But don't almost all of us, at some time or another, engage in magical thinking? Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief. Cell biologist Lewis Wolpert has recently attained a measure of notoriety with the British public, primarily through the publication of his book Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief Faber, He also participated in a recent public debate on the existence of God with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. The debate was hosted by the well-known journalist John Humphrys, and reported by him in a major article for the Daily Telegraph.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
Professor Wolpert, who is a vice president of the British Humanist Association, admits, 'I stopped believing in God when I was fifteen or sixteen because he didn't give me what I asked for' 2 but he has subsequently and repeatedly justified his atheism by asserting that, 'There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God.
Relying on the 'Insufficient Evidence' objection is a risky gambit for the atheist. As philosopher William Rowe observes, 'To fail to provide any arguments for the non-existence of God is Such atheism cannot afford to be dogmatic, for 'even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. According to Robert A. Harris, 'a common sense look at the world, with all its beauty, apparent design, meaning, and vibrancy, would seem to predispose a neutral observer to presume that God exists unless good evidence for his non-existence could be brought to bear … The fact that materialists often struggle with this issue, working to explain away the design of the creation, for example, would seem to back up this claim.
If they cannot come up with good reasons, then we should reject the belief. However, by 'atheism' Flew meant merely 'non-theism' — a non-standard definition of 'atheism' that includes agnosticism but excludes atheism as commonly understood. The presumption of atheism is, therefore, not particularly interesting unless as with Richard Norman explicitly and Lewis Wolpert implicitly it really is the presumption of atheism rather than the presumption of agnosticism.
However, the former is far harder to defend than the latter. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements 'God exists' and 'God does not exist' in the same manner.
Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast | W. W. Norton & Company
The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God's existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something 'God does not exist' as theism 'God exists'. Even if arguments for God's existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is.
Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence. As Scott Shalkowski writes: Time and again I've heard people say that they don't believe in God because they think there is insufficient evidence for His existence. If the person saying this is an atheist one who thinks that God doesn't exist, that 'God exists' is a false statement , then they imply that they do have enough evidence for their atheism.
Clearly, if we reject belief in God due to alleged insufficient evidence, then we would be irrational to accept atheism if the evidence for God's non-existence were similarly insufficient. It would be a radical inconsistency. If theistic belief requires evidence, so must atheistic belief. If we have no evidence either way, then the logical conclusion would be agnosticism. There are, then, a number of serious problems with Wolpert's use of the 'Insufficient Evidence' claim to justify a default 'presumption of atheism'.
Despite these problems, the 'Insufficient Evidence' objection to theism is widely used by contemporary atheists. The 'Insufficient Evidence' objection can be traced back to Bertrand Russell. Asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on the judgement day being asked, 'Why didn't you believe in me? Mencken on the other hand, who answered essentially the same question by saying: As Piers Benn acknowledges, 'since some theistic religions teach that sin can impair our thinking, we risk begging the question against those religions if we assume that if we can see no good reason for believing them, then they are almost certainly false.
According to Richard Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion, 17 if one examines natural theology, 'the arguments turn out to be spectacularly weak. Wilson, declares with more caution than Dawkins or Wolpert that: Lewis called 'chronological snobbery'.
Starting with the early Enlightenment figures, finding acute and more fully developed critiques in Hume and Kant, and carried through by their contemporary rational reconstructers e. Professor Wolpert likewise praises David Hume's scepticism, stating: What William Lane Craig calls 'the obsolete, eighteenth century objections of Hume and Kant' 25 have received substantial replies from contemporary philosophers. Sennett and Douglas Groothuis: Many contemporary philosophers give their endorsement to the project of natural theology, and while individual arguments for God may often be defended in more rigorously cautious terms than was the norm in medieval scholasticism, today's natural theology can hardly be called 'attenuated' when philosophers like Robert C.
Koons are prepared to say that, 'the evidence for theism has never been so clear and so strong as it is now. However, questioning the claim that there is insufficient evidence for God's existence is not the only way of responding to Wolpert's objection. Many philosophers question the assumption that it is necessarily irrational to believe in God in the absence of evidential justification. After all, there are plenty of other beliefs about reality that appear to be rational despite the complete absence of evidential justification e.
The ideas interview: Lewis Wolpert
In addition, the demand for evidence can neither be fulfilled ad infinitum i. Sam Harris is another prominent atheist who, like Wolpert, condemns theists for adhering to a belief without any evidential basis: On the one hand, few theists would concede Harris's assumption that their belief in God is predicated upon an absence of evidence. On the other hand, evidence is not always necessary for rational belief.
Contrary to Harris's statement, believing strongly without evidence is, in fact, considered a mark of rationality and common sense in many areas of life. For example, seriously doubting that the universe is older than five minutes old would rightly be considered a mark of madness or stupidity by most people.
What is Kobo Super Points?
But the belief that the universe is older than this, rather than having been created five minutes ago complete with every empirical appearance of greater age a belief held by Harris , must by the very nature of the case be accepted without evidential support. Hence, 'being rational' and 'having evidential support' cannot be one and the same thing.
It is all well and good to demand that people hold all their beliefs rationally for example, we shouldn't pick our beliefs at random and we shouldn't hold them in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence , but there is little sense in demanding that people hold all their beliefs on the basis of evidence. Harris writes that, 'An atheist is simply a person who believes that [theists] should be obliged to present evidence for [God's] existence. On the other hand, how would one ever satisfy this demand? This means that the basic 'not enough evidence' argument deployed by Dawkins, Harris, Wolpert and other atheists is unsound because it is built upon a false premise.
As philosopher John O'Leary-Hawthorne points out, 'The basic argument from no evidence relies on the idea that in order to rationally believe something we need evidence for it.
- A Walking Tour of Bristol, Connecticut (Look Up, America!)?
- A Good Villain.
- Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief!
- Reward Yourself.
- First Meeting.
- Best Ghost and Horror Stories (Dover Horror Classics).
But from the perspective of many philosophers, the latter claim represents a gross oversimplification. For example, we often find ourselves with perceptual beliefs e. Then again, I simply remember drinking coffee with friends yesterday; I don't argue my way to the conclusion that I had coffee with friends yesterday based upon the available evidence. Despite the fact that my memory has proven unreliable on some occasions something I only know through memory , there is no need for me to obtain independent evidence as to whether or not I drank coffee with friends yesterday in order for my belief in this matter to be rational.
The truthful nature of my memory in this matter is one of my 'basic' beliefs. Fundamental moral beliefs are likewise basic beliefs: At this level one reaches one's basic moral beliefs. There are, for example, elementary truths of logic … There are certain mathematical beliefs. And there are certain framework or fundamental beliefs such as belief in an external world , belief in the self , etc. These are foundational beliefs that we typically reason from and not to'. While he doesn't discount religious belief, Wolpert says that science offers the most reliable beliefs about how the world works.
- Sraffa and Modern Economics Volume I: 1 (Routledge Studies in the History of Economics).
- Book Details.
- See a Problem?!
Wolpert's reflections ask us to reconsider how we look at the world every day. View Full Version of PW. Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: More By and About This Author.