ANSWERING THE MUSIC MAN

Atheism New and Old by John D. Ferrer

A Critique of Dan Barker’s Brand of Atheism

In case you are not familiar with the reference to the “Music Man” here’s a link to Dan Barker’s story of going from a teenage evangelist and christian music composer to becoming an atheist.

Dan Barker: Since I do not believe in a god, I am by default described as an atheist. Theists do not have a god: they have a belief. Atheism is the lack of theism, the lack of belief in god(s).

Before we get started with Ferrer’s critique, let me say that Dan Barker does not need my help defending himself from the likes of the authors of Answering the Music Man. None of them would do well in a one-on-one debate with Barker. Perhaps that’s why they wrote a book.

In his book “godless” Dan Barker says this about theists who are attempting to discredit him and other atheists.

“What they lack in logic they make up for in length.”

This is certainly the case with John D. Ferrer. Barker’s rather simple definition of Atheism contains just 40 words. Ferrer’s response, on the other hand, exceeds 7,300 words.

One would think that the best way for a theist to discredit an atheist would be to logically prove beyond all doubt that their god actually does exist. I expected that somewhere in Ferrer’s 7,300 words he would be able to produce at least some semblance of a defense for his theism. But that’s not what he does. Instead he spends the bulk of his 7,300 words arguing against Barker’s definition of the word “atheism”. With that said, let’s look at what Ferrer says about renown atheist Dan Barker.

Here’s how he begins he defense… (underline is mine)

Words evolve over time, growing, losing, and changing definitions, all depending on fickle social fashions. The word “atheism” is no exception. In the last ten to fifteen years, a new definition of “atheism has grown in popularity, threatening to replace the classic sense of the word. And people like Dan Barker are benefactors.

He spends the rest of his wordy diatribe attempting to prove that Barker’s definition of the word “atheism” is dishonest. He also spends some of his 7,300 words belittling Barker on a personal level. I guess this is what you do (ad hominem) when you are unable to produce a defense of theism.

Ferrer: Is Barker just an intellectual hipster who can’t stomach “old-fashioned” classics without a spritz of irony? He’s in his seventies now, so “hipster” probably isn’t the right term for him. Although, I’m sure he has rocked the tweed jacket and craft beer from time to time. Barker, however, is firmly entrenched in a new socio-culture of atheism known, ironically, as New Atheism.

Ferrer attempts of discredit Barker’s definition of “atheism” and also to attack Barker’s Freedom From Religion Foundation. Ferrer not only doesn’t like Barker’s definition of atheism he doesn’t like Barker’s brand of atheism. He wants Barker to play nice. This coming from a man who is a “teaching fellow” for a pro-life organization that I’m sure, would have no issue taking away a woman’s right to control her own body.

Here’s what Ferrer says about what he calls Barker’s “new atheism”

Ferrer: New Atheists like Dan Barker would have to dull their blade a bit and learn to play nice with others. Dan Barker and his Freedom From Religion Foundation will likely persist as militant as ever, competing for territory, and promoting nontheism, secularism, and irreligion with all the fervor of an evangelistic crusade.

Here’s what Barker says about his evangelistic crusade.

“Once a preacher always a preacher (in my case, at least), so the question now was, “Should I preach atheism?” When all is said and done, we can’t help being who we are. I had developed certain habits and skills in the ministry and still wanted to change the world for the better. I am very concerned about our species’ preoccupation with superstition and irrationality and confident that if someone like me can be healed of such delusions so can others“

I have personally experienced “being healed of such delusions” and for me it was very freeing. Others (like Ferrer) are still stuck in their delusions. In my next blog we’ll explore the reasons why.

Ferrer continues…

He is not… the quiet, respectful, public atheist who flies under the radar rather than drawing attention to himself. Nor is he the outlandish academic atheist squirreled away in his office in the biology department at some college in the 1970s. New Atheism replaces peacemaking policies with verbal conquest; humble nonbelief becomes cocky secularism; timidity switches into boldness; and the pluralistic se la vie shifts to intolerant chants of “Stop that, or you’re sued!” It’s clear that he is not the peacemaker.

Love this paragraph. Ferrer wants atheists, like Barker, to be humble, timid and not in the public view, while at the same time the likes of Ferrer are attempting to push their religious beliefs on the public. Based on Ferrer’s credentials (which we’ll explore in the next blog) it could be assumed that he has no qualms about blurring the lines of separation of church and state. And when he attempts to overstep his bounds (as evangelicals often tend to do) and push his religious beliefs on the general public, Barker’s foundation is there to protect the constitutional rights of the other citizens. So in that sense, I guess Barker is not a peacemaker. But then again, is Ferrer?

Barker writes, “It turns out that atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism. It is not a philosophy of life and it offers no values. Basic atheism is not a belief.”

I kept waiting for Ferrer to begin his presentation for the defense of the existence of his god, but he never does. He spends his next 5,000 words attempting to prove that Barker’s definition of atheism is “new” and “fickle” (making it trendy, and thus invalid). Ferrer contends that Barker’s definition does not conform to ancient Greek etymology of the word Atheos and thus is not valid in today’s world. Really? This is where he wants to go with his argument… to ancient Greek?

Ferrer would prefer that rather than atheists saying, “we don’t believe in gods” they must say unequivocally that “there are no gods”. Rather than theists shouldering the burden of proof that their god exists, Ferrer would prefer to shift the burden of proof to atheists. That way Barker and other atheists would be forced to prove that no gods exist.

Why would that be important for Ferrer? It’s simple! Since he can’t prove his god exists, (which he demonstrates in his 7,300-word diatribe) he wants Barker to prove that gods “do not” exist.

Ferrer’s desire to switch the burden of proof that “no gods exist” reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s theory of the Celestial teapot. Russell’s teapot theory is “an analogy” designed to discount the need for a burden of proof regarding the non-existence of something (i.e. a God).

Russell wrote: “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Ferrer responds to Russell’s teapot theory by saying that the question of God’s existence is a little more pressing than… “the trivial dismissal of an orbiting teapot”. Ferrer goes on to say that “there is a substantial case supporting the notion of the sensus divinitatis” (the sense that a divinity exists) although he fails to give any supporting evidence other than his “senses”. What if I were to say that “there is a substantial case supporting the notion of the sensus teapotis”? Would that be enough proof that the celestial teapot actually exists? Certainly not! Let’s be clear here; a “sense” of the divine is not actual proof of the divine.

Ferrer also doesn’t like Barker’s definition of agnosticism.

Barker: People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don’t have a knowledge that God exists. “The atheist says, “I don’t have a belief that God exists.” Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic. Agnosticism is the refusal to take as a fact any statement for which there is insufficient evidence.”

If Ferrer were being honest with himself (and with us), he might admit that he himself is an agnostic. Ferrer has a strong belief in his god but there is insufficient evidence to prove its existence, and therefore his belief (no matter how strong) cannot be taken as fact. He is indeed a theistic agnostic while I am an atheistic agnostic. He believes in his god (teapot), but he can’t prove his god exists. I don’t believe in his god, but I cannot prove that his god doesn’t exist. In that light, Barker’s use of agnosticism is perfectly valid. We’ll expand more on this in next week’s blog as we take a deeper dive into Ferrer’s own believes.

SO, WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? Ferrer continues,

It can be true even if God exists

Ferrer: Perhaps the weirdest result with Barker’s brand of atheism is that it doesn’t say anything about whether God exists. Even if God exists, Barker’s atheism could be true. That’s a strange brand of atheism, aligning just fine with God’s existence.

On this one point, I have to agree with Ferrer (except for the part about a strange brand of atheism). I understand that my disbelief in gods does not mean that they absolutely don’t exist. And I will continue in my non-belief until there is evidence to the contrary. However, here’s what Ferrer proposes it would take to convince atheists that god actually does exist.

Ferrer: This means that even if God exists, even if God came down to Los Angeles, California, dictated the Bible on live TV, ended the California drought with forty days of raining Cabernet (wine), and personally moonwalked across the set of God ’s Not Dead III—Barker’s atheism would still be true so long as his atheism refers only to his lack of theism.

How about rather than ending “the California drought with forty days of raining Cabernet”, God ended world hunger or human trafficking, or the suffering caused by wars? Wouldn’t godly kindness toward all mankind be more convincing to atheists like Barker and me than God doing the moonwalk on American TV? Get serious, Ferrer!

Intellectual laziness

Ferrer: (Barker’s definition of atheism) fosters intellectual laziness. The only way to reach the intellectual high ground is to earn it. My point is that the “default atheism” view is self-serving for atheists. It can deceive atheists into thinking that they don’t have to earn their academic high ground but can presume it while theists do all the work.

Does earning a master’s in Apologetics and a PhD in Philosophy of Religion automatically award Ferrer with the “intellectual high ground”? (I think not, but more about that in my next blog.) Barker admits that he doesn’t have the education of a theologian, saying that it wasn’t that important to him.

Barker: “Looking back, I can see that most of the religion courses (with a couple of notable exceptions) were simply glorified Sunday School classes and I don’t remember that we delved very deeply into the evidences or arguments for or against Christianity. I believed that my education was secondary to my calling.”

Ferrer continues,

“What can we make of Barker’s Atheism? In the final evaluation, Barker’s definition of atheism offers a strategic advantage for him. He never has a burden of proof in defending his nonbelief. If Dan Barker wants to wear the mantle of intellectual respectability, he is going to have to earn it just like anyone else. His definition of “atheism,” fits the profile of a pseudo-intellectual skeptic.“

The pot and the kettle.

I take issue with Ferrer’s claim that he has earned “intellectual respectability”. Let’s say, for an example, that we were to ask Ferrer if he believes in Astrology. My guess, (based on his religious beliefs) would be that he does not. Would he say that he “doesn’t believe in astrology”? By his own argument that would be invalid. According to his own standards, he must say unequivocally that astrology is false and then accept the burden of proving that it is false. If he simply were to say that he “doesn’t believe” in astrology without offering any evidence debunking it, wouldn’t that make him “a pseudo-intellectual skeptic” of astrology? Let’s see how Ferrer’s own words reveal him to be the pot.

A reversal of Ferrer’s own words

“The only way to reach the intellectual high ground is to earn it. It can deceive atheists (and theists) into thinking that they don’t have to earn their academic high ground. If anyone wants to wear the mantle of intellectual respectability (on any topic), they are going to have to earn it just like anyone else.”

It might surprise you to learn that there are a number of universities that offer a master’s degree in Astrology. Would Ferrer’s limited knowledge of astrology make him a pseudo-intellectual skeptic? Is Ferrer implying that his master’s in apologetics has earned him the intellectual high ground over someone who has earned a master’s in astrology? Perhaps for Ferrer it does, but for me a master’s in astrology carries the same weight as a master’s in apologetics.

From where I stand

It’s clear from Ferrer’s writings that he is convinced he has earned intellectual respectability. However, as we shall see in the next blog, he forfeits his intellectual respectability.  It is curious that nowhere in Ferrer’s seven thousand plus words does he ever say what he personally believes. We know what Dan Barker believes (or doesn’t believe). He’s been very clear about that. So, why doesn’t Ferrer tell us what he believes?

Coming next:

We’ll take a deeper dive into Ferrer’s personal beliefs and as a result, perhaps come to understand why he has chosen not to reveal them in his critique of The Music Man.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum