Ratio Christi is one such organization. Because I love ideas, and I love the academy, in conjunction with the topic of God, the eternal One, I have joined Ratio Christi in the function of Chapter Director of the student apologetics club at Arizona State University, Tempe campus.  ‘Apologetics’ comes from the Greek apologos – and is a reasoned defense.  Ratio Christi is a Christian student apologetics alliance. Christian Apologetics has as its purpose a rational defense, as well as commendation, of the Christian worldview.

A rational defense involves the give and take of reasons for belief. Reasons for belief can be subjective or objective.  Apologetics seeks to provide objective reasons, or proof, for Christian belief. Objective proof, or reasoned defense, is not the same as a subjective religious experience.  Reason is distinct from intuition, sense perception, tradition, testimony, or common sense.  Reasoning is not the same as proselytization, which has as its goal conversion.  Apologetics has as its goal knowledge of the truth about reality.

The original purpose of the academy is the pursuit of knowledge, and academics are to follow an argument wherever it may lead in pursuit of truth.  That is why we consider the Western Intellectual tradition “The Great Conversation”. Conversations require the sustained give and take of reasons and argument. In addition, the liberal arts, as part of the Western academy, are meant to liberate students from provincialism, false assumptions, and ignorance. Philosophy, as queen of the liberal arts, is that discipline that has as its job the critical examination of basic beliefs and assumptions, and to provide a foundation upon which the individual, the academy, society, and culture may rest.  Yet, today, the academy has allowed uncritically held assumptions to become dominant, and to go without critical analysis, and the foundations are crumbling. Some of these assumptions are a result of the Enlightenment, whose most notable philosopher, Immanuel Kant’s cry was “dare to reason”. What did Kant mean by reason?

Rather than being led by reason, how did the academy come to be dominated by empiricism, and its resulting skepticism, and naturalism and resulting moral relativism? The contemporary discipline of philosophy has failed to critique these assumptions, or to offer viable alternatives. The so called failure of philosophy, declared as such by the likes of Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, and Lawrence Krauss, has resulted in the rise of the New Atheists and the staging of Atheist “Reason Rallies”. Do the Atheists have a corner on reason? The New Atheists speak from their authoritative positions within the academy, and their desire is for the minds of the youth. Is the New Atheism above rational scrutiny? If not, will a critique of the dominant secular worldview come from within the academy or from without? Is the empiricist, naturalistic worldview a sufficient foundation for the lives of our young people, for the academy, for society, and for Western culture?

The first academy originates with the Greek philosopher, Plato.  Plato was the student of Socrates, who is best known for his dialogues through whom we come to know the fate of the infamous Socrates.  Socrates was executed by a majority vote in the courts of Athens for allegedly corrupting the youth of Athens and teaching them about gods not sanctioned by the state. He was killed for critiquing the dominant worldview of his day. We like to think that we are more enlightened than Socrates’ Athens, and that we would not have killed Socrates.  But would we seek to silence Socrates today? Plato tells the story of the trial of Socrates in his dialogue ‘The Apology’. ‘The Apology’ – apologetics – is a reasoned defense.  The academy begins with an apologetic.  Socrates gives his defense, and explains that he is doing Athens a service in his critical examination of assumptions. Socrates gives a reasoned defense of his method of questioning in pursuit of the truth, and the academy has largely embraced this Socratic method in the exchange of ideas in its pursuit of knowledge.

Why was Socrates such a threat to Athens?  His questioning of those in authority jeopardized their position of power and influence. The young people, presumably following Socrates because of the insight he displayed in his discussion with others, saw these men of authority exposed for their lack of insight. Those in authority did not know what justice, beauty, or the good was.  Do those in authority in our society have knowledge regarding these things? What if the young people were to start asking questions and presenting reasons for alternative worldviews to those that prevail in the academy today? Would those in the academy resort to the appeals to fear that killed Socrates? Or would they ‘dare to reason?’

