to take place then the discipline might not even exist. After all, if there was no bad philosophy then good philosophy wouldn’t have to exist (per C.S. Lewis above). What we would have instead is neurology, physics, astronomy, psychology, etc.
Now, that’s the most charitable explanation of what Boghossian is saying. If I understand him correctly there is more meat to his tweet than first meets the eye. You can still disagree with him, of course, but his point is deeper than an uncharitable understanding might lead some people to conclude. At the very minimum he’s being a provocateur, which is good enough. At the most he’s calling for an end to scientifically uninformed philosophy of religion, perhaps in the same way as Dr. Hector Avalos has called for the end of biblical studies in his book on the subject. I fully support Avalos’s project so why wouldn’t I also fully support what Boghossian is probably saying? I do.
Now, I could be missing something in all of this, but are they all just arguing about semantics? The philosophy of religion is part of most, if not all public university philosophy programs in the nation, and as Carr points out, plenty of atheists are published in these studies, which obviously doesn’t just include theology, but the study of world religions, biblical scholarship, etc.
Why didn’t Boghossian just say “being published in theology should disqualify one from sitting at the adult table,” although I don’t know that I agree with either, but that would have at least avoided the confusion, if that’s really what he meant.
Simply dismissing people like William Lane Craig (or other theological “scholars” or whoever he had in mind) as “children” with childlike ideas, as Peter has implied, isn’t going to make them stop disseminating their faulty ideas to the public, and it’s highly unlikely that a tactic like that is going to lead anyone away from the fold or from faith. In fact, it seems to feed this perception that atheists are arrogant and hostile to people of faith, when we should be exuding a humbleness and willingness to engage in respectful dialogue.
How are we to convince anyone of the virtues of living a life free from faith if we begin with such an attitude? Further, Boghossian in his book suggests that his “street epistomologists” should engage with and challenge people’s ideas and not attack people of faith as individuals. But isn’t implying that adult believers are approaching the most important questions in life from a child’s perspective a form of insult? I fail to see how taking this approach is going to help people begin to question faith; I posit that it will only lead them further away from atheism, since it supports what religious leaders often erroneously tell them about nonbelievers, that we are insufferable, scathing, arrogant, know-it-alls.
Of course, as Loftus points out, if people did not see faith as a virtue, religion would not exist all, and the world would be a better place for it. But this is not the world in which we live, and we can only react to reality. It would be great if cancer did not exist, either, but we study cancer to try to figure out how to eradicate it. Likewise, an appreciation of world religions helps us understand the terrible mistakes mankind has made throughout history and hopefully ensures that the various human rights violations committed in religion’s name never happen again. Nonbelievers can also study religion and apologetics to get fuel for any discussions they might have with believers. Further, studying religion also exposes students to the numerous positive contributions that have been made in music, art and literature. Slavery was a terrible blight on mankind too; do we denounce American history professors as not being worthy of sitting at the adult table just because they teach students about the record of racism and oppression in this country?
I dare say that the world would be a slightly dimmer place without the graceful, museful pens of John Milton or John Donne. I, for one, can’t imagine a world without the majesty of “Paradise Lost.” In short, we can appreciate the music of Handel without believing in its message. We can marvel at the beauty of the Sistine Chapel without believing that angels are hovering in our midst. We can study religion, as many nonbelieving scholars do every single day, without being advocates for it.