I won’t say I accept the ontological argument for the existence of God — the argument that derives God’s existence from his essence — but I do like it (it is so clever) and I am prepared to stand up for it when Dawkins dismisses it with scorn rather than good reasons. In part this is a turf war. I am a professional philosopher. I admire immensely thinkers like Anselm and Descartes and am proud to be one of them, however minor and inadequate in comparison. I am standing up for my own. In part, this is political. Religion is a big thing in America, and often not a very good big thing. I don’t think you are going to counter the bad just by going over the top, like in the Battle of the Somme. I think you have to reach out over no-man’s land to the trenches on the other side and see where we can agree and hope to move forward. ¶ I should say that my Quaker childhood — as in everything I do and think — is tremendously important here. I grew up surrounded by gentle, loving (and very intelligent) Christians. I never forget that. Finally, I just don’t like bad arguments.
One of the hallmarks of religious liberty protections is that they protect people of all faiths, even if their beliefs seem unfounded, flawed, implausible, or downright silly. Recognition of a right to religious freedom does not, however, depend on religious skepticism, relativism, or indifferentism. Rather, it rests on the intelligible value of the religious quest — the activities of seeking to understand the truth about ultimate questions and conforming one’s life accordingly with authenticity and integrity. … [It is not] the idea that “error has rights.” Rather, it recognize[s] that people have rights — including the right to pursue religious truth and, within the limits of justice and the common good, to act on their judgments of what truth demands. All people possess these fundamental rights, even when they are, in some respects, in error.
The great variety of contradictory religious views is for many reason enough to conclude that there is no truth to be had in such matters, that no one religion is at all likely to be closest to the truth. For example, in his debate with Dinesh D’Souza, John Loftus makes the gravamen of his case against the Christian God these inter-religious and intra-religious disagreements, arguing that in effect they cancel each other out in virtue of the mutually exclusive nature of their claims.1 He does not see, apparently, that by such reasoning, the ageless debate between naturalists and theists is also cancelled, each position nullified. Indeed, every point of view falls prey to such a criterion. When we look within naturalism, we also find denominations and sects, a cacophony of diverse and contradictory positions on fundamental questions. It turns out, the problem of pluralism is an equal opportunity employer. Worldviews are like personalities. Each one is unique. Though there are types of personalities, just as there are broad worldview categories, none is identical. Whatever our worldview, that view must countenance the fact that many others think it mistaken. This is the problem of pluralism. The implication of this reality, however, need not be the defeat of any particular set of beliefs. Rather, the proper response is epistemological. It begs modesty, a profound intellectual humility about our take on reality. And second, it should serve as a call to personal responsibility for our beliefs, and therefore to the epistemic virtues, for there is no consensus on ultimate questions that we can simply adopt by proxy.
The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support … May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the Father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths and make us all in our several vocations useful here and, in His own due time and way, everlastingly happy.
Every group has its role models and its lowlifes, its aspirations and its shortcomings, its best moments and worst. And so, we all need prophets that call us back to our ideals. Amongst skeptics, atheists, and secularists, some quieter voices like Michael Ruse and Julian Baggini have lamented the rise of a cavalry of imperious and hostile voices that have become the face of the self-described “community of reason”. More recently, Massimo Pigliucci, a member in good standing of said community, echoes their concerns. He calls upon his cohorts to reject scientism, anti-intellectualism and a number of vogue theories while embracing classic epistemic virtues like charity, respect, and civility. Notably, he draws particular attention to the irony that the “community of reason” is so often hostile to philosophy, the discipline of reason. Hear, hear. May it be so for all of us who participate in the conversation.
Every group has its role models and its lowlifes, its aspirations and its shortcomings, its best moments and worst. And so, we all need prophets that call us back to our ideals. Amongst skeptics, atheists, and secularists, some quieter voices like Michael Ruse and Julian Baggini have lamented the rise of a cavalry of imperious and hostile voices that have become the face of the self-described “community of reason”. More recently, Massimo Pigliucci, a member in good standing of said community, echoes their concerns. He calls upon his cohorts to reject scientism, anti-intellectualism and a number of vogue theories while embracing classic epistemic virtues like charity, respect, and civility. Hear, hear. May it be so for all of us who participate in the conversation.
Every group has its role models and its lowlifes, its aspirations and its shortcomings, its best moments and worst. And so, we all need prophets that call us back to our ideals. Amongst skeptics, atheists, and secularists, some quieter voices like Michael Ruse and Julian Baggini have lamented the rise of a cavalry of imperious and hostile voices that have become the face of the self-described “community of reason”. More recently, Massimo Pigliucci, a member in good standing of said community, echoes their concerns. He calls upon his cohorts to reject scientism, anti-intellectualism and a number of vogue theories while embracing classic epistemic virtues like charity, respect, and civility. Hear, hear.
Every group has its role models and its lowlifes, its aspirations and its shortcomings, its best moments and worst. And so, we all need prophets that call us back to our ideals. Amongst skeptics, atheists, and secularists, some quieter voices like Michael Ruse and Julian Baggini have tried, lamenting the rise of a cavalry of imperious and hostile voices that have become the face of the self-described “community of reason”. More recently, Massimo Pigliucci, a member in good standing of said community, echoes their concerns. He called upon his cohorts to reject scientism, anti-intellectualism and a number of vogue theories while embracing classic epistemic virtues like charity, respect, and civility. Hear, hear.
Every group has its role models and its lowlifes, its aspirations and its shortcomings, its best moments and worst. And so, we all need prophets that call us back to our ideals. Amongst skeptics, atheists, and secularists, some quieter voices like Michael Ruse and Julian Baggini have tried, lamenting the rise of a cavalry of imperious and hostile voices that have become the face of the self-described “community of reason”. More recently, Massimo Pigliucci, a member in good standing of said community, echoes their concerns. He called upon his cohorts to reject scientism, anti-intellectualism and a number of vogue theories while embracing classic epistemic virtues like charity, respect, and civility. Hear. Hear.
No matter their cause, every group falls short of its aspirations. Amongst skeptics, atheists, and secularists, some less fêted voices like Michael Ruse and Julian Baggini have lamented the rise of a cavalry of imperious and hostile firebrands that have become the face of atheism. More recently, Massimo Pigliucci, a member in good standing of said community, echoes their concerns. He calls upon his cohorts to reject scientism, anti-intellectualism and a number of vogue theories and instead embrace classic epistemic virtues like charity, respect, and civility. Notably, he draws particular attention to the irony that it is the so-called “community of reason” that is so often hostile to the discipline of reason: philosophy.