Joe Hinman: Atheism is Dead, In Its Last Days
Joe Hinman writes:
Atheism is over because it depends upon the assumptions of modernism. Atheists believe in truth. They believe that religion is false because there is no God, and that means it is not true and therefore false. But we are now in the postmodern era where there is no truth. That is both good and bad for Christianity but it si really bad for atheism.
If there is no truth, then that really is bad for Christianity too because then it can't be the case that Christianity is "true." Regardless, I'm not convinced that Joe Hinman quite understands what he is talking about. The "postmodern era" isn't one where "there is no truth," but rather when it has become fashionable for some to argue that there is no truth (among other things).
Such ideas have been defended in the past, but it has become a stronger intellectual force in the postmodern era. Hinman, though, seems to be treating it as though there were some fundamental shift in reality from a state in the past where truths really existed to now when truths don't exist, which of course is just nonsense. If Hinman himself really believes that there is no truth, then he renders himself completely unable to argue that it's true that his god exists or that his religion is valid. He can't even argue that it's true that no truths exist. Is that what he really wants?
Well, I'm not sure what he wants. As confused as the above may seem, it's more clear than most of the rest of what he writes. Joe Hinman proceeds to argue that there are several contradictions at the heart of atheism:
(1) The God pod is the result of scientific empirical data. The reason for rejecting evolution as a blind factor in producing the god pod is that it requires innate ideas. Innate ideas are part of the past, they come from a basically spiritual domain. But the atheist has to support innate ideas, which contradict atheism at its core concepts, in order to argue that the God pod is just a blind product of evolution. Thus atheism can't assault one of the major arguments for God nor can it access one of its major weapons without shooting itself in the foot.
God pod? What? I think Joe Hinman is arguing that it's been empirically proven that there is a "god module" in the brain which produces belief in gods and that such a mental capacity would never have been produced without there being some sort of god in the first place. Therefore, materialistic evolution is false and the existence of a god is true — despite the fact that we are in the postmodern era where there are no truths.
There are two errors in such an argument. First, Hinman's claims about a "god module" are far more dramatic than any scientific evidence has established. Insofar as there is any sort of place in the brain, it appears to be involved with religion and religious experience generally, not theism specifically, and it can be activated by mechanical and chemical means — which in effect makes it entirely material in function, not supernatural.
Second, Hinman's argument reduces to little more than a reworked argument from desire: we only have desires for things which exist in some form (food, air, drink) and no desire for something non-existent would have evolved in us. Since we desire God, then God must exist. This is a poor argument for many reasons: there is no basis for thinking people only desire that which exists, it ignores how ideas like "god" are an abstraction of real things and qualities, and so forth.
(2) Atheism as a modern materialistic school was founded upon cause and effect as the means to explain the natural world. God was kicked out of his own creation based upon this concept. Now atheists abandon it in order to escape the Cosmological argument; saying that QM particals prove that the universe doesn't need a cause. Thus they cut the ground out from under themselves.
This is simply a misrepresentation of atheism, from beginning to end. Atheism isn't a "school" of anything, nor is it a means to try to explain the natural world. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods and a person who is an atheist may have a variety of reasons for not believing, none of which have anything to do with explanations for the universe.
The above is also a misrepresentation of science because it isn't simply "atheists" who work on Quantum Mechanics (I have no idea what "QM particals" are supposed to be) and, moreover, there is nothing about Quantum Mechanics which might "cut the ground out from under" atheists or atheism. On the contrary, I often see theists trying to deny the conclusions and implications of quantum physics, not atheists.
After this, well, Joe Hinman's ideas actually get even less coherent so I'm not going bother with addressing anything further. I think that the above is wrong enough to dismiss the entire piece anyway.
Comments
“God was kicked out of his own creation…”
Well if there is a god, and he is all-powerful, why would he allow himself to be kicked out? Why would he allow anyone to question him at all? If i were a god, i would make suree my created beings were ‘born’ knowing all about me, and therefore require no instruction about my existence…no children would have to be coerced, since they wuld already know about me. God pod? Is that anything like the God Squad? This guy is wacked out indeed. He should come out of the closet and admit to himself that there is no proof of supernatural beings, and that religion was created by men to control women, sex, and anything else they feared.
“After this, well, Joe Hinman’s ideas actually get even less coherent ”
Oh, that’s frightening.
One important idea of postmodernism is that there is no “metanarrative” (”a comprehensive explanation of historical experience or knowledge.” - Wikipedia).
xianity has a metanarrative and of course atheism does not.
I think this indicates a greater problem for xianity than for atheism.
wow. confusing. and not in a good Hawking way that makes you want to tighten your focus and really understand.
moving on, i am a person who likes fantasy and science fiction (gods, demons, magic, different dimensions etc). and when faced with some philosophical ideas, i admit that i wish there was a god. but wishing doesn’t make it so. and as i learn more, read more about science and the world around me, i have a harder and harder time believing in a god. (certainly in any god that religion in general is trying to peddle.) i come to disbelieving in god despite kind of wanting to. i won’t allow my logic to be tainted by my wishes.
as for the idea that because so many people believe and desire that god exists must mean that a god DOES exist…. that strains the boundaries of logic too far.
generally, humans create answers to questions from what they know. they push that knowledge barrier and then future flashes of insight are built from each previous one.
to say that because thousands and thousands of years ago humans created an answer to all the strange phenomena around them and made it so… human-like seems a little too convenient. what makes it even more convenient is the lack of true evidence for that position.
children don’t learn advanced calculus before they learn addition or the concept of numbers. reaching some semblance of a truth, especially in an unexplored area, requires trial and error.
again, i do not mean to say “definitively, there are no gods” but the logic used by Hinman does not help his cause as it is so transparent.
The only way to kill atheism is to shut them up so they can’t talk. Atheism and religionism will last as long as their are crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards. Some subjects (based on advantage and lies) will admit of arguments forever.
#5:
In three sentences, you have demonstrated all of the attitudes that make modern religiousity so repugnant and offensive to reasonable people. Way to score points for believers everywhere, John. Good show!
Incidentally, the courage and valor you demonstrate by making veiled threats on the Internet is most impressive. Does your mommy know you play on the Internet when she’s not looking?
I’m the kind of guy who likes to keep abreast of the news, and I hate to ask stupid questions, but: “Who the hell is Joe Hinman?”
The sparsity of info about him on the Internet seems to indicate that he’s a nobody; certainly, his blog on atheism shows he knows nothing about his subject.
His bio says he has an injured leg and seeks donations, so my advice would be for him to pray to his god. He’s bound to get help from that quarter.
Of course, I may be prejudiced, but anyone who believes in any religion today needs to see a shrink.
“Incoherent” was one of the more flattering descriptions of his piece.
So, what’s on TV tonight?
Imagine a world just like our own, but without language, neither spoken or written. There would be no belief in God or gods, no holy books, no scriptures, no apologists. Atheists wouldn’t have to say they didn’t believe in God because the notion of God would never come up in the absence of language. Since all religion is language-based and therefore abstract and artificial (language does not occur naturally in the real world, but is an interior mental construct), in silence all religion becomes impossible. “God” is only a word, just like “heaven”, “hell”, “spirit”, “life-after-death”, “angel”, “devil”, etc, since the only places you might find any of these are in words pointing back and forth to each other. If you remove all the words, what do you have left? The natural world devoid of supernatural description and interpretation. The same ol’ world devoid of words.
Craig Duckett, great comment! You present a good picture in which to think about things. Of course without words you’d not be able to describe a rose or to create a rose garden or listen and understand a Shakespeare play. But would it smell as sweet? Yes, and probably better. What did the world look, smell and feel like before we could talk about it? How did we KNOW it? I guess that’s what art is about. Art is long but life is short. It’s a good reason for living though. The ineffable is not restricted to the ascetic.
Mr Mark AZ,
Mr Hanks isn’t even religious, as you will see if you read some of his other comments. I suppose you could call him a sort of theist, though, depending on whether you interpret his comments about ‘god’ existing in the upper left lobe of the brain as being meant literally or figuratively. I regard them as being intended to be interpreted figuratively, and conclude, based on this and his remarks about ’skygods’, as he calls creator-gods, being human constructs, that he is an atheist. He certainly is not, contra what I believe you might have been misled into thinking, one of those evangelicals who denies that Christianity is a religion.
When Mr Hanks said that ‘the only to kill atheism is to shut them up so they can’t talk’, he could have been making a mark of defiance against religionists. Alternatively, he could have been referring to religious fanatics when he said ‘them’ and making a threat against them. I’m not sure.
What Mr Hanks was trying to say when he remarked that ‘atheism and religionism will last as long as there are crooks, suckers and lazy cowards’ was that everyone in the world was a crook, sucker or lazy coward, that religionism was an inevitable result of this, and that the concept of atheism would continue to exist as long as there was religious fanaticism. (I’m not sure about this, by the way, since, even if there were no such thing as religion, there might still be those who believe in (a) creator-god(s), After all, religion and belief in (a) creator-god(s) are not inseperably combined. There are atheistic religions, and belief in a creator-god can occur outside of the context of religion (as in deism, for example)).
Way to go, Mr AZ, unjustly cannibalising one of your own kind through issuing knee-jerk reactions to something they wrote that you interpreted in completely the wrong way! Well done! Way to bowl over that strawman!
Austin, good job. But this guy is so incoherent I don’t think anyone could take him seriously. He hit up BSJ not too long ago with a comment in support of Andrew Newberg–again full of spelling errors:
“you arrive at the conclusion you do because you are an atheist. you don’t’ know science, you just know you don’t want God. Newberg is obviously ythe more scientific researcher. Alpers assumptions are silly and his explanations Lamarkian. the whole attempt to destroy beleif through brain chemistry requires Lamarkain assumptions.”
When I challenged him about it, he never responded. In my opinion, a total crackpot, or should I say, meta-crockpot.
Once you get used to Joe, he’s easier to read. His misspellings are caused by dyslexia. I’ve had some interesting discussions with him.