Skip navigation

ABSTRACT. Ravi Zacharias wrote a book. Good for him. It’s called The End of Reason, and it is aptly named. For those looking for logic and reason in believing in a God, I suggest looking elsewhere. No one but those seeking to entrench their bias will find anything other than tired, old and debunked arguments filled with logic fallacies that no grade schooler would be fooled by. Arguments from consequences and false dichotomies abound. It is supposedly an answer to the New Atheist books. In particular, to Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation. If so, it is an answer to a question no atheist asked…

In this first of two parts, I go over some of the bad reasoning up to and including his discussion of cosmological arguments.

I tried reading Ravi Zacharias’s The End of Reason. I really did. But I simply couldn’t get past the half-way point and keep down what I had eaten shortly before. The End of Reason is filled with standard logic fallacies and in some places is factually wrong. It is wholly based on emotional arguments. But at least I now understand a bit why it is difficult for logic and reason – the weapons of freethinkers – to penetrate into the reasoning parts of a believer’s brain.

Lee Strobel wrote the foreword and makes a great deal of Sam Harris’s statement that given a choice between abolishing religion or rape he would choose religion. Believers find this incredible, because (as they are blinded to the damage their belief does to societies) they think that Harris makes light of rape. Au contraire. In point of fact, Harris believes rape to be abominable, but as abominable as it may be, religion is worse. I agree. Strobel, like many believers, completely misunderstands what Harris was trying to get across and seems proud of his ignorance.

Zacharias doesn’t start out any better. He begins with a fictitious story (he couldn’t find a real-world example, apparently) about a prodigle son who has read some of the latest literature from the New Atheists while at a university and announces to his devout family that he no longer believes. The family attempts to pressure him back into the fold. Failing this, the mother commits suicide. The end.

Zacharias seems to think that the fault lies with atheism. I beg to differ. His framing is ridiculous. It seems to me that parents such as these are neither loving nor caring. Instead of trying to apply pressure to get their son back in line with their beliefs, perhaps they should have thought to ask why he has changed? In my view, loving parents would accept their son’s independence of thought and try to understand it, not recoil in horror that he thinks differently from them (how dare he!).

In fact, this ‘poignant’ story is completely in line with the ideas contained within Darrell Ray’s The God Virus, which I am currently reading. I think Ray may be taking the analogy of the god meme as a virus or parasite a bit far, and he does tend to anthropomorphize evolution. While we do talk of ‘survival strategies’, these are describing evolutionary paths. Organisms don’t consciously apply strategies to their own ends – they just do what they do, and those that do it better than others are more successful. But Ray makes some good points. The god memes which work best are those which actively spread throughout families and are so virulent that they can’t conceive of any family member trying to claw their way out.

Personally, I think it a horrible story. I don’t think it portrays atheism in a bad light at all. If anything, it shows how intolerant and destructive Christianity can be. A child is a person in their own right and as such is not only capable of independence of thought, it should be celebrated! But Zacharias doesn’t see it that way.

But my favorite part of the book is the section entitled “Atheism caused my suicide attempt”. Wow. That’s quite a statement to make. Zacharias has taken all of the drives and emotions that define his psyche and distilled his suicide attempt down to a single cause: atheism. I highly doubt this. Just what is he trying to say here? That atheists kill themselves and not Christians? That he was so focused on the fact that at the end of this life there is nothing, then tries to end it? Does it make sense that from understanding that this one life we know we have is the only one we get and is hence the most precious thing we have, he should try to end it? That boggles my mind. But then, not much in the book makes sense to me. I’m sorry if his previous lack of belief upset him, but atheists go about their lives believing that life is precious precisely because we believe (and have no reason to believe otherwise) that this is our only shot. Even if I were to agree that his atheism sent his psyche on a self-destructive path, does that lend one iota of credence to the truth value (the only thing which I am concerned with) of any religion? Does Zacharias really think that this is somehow a reason for me to start believing? Because it isn’t. Even if I were to grant him that his newfound faith stopped his inner torment, that only goes to the utility of it, not its truth value. This is the logic fallacy known as the Argument from Consequences. If Zacharias was indeed an atheist at one time as he claims, he was of a type that is completely unknown to me.

This nonsense is immediately followed by the typical bad ‘philosophical’ agruments (I use the term very loosely here). He writes:

Big Bang cosmology, along with Einstein’s theory of general relativity, implies that there is indeed an “in the beginning”. All the data indicates that a universe that is exploding outward from a point of infinite density. We know quite well that this singularity is not really a point; it is the whole of three-dimensional space compressed to zero size [pg. 31]

This is factually wrong on three points, one for each sentence in the above quote. First, Einstein’s relativity equations break down prior to the Planck time (about 10-43 sec after space began expanding), so we do not, in point of fact, know what happened prior to this point. Second, the universe did not ‘explode’ – space began expanding. It’s not the same thing. Third, inclusion of quantum mechanics demonstrates that the universe was not and could not have began as a singularity. I wonder if Zacharias just read this off of William Lane Craig’s website rather than talk to a cosmologist, since Craig disingenuously says the same thing (Craig knows damn well that the universe was not a singularity, yet still promotes this falsehood on his website).

We then get the usual “but nothing can’t produce something” nonsense. What he really means, is that he doesn’t know how something can come from nothing. But not knowing how something comes about doesn’t mean you can validly insert whatever fairy tale happens to strike your fancy. As Vic Stenger points out in God: The Failed Hypothesis,

…In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang.

However, neither observations nor theory indicates this to have been the case. The first law [of thermodynamics] allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero….

In short, the existence of matter and energy did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation. In fact, the data strongly support the hypothesis that no such miracle occurred. [pg. 116]

In other words, that “something” is itself in fact “nothing”.

Or how about the “the odds of random life” argument? Zacharias cites a calculation by Donald Page that “the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life as one out of 10,000,000,000124.” Wow. That’s a big number. But there’s a fly in the ointment – who says that universal constants are randomly valued? My presumption is that this calculation used a whole battery of universal constants (correct me if I’m wrong…). The problem with doing that is that many constants are secondary. That is, they are determined by values of truly fundamental constants and are thus not independently variable. In fact, the number of such fundamental constants is very low and are essentially summed up in the speed of light, Planck’s constant, the gravitational constant and the hyperfine constant. Pretty much every other constant is determined by these four. Nor is varying the values at all meaningfull. As Vic Stenger points out, it is only dimensionless constants – those that do not depend on the units of measurement, such as the ratio of gravity to electromagnetism – matter. Big bang simulations involving the variance of these values still produces universes in which stars and galaxies (a requirement for life to arise) form about 40% of the time.

And while Page’s odds calculation produces an astronomically high number, who is to say that calculating the odds for the existence of a god isn’t even higher? Page’s calculation is meaningless when there is nothing to compare it to.

But the assumption that universal constants are randomly generated is probably itself incorrect. Lee Smolin has noticed something strange about our universe – it isn’t fine-tuned for life at all. Think about it – how many locations in the universe are there where life is known to have arisen? Well, one. I don’t have any real doubt that life exists elsewhere, but I have no data to work from. And if the universe was indeed fine-tuned for life, then it should be teeming with it. At the moment we are forced to say that it is not (subject to revision as new data is collected).

But Smolin noticed that the universe is indeed fine-tuned for something: black holes. These horrors are thrive everywhere in our universe, including a moderately sized one (about 3,000,000 solar masses.) at the centre of our own galaxy. We can see them indirectly all over the visible universe as matter falling into each is shredded and gamma ray bursts are emitted in the process. The universe prior to its expansion was itself a giant black hole, and Chaotic Inflation predicts that with the creation of a new black hole a new universe is spawned. According to Smolin Selection Theory, universes better at producing black holes survive to produce new universes and those that don’t do not produce black holes are evolutionary dead ends. Life, as we know it, is barely possible in such black hole-friendly universes.

Next is the Argument from Morality and his claim that atheism takes away “hope” and “love”. That’s about as much as I could stand.

Advertisements

9 Comments

    • adoubtersramblings
    • Posted March 10, 2010 at 12:57 pm
    • Permalink
    • Reply

    While it’s highly unlikely that I would have actually read this book, I can firmly say after having read this review…that’s the odd against my reading it are now : one out of 10,000,000,000^124! 😉

    Nice job! Now I’m off to part two…

  1. Hey yeah… why is it 10,000,000,000^124 and not the more standard 10^1240? Was there a reason for that particular way of writing the number?

    • Got me, man. Maybe because the former looks bigger?

        • pkboomer
        • Posted March 10, 2010 at 3:50 pm
        • Permalink

        Maybe he should have gone with 100,000,000,000,000,000,000^62, that looks even more impressive!

