Authored by: Mitchell LeBlanc.

Recently I authored an article criticizing the arguments given by the atheist in a debate on the Richard Dawkins Forums. Someone then posted a criticism of my criticism. Unfortunately, I don’t know the name of the poster so I will merely refer to him/her as TBB (The Barefoot Bum, as per his/her blog title). This will not be a long post but I felt it necessary to address some of the points made by this individual.

Assumptions?

The first criticism of the paper seems to be directed at Weaver, for his use of logical, metaphysical and epistemic assumptions. Hackenslash criticized Weaver for the same thing but unlike TBB he did not actually attempt to argue against any of them. At the very least TBB offers a reason for rejecting one of them, namely that a term was left undefined. Though, TBB makes an error that seems similar to Hack’s:

Also many of his logical and metaphysical assumptions assume the existence of possible worlds and reasoning about those worlds, elements that have not yet been tested empirically.

I’ve already addressed what is wrong with this in my criticism of Hackenslash, but perhaps it is worth repeating. Possible worlds need not have an ontological status which signifies existence, that is, we need not commit to modal realism to utilize the semantics. We can think of possible worlds as abstracta, or even concepts. Does TBB require empirical tests before he accepts all concepts? This seems absurd since, obviously, some concepts would be assumed in his empirical testing.

Thinking the Worst?

There also seems to be a tendency to view any person who represents a view opposite your own with a degree of skepticism regarding there motives. TBB states:

Any casual reader is more than justified on the form alone to treat the argument with agnosticism pending the detailed investigation by several disinterested experts as to its formal validity: Weaver might well be trying to baffle us with bullshi*…

Of course, it’s possible. But why should this be one’s default thinking pattern, that the opponent is simply trying to con them over to their own position. Is it not possible that philosophers, even those with opposite viewpoints, are interested in the rational pursuit of truth?

Causality

TBB makes an error in his next paragraph where he begins to talk about causality. TBB states:

Causality is not a metaphysical or philosophical concept, it is a scientific concept (emphasis TBB’s)

This is simply wrong. Nomological definition of causality are scientific concepts, yes, as with Hume’s definition. TBB’s statement fails to recognize Lewis’ definition of causation, for example, which evades his erroneous classification. TBB might want to read this and this to get brought up to speed.

Given this it is not up to me to address his criticisms of Weaver’s argument since I am not a proponent of the Cosmological Argument. I will only propose that when TBB says:

Indeed, it looks very much as if Weaver has just sexed up the old “first cause” argument with a lot of philosophical jargon.

we should be skeptical of any further lessons he/she attempts to give us on philosophy.

The New Atheists

TBB states:

LeBlanc then goes on to criticize Hackenslash’s post. LeBlanc is mostly correct about Hackenslash’s philosophical errors, but so what? It’s a pure ad hominem fallacy to draw any conclusions whatsoever about “New Atheists” as a class; we can conclude only that Hackenslash himself (?) is a sloppy philosopher. We require more than a single data point to draw even statistical generalities about “New Atheists”.

It would be more akin to a hasty generalization fallacy, as one previous commenter pointed out, than to an ad hominem but nevertheless I don’t think I’ve made such an error. Of course whenever we invoke a label for explanation we risk alienating some of the members but the point of my paper was that Hackenslash’s debate, coupled with Dawkins agreement with him on one central topic, and with the overwhelming rejoicing that was had at RDF following the debate, and based on my experiences with “New Atheists,” the folly of Hackenslash is not of Hackenslash alone. One is welcome to disagree, of course.

Definition of Atheism

TBB accuses me of beating a dead horse with my discussion of atheism, but I must simply respond that the horse does a lot of neighing for one which is dead. This issue doesn’t seem to be one that is settle (perhaps it never will be). Also, TBB wants to support his position of “lacking a belief in God” based on the unfalsifiability of the claim. Well, I think his position is covered somewhat by Ignosticism, a position I explicitly mentioned in my paper.

Empiricism and Science

TBB states:

Indeed we can infer that not only does LeBlanc consider Hackenslash’s view of empiricism to be typical, but also to be the best (or at least close to the best) form of empiricism possible, saying, “It is in fact, impossible for science to [disprove the existence of God] given it’s methodological restrictions.” This statement would be a complete nonsequitur if LeBlanc did not consider Hackenslash’s views to be not only typical but optimal.

I think this is simply false, empiricism is not science. One can be an empiricist and accept that God exists (look at Berkeley!). The equivocation which suggests that empiricism is science and vice versa is clearly wrong. While TBB might try to convince you that my rant is a rant against science, it is not. It is a rant against the misuse of scientific findings or methodology. Contrary to what TBB states of me, I do not think that the philosophy of science is “absurd, demonstrably false and wholly incoherent.” But I do think that Hackenslash’s epistemology is, and I do think that many of the New Atheist’s criticisms of religion are also (though one might replace ‘absurd’ with ‘irrelevant’).

Epistemology

I appreciate that TBB spent the time to explain that scientific empiricism is pragmatic, and that this isn’t necessarily a problem. But this is a methodological approach and I struggle to see how one can rationally build an entire worldview on a methodology. Hackenslash attempted to do so, it seems, but failed miserably. Science is indeed a tool invoked within worldviews for various pragmatic purposes. The problem arises when one attempts to make science itself a worldview, it simply is not.

TBB further states:

LeBlanc’s subsequent objection goes beyond ordinary philosophical bullshit into egregious stupidity: scientific empiricism, “might even force him to accept theism should it be successfully shown that theism is a superior explanation that ‘works better.’” That’s not an argument against scientific epistemology, that’s what it’s actually for: to force us to believe counter-intuitive statements. Do you think I wantto believe that Quantum Mechanics is true? Of course not! It’s horrible! Classical mechanics is much nicer. But scientific empiricism forces me to believe it. If theism does indeed “work better”, if it is indeed a simpler way of precisely predicting and explaining the specific experiences we actually experience out of the range of logically possible experiences we might have, then we would indeed be forced to accept theism.

Here I think that he/she has simply misunderstood me. I am not and would not propose that one takes the existence of God as a scientific explanation, rather if they are to take it in any manner it should be as an explanation of the science. That is, my view on this matter would be very Swinburnean but when I made the statement quoted above it was in specific regard to Hackenslash giving a justification for his epistemology that amounts to “well, it works!”

Conclusion

So far I’ve been called an ‘ignoramus’ by Hackenslash and now, ‘egregiously stupid’ and a ‘bad philosopher’ by TBB. On both accounts I’ve been misunderstood and misrepresented and if TBB stands as another example of a “New Atheist” I remain sorely unimpressed.