This is a reflection by Father Robert Barron, founder of the global ministry Word on Fire, and the rector-president of Mundelein Seminary, USA. He is the creator of the award-winning documentary series, Catholicism: The New Evangelisation.
DANIEL Dennett, one of the “four horsemen” of contemporary atheism, proposed in 2003 that those who espouse a naturalist, atheist worldview should call themselves “the brights”, thereby distinguishing themselves rather clearly from the dim benighted masses who hold on to super-naturalist convictions.
In the wake of Dennett’s suggestion, many atheists have brought forward what they take to be ample evidence that the smartest people in our society do indeed subscribe to anti-theist views.
By “smartest” they usually mean practitioners of the physical sciences, and thus they point to surveys that indicate only small percentages of scientists subscribe to religious belief.
In a story published in the online journal Salon, titled Religion’s Smart-People Problem, University of Seattle philosophy professor John Messerly reiterates this case.
However, he references, not simply the lack of belief among the scientists, but also the atheism among academic philosophers, or as he puts it, “professional philosophers”.
He cites a recent survey that shows only 14 per cent of such professors admitting to theistic convictions, and he states that this unbelief among the learned elite, though not in itself a clinching argument for atheism, should at the very least give religious people pause.
Well, I’m sorry Professor Messerly, but please consider me unpaused. Since I have developed these arguments many times before in other forums, let me say just a few things in regard to the scientists.
I have found that, in practically every instance, the scientists who declare their disbelief in God have no idea what serious religious people mean by the word “God”.
Almost without exception, they think of God as some supreme worldly nature, an item within the universe for which they have found no “evidence”, a gap within the ordinary nexus of causal relations. I would deny such a reality as vigorously as they do. If that’s what they mean by “God”, then I’m as much an atheist as they – and so was Thomas Aquinas. What reflective religious people mean when they speak of God is not something within the universe, but rather the condition for the possibility of the universe as such, the non-contingent ground of contingency.
And about that reality, the sciences, strictly speaking, have nothing to say one way or another, for the consideration of such a state of affairs is beyond the limits of the scientific method. And so when statistics concerning the lack of belief among scientists are trotted out, my response, honestly, is “who cares?”
But what about the philosophers, 86 per cent of whom apparently don’t believe in God?
Wouldn’t they be conversant with the most serious and sophisticated accounts of God?
Well, you might be surprised.
Many academic philosophers, trained in highly specialised corners of the field, actually have little acquaintance with the fine points of philosophy of religion and often prove ham-handed when dealing with the issue of God.
We hear, time and again, the breezy claim that the traditional arguments for God’s existence have been “demolished” or “refuted”, but when these supposed refutations are brought forward, they prove, I have found, remarkably weak, often little more than the batting down of a straw-man.
A fine example of this is Bertrand Russell’s deeply uninformed dismissal of Thomas Aquinas’ demonstration of the impossibility of an infinite regress of conditioned causes.
But more to it, the percentage of atheists in the professional philosophical caste has at least as much to do with academic politics as it does with the formulation of convincing arguments.
If one wants to transform a department of philosophy from largely theist to largely atheist, all one has to do is to make sure that the chairman of the department and even a small coterie of the professoriat are atheist.
In rather short order, that critical mass will control hiring, firing and the granting of tenure within the department.
Once atheists have come to dominate the department, only atheist faculty will be hired and students with theistic interests will be sharply discouraged from writing dissertations defending the religious point of view.
In time, very few doctorates supporting theism will be produced, and a new generation, shaped by thoroughly atheist assumptions, will come of age.
To see how quickly this transformation can happen, take a good look at the philosophy department at many of the leading Catholic universities: what were, in the 1950s overwhelmingly theistic professoriats are today largely atheist. Does anyone really think that this happened because lots of clever new arguments were discovered?
Another serious problem with trumpeting the current statistics on the beliefs of philosophers is that such a move is based on the assumption that, in regard to philosophy, newer is better.
One could make that argument in regard to the sciences, which do seem to progress in a steadily upward direction – no one studies the scientific theories of Ptolemy or Descartes today, except out of historical interest. But philosophy is a horse of a different colour, more akin to poetry.
Does anyone think that the philosophical views of, say, Michel Foucault are necessarily better than those of Plato, Aristotle, Kant or Hegel, just because Foucault is more contemporary? It would be like saying the verse of Robert Frost is necessarily superior to that of Dante or Shakespeare, just because Frost wrote in the 20th century.
I for one think that philosophy, so marked today by nihilism and postmodern relativism, is passing through a particularly corrupt period.
Why should we think, therefore, that the denizens of philosophy department lounges today are necessarily more correct than Alfred North Whitehead, Edmund Husserl, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Jacques Maritain, Emmanuel Levinas and Jean-Luc Marion, all of whom were well-acquainted with modern science, rigorously trained in philosophy and affirmed the existence of God?
I despise the arrogance of Dennett and his atheist followers who would blithely wrap themselves in the mantle of “brightness”; but I also despise the use of statistics to prove any point about philosophical or religious matters.
I would much prefer that we return to argument.