It is largely because of Kant’s division between the world of fact (the world of the senses) and the world of value (what cannot be known through the senses) that did away with talk about God in the academic world.  He assumed that we can only know through the senses, and reasoning about the senses. God cannot be known through the senses, therefore, if God exists we have no (empirical) evidence for God, and must believe by (blind) faith.  Kant separates the “objective” world of the senses from the “subjective” world of faith, and many within the academy and the church have assumed Kant’s division without critique. But what if Kant is wrong? What if Kant’s empiricism is a mistake? What if his definition of reason and faith follow from that mistake? What if his division between fact and values is also mistaken? Then discussion about these topics is still open.

Western tradition does not end with Kant. The great conversation continues. And the existence of God continues to be part of that discussion. We ought to bring the discussion of these topics back to the academy where they belong, using the Socratic method of dialogue to examine assumptions. Yet, until this becomes a reality, critique will have to come from outside the secular academy until the topic has a viable defense. This is where Christians need to do a lot of work to show the rationality of belief. The church needs to reexamine some of its assumptions to see whether she has bought into the same mistaken notion of faith and reason that the academy has accepted. Apologetics can serve to help both the church and the academy in their respective pursuits of truth.

Ratio Christi, as a student apologetics alliance, serves to support students who desire an alternative discussion to the dominant secular worldview in the academy, and a rational defense of the truths of Christianity.  Students who desire to discuss the reasons for belief in the Christian worldview, whether believer, unbeliever, doubter, or seeker after truth, are welcome to join the discussion happening on a campus near you. Lets dare to reason together.

I’ll be honest, I thought the film was going to be a bit more provocative and in your face. Someone I know suggested that Krauss and Dawkins would make the move to call those who did not agree with their view of reality the unbelievers. I thought this would be rhetorically savvy. But they made no such move, taking the moniker “unbelievers” for themselves. The documentary was tame and noticeably lacking in presentation of a coherent position or argumentation. This was a disappointment. If these are the best of the best in the atheist guard, they don’t have much to offer in terms of defense for their position, at least not in this popular forum.

Throughout the night, I attempted to take notes in the pitch dark anticipating the questions my friends would have about the film. I wrote down snippets that I thought were interesting, because the film only gave me snippets. I will try to string these brief extracts together with a semblance of narrative and analysis, yet more could be said.

The film begins with Woody Allen, Cameron Diaz, and other celebrities coming out in favor of atheism (as if any other position were implied within Hollywood). Cameron Diaz says that knowledge is power because it frees you, and that science seeks the truth. Agreed – knowledge is power. But what is knowledge? Does science get us to knowledge or to sensory data? Does sense data need to be interpreted? Is interpretation in light of a world view? How do we know that the scientific worldview is correct? Does the scientific method prove that the scientific worldview is correct, or does the scientific method (most likely methodological naturalism) assume the scientific worldview (metaphysical naturalism) from the start? Does science ever really get us to knowledge at all?

Lawrence Krauss says that no idea should be above ridicule. Is ridicule the best way to address ideas? Yet, lets say we agree with him, would Krauss allow his own ideas about a universe from nothing to be subject to ridicule?

Richard Dawkins says that: “‘Why?’ is a silly question”. ‘Why?’ is not a scientific question, so maybe in his context, ‘why’ is a silly question to Dawkins, yet he has answered the question for himself. It is a philosophical question. Science should answer ‘what?’ or ‘how?’ So, ‘why?’ is only relatively silly, given the purpose of science. But most of our questions are not of the ‘what’ or ‘how’ variety. Those kinds of questions are very limited and limiting. I thought science wanted to liberate? Limiting my questions to ‘what?’ or ‘how?’ straightjackets my life. ‘Why’s?’ set me free.

Dawkins seems to think that science provides liberation for students from their silly religious views in college, and that philosophers obscure things. Once again, we hear the trope of truth setting our young people free from their false and oppressive religious upbringings. Dawkins might be right about contemporary philosophers obscuring topics. But this has not always been the case. It is the job of philosophy to clarify, not obscure. Maybe Dawkins and Krauss have to lead the youth through “science” (veiled philosophy) to truth and liberation because the academic philosophers are falling down on the job?

To both of their credit, both Dawkins and Krauss only claim that their positions are plausible (yet plausibility does not get us to truth, which seems to be what they want to claim they have at other portions in the film – it is what sets us free after all). Dawkins claims that evolution is a plausible story. And Krauss says he is only claiming plausibility when he says that, counter intuitively, the whole universe came from nothing.

There are many, many scenes of Dawkins and Krauss on planes, trains, and in automobiles, on their way to speaking engagements in various places across the globe. About halfway through the film, after a bunch of travel shots, I found myself wondering where was the content? The girl sitting next to me started yawning. I wondered, is this the best the atheists could wheel out? Is this the best? If the believing community cannot take these guys, then they deserve ridicule and marginalization.

More snippets: Dawkins says that surveys say that atheists and rapists are the most distrusted in our society. He tells children to think for themselves. He says silly and rather uneducated things about Jesus and Adam. He says that people should not be threatened by science (except maybe when they harshly ridicule?).

The crux of the film comes when Dawkins expresses his hope for the acceptance of atheism in the public sphere sometime in the future. His hope is that atheism, as a position, is no longer necessary, but that it is taken for granted. Hello? When, at least since John Rawls, has atheism not been the default position in the public sphere? Isn’t it the religious believer who has to defend his/her view in the public realm or else keep it private? At least this has been my experience.

This is interesting: Dawkins claims that we are seeing the beginning of the death throes of religion. Where is the evidence for this huge claim? And is this scientific evidence? In the field of religious studies, the opposite claim is being made. Where scholars once predicted the end of religion, based on progressive, evolutionary secularization theory, we now see (with empirical evidence) the growth and proliferation of religion all over the world. The one exception to this trend being the western secular elite (i.e. the academy), such as Dawkins and his ilk. The flimsy evidence for the death throes of religion that the film suggests comes from a clip of Muslim protestors outside one of Dawkins’ speaking engagements yelling “infidels”, presumably out of religious exasperation and desperation. It does not help Dawkins’ case that the response of the atheist onlookers was to yell with equal rabidity “where are the women? where are the women?” This yelling stuff is just silly, including footage of the silly Christians yelling nonsense to the atheist crowds. This is not how public discourse should go, in my humble opinion. Yelling is the equivalent to discourse pollution.

Nostalgic side story: When I was 16 years old, I saw my first concert at this same Gammage Auditorium – the same stage that Dawkins and Krauss and Cameron Diaz were filling. It was R.E.M.. Aside from U2, they were my second favorite band at the time. I was not surprised to find a couple of their songs being used in the Unbelievers film. That is okay, R.E.M. has long since been demoted in my favorite band rankings. Bob Dylan now holds their previous number two position. With age comes wisdom.

As the film slowly winded down (was there an up from which it wound down?), there were glowing shots of Humanist Society fan kids getting their picture taken with the hero Dawkins (the two producers of the film wanted to give the show a feel for these “rock star” scientists). There were more claims to the plausibility of genetic mutations producing life. There were claims to not just mere plausibility, but now there is “more proof.” As a literature major, I remember the mantra: “show it, don’t tell it”. Like all good art, I am waiting for these guys to stop telling me there is proof, and show it to me. I believe that science is beautiful. My biggest beef with this film is that they keep telling us about the greatness of science, but they never once show it to the viewer. Take me to the Large Hadron Collider and show me some of its cathedral-like majesty. Don’t just tell me about it. Take me to the vast inner workings of the universe. Show me the complexity of the cell. Make the case for some complex workings of nature coming up with such complicated beauty apart from a divine hand. You have my ear. But no, we are left high and dry. A hope and a prayer in the mystery of “science”.

A word to the Christians. Please do see this film and listen to what these guys are saying. Please take them seriously, and address them rationally. I am trying to listen and apply the principle of charity to what they are saying. Here is my take: If the Christian God is merely plausible, or even probable, then these guys have a better theory. Their view is just as plausible as some arguments for the Christian God, based upon possibility, that I have seen. If Christianity is going to best describe the universe in which we live, then Christians must argue for certainty, not mere plausibility, or even possibility. If there are going to be maximal consequences for the unbeliever, given the truth of Christianity, then there must be maximal clarity of God’s existence. One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that unbelief is without excuse. Christians need to show that the unbelievers have no excuse for their unbelief. Just telling them that deep down inside they know that God exists is not going to compel them to belief either. I know, I was an unbeliever. This approach was, and still is, appalling to me. Just as we want Dawkins and Krauss to prove their position, so too, they want the Christian to prove his/her position. The give and take of rational argumentation is what should take place in the public sphere. So come, lets reason together. But I digress.

The last quarter of the film takes place at the “Reason Rally”, held in Washington D.C. in 2012, hailed as the largest gathering of atheists ever, boasting of 30k strong. Why should these guys get to claim reason as their own? What do they mean by reason? Sense experience? That’s not reason, that is sensory data. Sensory data has to be interpreted. It gets interpreted (by reason) in light of one’s assumptions about reality. The scientific worldview is one such assumption, among other contenders, which ought to be tested by reason for rational consistency.

Lawrence Krauss confronts the viewer with a series of what I think are pretty depressing statements, his protests to the contrary. He asserts, without proof, that the universe can come from nothing (to be fair, I am reading his book to search out whether he actually gives an argument for this position). He tells his audience that you are far more insignificant than you think (ouch). He says that there is no meaning, that we create our own meaning, and that we should enjoy our moment in the sun. Sorry Dawkins, but I am going to ask the silly question because Krauss has just entered my territory – philosophy – and has stepped out of science, properly understood. Why? Why create meaning? First, nice existentialist move, Krauss. He is doing philosophy after all. Second, why should I enjoy anything if there is no meaning or purpose to my existence? I would much rather face that reality, than fictitiously invent meaning. Who is failing to be honest with reality here? Sam Harris tells us not to worry so much about death. Hello, not worry? I get 70, maybe 80 years, and then I am worm food, and I am not to worry? And furthermore, given this “reality” why should I care about the future? Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

The Reason Rally segment seemed more like a love fest for atheists – it was their Woodstock – with all the rain, but without the sex and rock n’ roll (I am not sure about the drugs). This got me thinking, is it possible that Woodstock was more atheist than the atheist rally? It had a much bigger turn out and probably more widespread influence, and nobody had to call themselves atheist, they just acted as if there were no God. They were liberated (isn’t that what Dawkins is hoping for?). Which event was cooler? Who better brings godlessness home, Hendrix or Harris? At this atheistfest, Dawkins appears to be the object of highest devotion, and is portrayed as the ultimate scientist rock star.

Somewhere towards the end of the film, Krauss makes an interesting comment saying that we can turn something into nothing by not having open discussion. I think this is important for believers to listen to and take seriously, attempting to address the (few) ideas presented in the film. Dawkins, in the post film panel, expressed the desire that the film provoke discussion, and that it is a place to start in terms of conversation. I think we should give them their wish. I’ll start my end of the discussion with these questions: Can the scientific method prove atheistic naturalism? Must science be equated with atheistic naturalism? Can we reason together?

Earlier this semester, a particularly perceptive college freshman student commented: “Mrs. Burton wears a lot of black because she is mourning the death of reason.” Truly. Mourning is justified until the light shines in the darkness of our times.

Popular religion is less conscious and less consistent, and is therefore an easier target for often deserved disparaging remarks. Yet, how do we go beyond popular religion, and popular debunking? Engaging in fruitful public discourse is my primary interest in teaching, in research, and on this blog. I am interested in the philosophical level of religion, and engaging in philosophical discourse. Debunking does not engage in a serious level of discourse. Public discourse does not have to be humorless, or without play. The best philosophers employ wit masterfully, often to expose folly, and to make their point, without personal attack – both Socrates and Hume come to mind.

I am not out to debunk debunking. I am attempting an analysis of a perceived problem – both in the broader pubic arena (just turn on the news for half an hour) and in my own interactions in the public realm. Debunking in a way that involves a personal attack – particularly in its anonymous hit and run disparagement form on the internet – is a serious hindrance to public discourse. I am attempting to name this problem. “The Fallacy of Debunking” is fitting.

The Fallacy of Debunking occurs when a consciously held and consistent position (my main concern) is treated disparagingly, its proponents treated libelously or slanderously, or either the position or proponent is addressed by other use of psychological force, which may even threaten physical force, rather than address the argument that has been presented. This kind of debunking is used in place of an argument. It fails to address the interloqutor as rational, both capable and responsible for the use of reason. Failure of both parties to engage in rational argumentation results in the loss of common ground for discussion, and hence there is no discussion, only name calling and defense. Personal attack is not an acceptable approach in philosophical discussion.

My suspicion is that an assumption behind the Fallacy of Debunking – like other pseudo-arguments and informal fallacies – is skepticism. Skepticism in its serious form, which denies the possibility of knowledge, is at the heart of the fallacy. The debunker assumes that we cannot know, especially about things ultimate, so there is no truth of the matter. Maybe the debunker believes that the one who thinks they know about matters ultimate is really a fool that needs to be shown up in public. But, if knowledge is not possible, then why engage in debunking at all? If there is no truth, what is the harm in a little folly? Life is short – live and let live. If, on the other hand, knowledge is possible, then debunking is just an informal fallacy to be avoided with all other informal fallacies. So, come, lets reason together.

Debunking is a method used to oppose a position through derision. Debunking may be an acceptable method used to show up snake oil salesmen, but this is not a legitimate method within the realm of philosophical argumentation. The method of objecting through scoffing and derision is often employed because the one deriding has no logical means of objecting to the disagreeable position. The debunker does not resort to reason, the legitimate means of public discourse, but to personal attack. In philosophy this is called an ad hominem attack – or an attack against the person, rather than what the person has said. So the fallacy of debunking is attacking a position through derision, or ridicule, without addressing the content of the position, especially when sound arguments are presented.

When an argument, or several arguments, for a position have been put forth, the principle of charity would have an opponent address the premises of the argument. Critically analyzing the premises of an argument, and reasons for the premises, takes thoughtfulness, care, and skill. These are virtues a debunker bypasses, and so never engages in rational dialog. Instead, they are like a bully on the playground demanding your lunch money, “or else”. The debunker neither does the work of actively thinking through the position with which they object, nor do they provide a counterargument. Rather, they resort to the only recorse left when one does not like the conclusion to a sound argument – name-calling and the use of force.

To avoid the fallacy of debunking, one ought to address the argument at hand. Failure to do so implies that either:
1.) nothing is clear to reason, reason is not a reliable means for knowing, and skepticism is a fall back position, in which case force is the only means of getting one’s way,or:
2.) reason is reliable, but the debunker has no good counterargument, and so force is the only means of getting one’s way, or:
3) reason is reliable, and a sound argument is compelling, and when one does not find the conclusion to a sound argument agreeable, one either has to change his/her proir position and assent to the conclusion to said sound argument, or use physical or psychological force to resist the force of reason.

Philosophy, and the commitment to the use of reason to engage one another in the public sphere, is opposed to the use of force. Human beings are rational, and to fail to address individuals as such dehumanizes both the debunker, and the debunkee. Debunking bypasses reason and resorts to force, therefore philosophy is opposed to the method of debunking in philosophical argumentation.

Anonymous debunking is even more egregious than garden variety debunking. It is the equivalent of a philosophical drive by. So please, all you anonymous debunkers out there – come into the light of the public sphere of rational discourse, and engage the arguments. If you disagree, please provide counterarguments. And please use your real names – it humanizes you.

In contrast to Boethius’ consoling view of philosophy, I recently read the statement, in connection with students of philosophy classes that I teach, that “Philosophy makes some students feel uncomfortable”. Apparently, for some students philosophy has the opposite effect of consolation. Why is this so?

Philosophy as the foundational discipline in the academy is an area of study that deals with foundational questions such as: “how do I know?” “what exists ultimately?” and “what ought I to do?” Considering these questions, often for the first time, may be uncomfortable for students. Is Examining the foundations of knowledge, especially when we think we already know, easy? Is a serious confrontation with the nature of reality a stroll in the park? What about providing rational justification for how we – not just some philosopher in the abstract, thousands of years ago – would answer the question “what is the good?” What if we find we lack rational justification for our answer to that question? Philosophy is not only uncomfortable, but it can expose our nakedness.

The etymology of the word “philosophy” is “the love of wisdom”. What is wisdom? How do I know if I have wisdom? If I lack wisdom, how do I obtain it? Some traditions have contrasted the wise person with the simple and the fool. The simple person is one who thinks knowledge of the good is not necessary. The simple thinks he/she can go with the flow, often blithely unaware of the dangerous rapids just up ahead. The fool is one who thinks they already know, but they do not actually have knowledge of what is good, and furthermore often want to teach others. Who is wise? What is it to love wisdom? If we truly loved wisdom, what would pursuit of wisdom look like, and would it be comfortable?

Philosophy as a discipline is usually associated with the method of critical analysis of assumptions – particularly assumptions about what is basic. When we are pushed to critically examine our most cherished beliefs, and our reasons for holding those views are wanting, it is most definitely uncomfortable. When our views are shown to be lacking sufficient rational justification, we either have to change our views, or we have to dig in, hold on, and abandon reason. I can see how students may perceive philosophy as an uncomfortable enterprise.

It is uncomfortable to work through, and continue to work through, foundational questions as a human being, as a student of philosophy, and as a teacher of philosophy. It is also very uncomfortable for the teacher of philosophy to expose a lack of rational justification in a public, classroom setting. I highly recommend that students of philosophy who are worried about how uncomfortable uncovering assumptions can be should read the account of the trial of Socrates.

One who lives the examined life cannot escape the discomfort of critically examining his/her own foundational beliefs for whether he/she has good reasons for holding to those beliefs. Socrates said “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Is that an uncomfortable statement? Is is politically correct? Is it true? If we cannot apply philosophy to ourselves first, then we ought not apply it to anyone else. We ought to be silent – forever. Talk about discomfort.

We use philosophy to construct systems of belief, then these systems get lived out in cultures and civilizations. Some cultures and civilizations are no longer around. Shouldn’t we ask why? Were they systems of belief built upon faulty assumptions? What about our culture? What are the foundations upon which our civilization rests? What about other civilizations in our world? Is it uncomfortable to critically analyze the assumptions of our fellow classmate’s culture? Do we accept the popular assumptions of cultural relativism? Moral relativism? Given our culture’s political correctness, it is highly uncomfortable to critique any belief, culture, or civilization (other than the West). Yet, critical analysis is the job of philosophy. So, yes, philosophy is uncomfortable – necessarily. Students should not expect it to be otherwise.

Plato’s Academy is the foundational educational institution in the West, and it begins with the study of philosophy. Philosophy is the cornerstone of education. Education involves change and growth. Change and growth are uncomfortable. Thus, education will be an uncomfortable process. Where I teach, we are encouraged to be lifelong learners. In a sense, this seems to imply that we are to be uncomfortable all of our lives. I can attest that the more I know, the more uncomfortable I become. Life is very very uncomfortable when we pay attention.

I am uncomfortable with the fact that some of my students have complained that philosophy makes them feel uncomfortable. I have decided that part of the problem is that I have not given them enough warning. This post is my way of remedying that situation. Philosophy, when done well, will dig up underlying assumptions, turn them over, examine them with the magnifying glass of reason, and oftentimes we will be forced to toss cherished assumptions aside because they lack sufficient rational justification. Or, more realistically, we resistantly and clutchingly bring those assumptions like the ring Frodo must cast into the fires of Mordor for destruction. But on rare occasions we will set our well-founded assumptions like multifaceted diamonds in a shining band of gold to be cherished forever. Those treasures of truth are what make the discomfort of digging and searching and sifting and examining worth the effort. Then comes the comfort and consolation of philosophy when we find ourselves in trying circumstances.

I tell my students that the love of wisdom is like searching for fine treasure. It is going to require a lot of work, but we are wealthy for having endured the difficult, and often agonizing, pursuit. The meaning of life is what is of most value, and thus finding it will require our utmost effort, and will thus be utterly agonizing, but absolutely worth every second. So, let this be a warning and an invitation: Philosophy makes some students feel uncomfortable. Yet, possessing that which is of ultimate value is the consolation of philosophy.

I decided to don the same for my blog.