Through a Mirror Reflectively

I don't read self-help books, though I have perused some. As far as I could tell from my brief survey, much of the material appears to comprise regurgitated advice, reassembled in the latest book that purports to offer new insights. This sales strategy, of course, employs a fallacious appeal to novelty. Perhaps some of the insights are novel and I simply have not examined enough books to determine this, but how many psychological wisdoms could be discoverable?

The books often illustrate their "pearls of wisdom" by way of anecdotal tales about the follies and triumphs of individuals struggling with a range of problems. It strikes me that self-help books provide mirrors. The reader is able to identify with particular elements of these tales and to benefit from self-critique, or more helpfully, from inspiration. Because the stories could not possibly be personally directed at the reader, the person seeking help is safe to identify with anecdotal mistakes without feeling personally criticized and demoralized, or becoming defensive and resorting to self-justification.

What does any of this have to do with atheism?

Many who attack the tactics of the New Atheists say that nobody changes their mind because they have been directly called a fool. I'd agree with this – to say, "you are an idiot to believe that, so you must change your mind!" is scarcely a convincing argument for the truth value of the alternative belief advocated.

In fact, to do so would be very much like the tactics that theists too often use to try to convince atheists to convert to theism:

a) "You can't be a good moral person if you don't acknowledge His existence and let God into your heart."
b) "You are merely spitefully / fearfully / stubbornly / rebelliously / selfishly denying the God who you really believe really exists."
c) "You do not want to believe in God because you selfishly don't want to submit to God's will."
d) "You cannot not believe in God – the fact that so many believe in God proves that they must be right."
e) "You are being arrogant if you claim that your scientific understanding is valid and deny that the Bible version is the Truth."

However, theists have also heard until recently – almost unopposed – believer-targetted versions of these messages:

a) "You can't be a good moral person if you don't acknowledge His existence and let God into your heart."
b) "Those who refuse to believe in Our Savior are merely spitefully / fearfully / stubbornly / rebelliously / selfishly denying the God who we must believe really exists."
c) "Those who do not want to believe in God do do because they selfishly don't want to submit to God's will."
d) "You must believe in God – the fact that so many believe in God proves that we must be right."
e) "Atheists are being arrogant when they claim that scientific understanding is valid and deny that the Bible version is the Truth."

I did not even need to alter a) and merely rephrased b) - d). There are many more examples, all fallacious, most of which include appeals to emotion.

Many theists know little of the actual dogma that they ascribe to, little of the arguments that purport to "prove" God's existence, and much less of the history of their religion. All that many Christians "know" is that they have been told that the Bible is literally true and that abundant evidence and proofs exist. Most such people are not looking for empirical information so as to rationally reevaluate their beliefs. They will seek only information that confirms what they wish to believe, and will deride any dissonant information. Some will stubbornly entrench deeper into comforting ignorance.

Until the upsurge of vocal atheism, few believers doubted for a minute that their version of reality was the dominant one. Many resist reevaluating the veridicality of their views.

When theists read that some theists display less than stellar intellects in remaining deluded, like the readers of self-help books they probably assume that the speaker is referring to theists other than themselves. When the science-ignorance of creationism is mentioned, creationists resort to saying that scientists have made errors in the past, so scientists must be mistaken again. When the bigotry and small-minded hatreds of some fundamentalists are exposed, fundamentalists protest that they personally are actually "Evangelical Christians" and not fundamentalists.

Some theists even pretend that religious critics are referring to different dogma and different apologetics than that which they espouse. When core Christian beliefs are called deluded, many Christians say that the critic should not categorize all Christians together, or they resort to the ever-popular accusation that the critic is just not sufficiently well acquainted with doctrine. Similarly, when atheists say that they do not accept the evidence that is claimed to "prove" the existence of supernatural agents, many theists make the category error of claiming that the atheist is not sufficiently well acquainted with religious dogma.