      • I write in painstaking detail how this dumbass thinks and what you guys zero in on is how he’s expressing a big number (which was likely a cut-and-paste job anyway) in a silly manner? Well, as long as the take-home message is that Zacharia is a dumbass, that’s good I suppose. I feel so satisfied in the discourse I have started here. 🙂

        • adoubtersramblings
        • Posted March 10, 2010 at 9:08 pm
        • Permalink

        heh heh! well, the ‘take-home’ message is, indeed, that Zacharia is a dumbass. So…Mission Accomplished! 😉

  2. Yeah, there’s nothing new in this book at all. Bad apologetics (complete with the lack of understanding of the subject matter), emotional arguments having no bearing on the truth value of the claim, and completely erroneous ideas I go over in the second part, like the claim that atheists “jettison love” or remove “hope” that – as far as we can tell – is unjustified and in fact is immoral to give in the first place since there is not one shred of evidence (Zacharias’s irrational pleading that NDEs should be considered evidence even though we have ample evidence to show that such things are a product of the brain aside) that this “hope” that Christianity provides isn’t false.

    Thanks for the comment! As for the low chances of you ever reading it, that should be qualified with the word “willingly” (see my response to my brother’s comment in the second installment). Ve haff vayz of making you reat.

  3. if you’re a facebook guy, you should head over here…

    http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/pages/Pray-for-an-Atheist/324325528476?ref=ts

    to this wonderful little page and the discussion boards. there’s this guy Scott who’s apparently memorized everything that William Lane Craig ever wrote or said and is (from my lame perspective) pretty good at debating. I would LOVE to see you crush him though! LOL!

    • Probably won’t get over there. I do most of my ranting at work and don’t have access to Facebook from here.

      William “Lame” Craig is a putz. I’ll give you a freebie you can use against this Scott guy. Whenever dealing with the problem of evil or similar arguments, Craig declares by fiat that his god is morally perfect (whatever that means) in a lot of his arguments, as if that were somehow a property of god like mass is to matter. Of course, actions are called moral or immoral by judgement based on the principles of consequences and reciprocity (along with a bit of theory of mind). I would not like someone to murder me, since death is (to say the least) harmful. I know that other individuals feel similarly, so I make an implied agreement with other members of society not to harm them. There is nothing inherently moral in an action. It is a label we attach based on consequences.

      But Craig’s crude and brittle position paints him in a corner. He is forced to justify actions in the bible which are pretty awful. Genocide is something ordered by his god rather often in the OT. Craig claims that even the slaughter of the Canaanite children, for instance, is moral- they did not grow up to learn the evil ways of their parents. Yes, he actually said this. (Apparently, adoption wouldn’t accomplish the same end, which is bullshit.) If it is wrong for a human to do something, that does not change when it is a god doing it. And for those critics who think that just because it created us (here I am thinking from within the theist’s mindset) means it can do whatever it wants with us, this is true. Such a god has the ability to do so. But this changes nothing in terms of labeling actions of such a god as either moral or immoral. It is actions and intent which we look at. Who is doing the acting is irrelevant. Evangelical Christians don’t seem to understand this and I have never figured out why because it is soooooooooooooooo obvious. If such a god existed, gave us an intellect and moral sense, and didn’t like the idea that I might make judgement calls on its actions, it shouldn’t have given me an intellect and moral sense in the first place.

      The problem is that regardless of who orders it, genocide is an immoral act because of consequences (unnecessary death) and reciprocation (I don’t want to be killed) demonstrate that it is harmful (to say the least). Since we ascribe whether a being is moral or immoral from actions and responsibility, and not by assertion, we must conclude that any being that orders or carries out genocide – human or god – is immoral.

      This kills the omni-benevolent god dead. Better than using Raid on bugs.

      One could, of course, dodge this (like Marcion did) by claiming god is not omni-benevolent, but that’s a whole new kettle of fish being opened. Craig would never do that. He needs to keep the illusion of a good god alive no matter how much twisting of logic he needs to do or his whole world would come crashing down on him. I pity da fool. I really do. He’s in a cage of his own design and his fear that he’s wrong is palpable, no matter much he tries to hide it. Why else be an apologist if not to shore up his bias by getting others to believe it? These people are scared shitless.

      Craig also lies. He has been told by Vic Stenger why the Big Bang theory does not mean the universe has an origin. Specifically, the universe did not (and could not have) began as a singularity. Yet Craig still uses this on his website. Elsewhere in my blog I have dealt with the Kalam cosmological argument he is so in love with.

      I am completely unimpressed by “philosophical” arguments (I use the word loosely when it comes to Craig). Show me the evidence. That is the only consideration. Spare me the armchair bullshit. Craig gives us horse piss to drink and calls it ambrosia. He’s a flim-flam man I wouldn’t buy a used car from, and his morality is highly suspect. His integrity isn’t. He has none.

      To put it bluntly, William Lane Craig (and others of the Brylcream set) is a lying sack of shit.

      But I’m sure he’s a nice guy otherwise.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: