The Jerry MaGuire Defense: A New Atheist Fallacy

To use a New Atheist (NA) concept, there seems to be a virulent meme which has infected the body of NA.  I have dubbed this the “Jerry MaGuire” rebuttal to classical arguments for the existence of god (the JMD or Jerry MaGuire defense of NA).

It goes like this.  The student of religious philosophy or theology (note: I purposefully DO NOT say theist here because this person may or may not be a religious believer) proposes a consideration of a god by introducing a classical argument (e.g. The T-A Cosmological Argument) and, either before, or after the argument is made, the self-described New Atheist responds by stating, in short, “Show me the evidence!”

The form of the rebuttal often, goes something more to the effect that why should the NA engage with a classical argument for god when the one introducing the argument doesn’t do the same in regards to Scientology or Wicca or, a number of other theologies.

This sort of rebuttal of course does not follow from the argument proposed, and seems to be an odd invalidation of the NA critical stance, due to an announcement towards the willful ignorance of that which they are criticizing.

I also think it is a deadly mutation of the NA project.

I consider myself an NA and would like the animating premise of NA to reign.

I define the NA premise in the words of Sam Harris taken from his Project Reason web-site where NA can be a project,

“devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.” (emphasis mine)

When an NA seeks to shut down a critical examination of a philosophical or theological justification for belief, by claiming its illegitimacy from outside of the philosophy or theology, and, arguing by analogy towards the illegitimacy of all religions, then they are not being a critic, but rather, a dogmatic bigot who is building a superstition to the effect that philosophical or theological justifications towards belief have no current nor historic import on humanity and/or society because they don’t ground their claims in falsifiable samples (e.g. “evidence”).

While I can understand the emotional request (and satisfaction) for justification of the atheist to the one making arguments from theism (it is essentially the same move that the street-corner Christian caricature makes to the non-believer as to why they need Jesus), I see it as an illegitimate epistemic move.

I’ve made this move many times and have relied on it to the point where I thought it sufficient justification to the position as cultural critic but, in hindsight, I see how It hasn’t allowed me to engage with the religious towards the goals of societal secular values and, only has served my emotional satisfaction towards control.  In short, the ease by which I could embarrass the POR with the JMD did not afford me the warrant for my world-view as an alternative to the religious world-view because, it provided epistemic satisfaction by mistaking petulance as argument.

A foundational trait of NA is to move atheism from a place of “live and let live” silence, to occupy a position of cultural critic, where we weigh in on the proposed truth claims of religion.

How can we criticize something that we have admitted we haven’t bothered to take the time to investigate? That seems like an act of willful ignorance not, intellectual honesty nor, moral good.

And, it isn’t what the New Atheists do.

I think we, as NA, have become confused between the personalities of the “Four Horseman” and, the tactics they employ. If any NA are reading this blog than I suggest he/she re-read “Letter to a Christian Nation”, Sam Harris provides a biblical literacy equivalent to the Fundamentalist Christians he is writing to, he doesn’t write a single page criticism demanding proof but rather, invalidates the foundation of inerrancy by juxtaposing what Jesus says in the text with what we know modern morality to be. In short, he studied the Bible from the point of view of the Biblical Fundamentalist to criticize the argument of the Biblical Fundamentalist and, as he says,

“demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms.”

To understand a subject does not mean we endorse it but, rather, examine it from its own premises to see if we can ascertain if the truth claims it proposes correspond with reality.  It is how science is practiced all the time.

I struggle to see the JMD a legitimate move in expanding reason and it undercuts any action taken towards practicing cultural criticism.

This blog will be dedicated to engaging the philosophical and theological arguments for the existence of god(s) so a NA worldview can be properly defended and understood, relative to competing epistemic worldviews.  I will do this by auditing the arguments of theists and investigating POR from both the theistic and atheistic persuasions.

I welcome all comments but reserve the right to delete those by NA who reach for the JMD and demand any theist or atheist making comments on this blog practice charitable philosophic discipline, where the first move in rebuttal must be to imagine the most rational consideration of their opponent’s argument.

Thanks, and looking forward to the dialogue.  Let reason begin.