So, despite the fact that it is nonproductive to personally call a theist a fool – for holding religious beliefs to represent literal truth or to be the only route to morality or happiness – any irrrational basis of such claims must be challenged. Unless indoctrinated individuals repeatedly read that the intelligent position does not include adherence to deluded mythologies, inculcated dogma will maintain its anti-rational grip on the minds of those herded into sanctuary from reality. Like the lessons in self-help books, doubts raised by indirect, impersonal messages are more easily considered in private, enabling the more rational amongst the indoctrinated to reconsider the evidence.




apologetics, atheism, Christianity, creationism, fundamentalism, religion, theism,

Immaterial to the Case

Fallacious arguments based on the sheer numbers of the deluded, threats of hellfire for infidels, pseudoscience, denial of science, denial that the supposed designer is God, emotional apologetic arguments, hypocritical anti-homosexual speeches by televangelists who pay for male prostitutes, cover-up of pedophilic molestation by priests, out of context quotations and misquotes, deceitful editing of videos, supposed deathbed conversions (Pascal's wager purportedly triumphs again), false claims by theists of having converted from atheism, scientists signing disclaimers against Darwinian explanations, false attributions of theistic beliefs to prominent scientists and now seduction of a confused old philosopher. The list could go on and on.

What do such things prove? Certainly nothing about the philosophical truth value of deism, theism, or atheism. Many of these acts do demonstrate something about the moral fiber (or lack thereof) exhibited by intelligent design creationists and theists.



YT link .

The latest scandal concerns the apparent usurpation of eighty-four year old Anthony Flew's failing faculties and moderately prominent name by a group of alleged scoundrels who have apparently put theistic words into this published atheist's mouth. Even if these men, through their friendship with Flew, have succeeded in changing Flew's opinion on the possibility of a deity, this proves nothing about whether or not a deity exists.

In a strategy reminiscent of gathering vultures, Flew has been contacted by a flock of religious apologists and Christian institutions.

Mark Oppenheimer makes it appear likely in his New York times article, that Christian apologist Roy Abraham Varghese (below left), assisted perhaps by Christian philosopher John Haldane (below center), and by Orthodox Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder (below right) have taken advantage of the foundering of Flew's once considerable intellect. (Haldane and Schroeder debated Flew in a DVD entitled, “Has Science Discovered God?” The DVD ends with an infomercial for Varghese's book, “The Wonder of the World.”)

Gary Habermas has also hovered in the wings. He is a Christian apologist and professor at Liberty University (which was founded by right-wing conservative televangelist Jerry Falwell). The failing Flew was also courted by Biola University, a conservative Christian school outside Los Angeles, which awarded Flew the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth. For anyone not familiar with Johnson, he is a lawyer turned proponent of ID creationism.

Publication of "Flew's" supposed turn-around book–with Roy Abraham Varghese cited as coauthor–excited considerable suspicion that Varghese had actually written the entire book. Richard Carrier concludes of Varghese's "Flew" book:

"All this makes this book a grand and shameless lie, a clear violation of God's commandment against bearing false witness."

Varghese admits that the book was his idea, and that Varghese wrote it with the assistance of ghostwriter, Bob Hostetler, an evangelical pastor and author from Ohio. Cynthia DiTiberio, book editor at publisher HarperOne considered a ghostwriter for the project essential. Varghese claims that "Tony" (who is reportedly unaware of much of the content) OKed the book. Says Varghese:

"The only reason why people ask questions about his mental faculties is because he dared to change his mind. But let’s not forget that his new view of the world is one embraced by many of today’s leading philosophers in the Anglo-American world as well as most of the pioneers of modern science. This is the dirty little secret that the “new atheists” and their drum-beaters never talk about. It’s so much easier to shoot the messenger!"

If that is the usual caliber of Varghese's writing, I cannot imagine that the book will attract any readers but theists.

A political theist complains of Oppenheimer's article, "All the strange birds of the materialist faith certainly will flap about madly now and land gratefully on it. "

Undoubtedly! However, regardless of Flew's actual or beguiled beliefs, this proves nothing either way about the possibility of existence or nonexistence of the supernatural entity that theists refuse to relinquish to reason and evidence.

Most atheists seem to be taking a position much like mine–that it is deplorable to take advantage of an ageing man, yet that Flew's apparent 'change of mind' signifies nothing about the philosophical principles underlying the God/NoGod debate. I doubt that the perpetrators of this apparent mental embezzlement are concerned to change atheists' minds on the God question. Instead they probably expected to provide succor to offended theists who are upset at vocal questioning of their belief systems.

Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog links to an "exclusive" interview with Anthony Flew that appears on ToTheSource. I used quotes because I admit to a distrust of the honest of political theists such as the ID crowd.

The Anti-Discovery Institute came up with a misapplied title "The Cuckoo Ones Over Flew’s Nest", which attempts to distance DI from complicity by asserting, "Flew seems to have read a couple of DI-affiliated philosophers. But reading the Nickerson article, you don’t see any direct references by Flew to Discovery scientists." The author of this brief piece complains that the New York Times' editorial policy that "has not covered any news that might damage Darwinism, at least not since a writer on its Science page a few years back acknowledged that some of the standard textbook proofs employed to bolster Darwin’s theory are false. (That reporter is now in Iraq.)" Um, great news on the policy and reporters are moved around, but what does that have to do with the issue at hand? The great title is misapplied because it better describes the rather nefarious activities of the religious apologists in question.

Not surprisingly, RC apologist Denyse O'Leary informs us that anonymous friends consider the Varghese . . er, Flew . . book 'excellent'. Now, there's a deft way of reviewing a book that you haven't read!

Articles Elsewhere : Atlantic The Case of Antony Flew : Richard Carrier Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of : Was atheist's conversion a sign of dementia? : Roy Varghese's response in There is a God, Or Is There? : Los Angeles Times Stalin was an atheist – so am I :

Blogs Elsewhere: Blog Search : Richard Carrier Antony Flew's Bogus Book : Pharyngula Roy Varghese and the exploitation of Antony Flew, Another blithering ignoramus against science: Roy Varghese, Add Lee Strobel to your list of contemptible ghouls : Daylight Atheism The Exploitation of Antony Flew : Panda's Thumb Yet More on Antony Flew’s “Conversion” : Gene Expression Of feeling, God and Anthony Flew : Metaphysician "The Turning of an Atheist" : Gruntled Center Antony Flew, Deist : Stranger Fruit Flew's Eugenic Leanings : a book review suppressed by Amazon.com and Antony Flew's new book in which Hallq says "I have contacts with national freethought activists, who I will ask to encourage others to boycott Amazon.com" : Update on Antony Flew : Antony Flew: exit, accompanied by ghost : Anthony Flew : On Antony Flew and Authority : Picking Hypotheses, and an exposé of Gerald Schroeder in Unholy Alliance : Antony Flew's new book : Anthony Flew's Conversion : I have no words : Except ye be Converted and Become as Little Children : Antony Flew: Atheist Apostate to tell all in new book? : Desperate Attempts to Promote Religion : Desperate Measures :



atheism, apologetics, atheism, deism, theism, religion, Anthony Flew,

Dan Dennett at AAIC '07

Dan starts talking at around 17:20 into the first video, should you want to skip the introductions.
This video has Dan giving an interesting exposition on the fear of 'reflective' theists that atheism really could bring society to a crashing halt in a catastrophic collapse. Perhaps these paranoiacs ought to take a vacation in Norway (cartoon).



In the second video, Dennett discusses the likelihood of disbelief in self-proclaimed 'believers', the "Nancy Drew" conversion phenomenon, "brights" and "supers" and "murkys" (mysterians such as Tom Nagel), coming out of the atheist closet, Concorde fallacies, John Updike, Belief in Belief, weathering of the God concept and doctrinal tweaking towards deism, "they've been on the run for 1,000 years", the embarrassing New Apologetics tricks such as 'witnessing' and 'personal testimony' and how to respond to these con-artist tricks (give notice of being forced into a need to be rude=name the trick and embarass them ), David Sloan Wilson and factual versus practical realism, and optimism.




AAIC 'o7: Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the AAIC :

AAI conference, apologetics, atheism, audiovisual, philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, sociology, theology, videos, Dan Dennett