The Unskeptical Skeptic 

Many theists would accuse Richard of being too skeptical; I would argue that he isn’t really a skeptic. Whereas a true skeptic casts a doubting eye on everything improbable, Richard only applies his skepticism to the views of his opponents. Like most atheists, he is utterly incredulous when it comes to the supernatural, but completely gullible when it comes to the natural. That is, when someone claims that God created life or that Jesus rose from the dead, Richard scoffs and laughs and dismisses the claims as “socially acceptable insanity.”[i]  Yet when a person argues that the universe formed on its own for no reason or that randomly colliding molecules produced life, Richard believes whatever he is told. 

This lack of skepticism is nowhere more apparent than in his book. A person can only make the sort of arguments Richard makes if he has abandoned caution and careful reflection. Perhaps a few examples are in order. Consider Richard’s argument that breasts are evidence for the nonexistence of God: 

[F]emale breasts do not need to be large, or prominent at all—as instruments for nursing, small breasts are just as effective, while large breasts create increased strain on a woman’s back and increased risk of injury and lethal malfunctions like cancer. . . . [T]hey are a liability, a needless waste of energy. . . . What possible use such an inefficient tactic would have in the eyes of an intelligent engineer is hard to fathom.[ii] 

Oddly enough, he dedicates his book to “Jen . . . My buxom brunette.” Yet, according to Richard, the only purpose for large breasts is “to advertise to men ‘Hey, this woman is so healthy she can waste energy on these risky things, aren’t they pretty?’”[iii] (Note: If his argument is correct, then men should find a 700-pound female hunchback extremely sexy.) But does the existence of buxom women qualify as evidence against the existence of God? Had Richard seriously thought through his argument, he wouldn’t have used it. Here’s why. Richard acknowledges that breasts have a purpose (milk production), so his only real objection is that some breasts are larger than others.  However, any reason he could give for the natural selection of larger breasts in an atheistic world could just as easily be applied to a theistic world. For instance, he argues that large breasts act as an advertisement of a woman’s health. But wouldn’t men be attracted to healthy women whether those men were created by God or not? If so, then natural selection would favor large breasts in either world. Like it or not, Richard can’t simply point to Pamela Anderson and say, “There, that proves that God doesn’t exist,” because his argument has a hole in it. (Also, some men would look at the same evidence and come to the opposite conclusion.) Nevertheless, compared to some of his other arguments, Richard’s “Argument from Large Breasts” is an absolute masterpiece.  

Occasionally, Richard gives his readers a glimpse of the extreme childishness of some of his arguments. He goes so far as to claim that if something doesn’t fly out of his butt, it must not exist (I kid you not!): 

Since there is no observable divine hand in nature as a causal process, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no divine hand. After all, that there are no blue monkeys flying out my butt is sufficient reason to believe that there are no such creatures, and so it is with anything else.[iv] 

This may be the worst argument ever offered by anyone, and it gives us some insight into Richard’s position. Let us ponder his logic here. Richard draws an analogy between the absence of an observable divine hand and the absence of blue monkeys flying out of his butt. Just as we reject the idea of blue monkeys, so also we should reject the idea of God. Since this is an analogy, his conclusion about God can only be as strong as his conclusion about blue monkeys. But how strong is that conclusion? Richard says the fact that blue monkeys aren’t flying out of his butt is “sufficient reason” to conclude that blue monkeys don’t exist. The tremendous weakness of this argument should be obvious. Presumably, there are no monkeys of any color flying out of Richard’s butt. Are we to conclude that monkeys don’t exist?  Neither are there fire trucks, books, planets, horses, or bees emerging from his butt. But all these things exist. 

Reading this argument made me wonder how Richard has managed to survive as an atheist apologist. In the end I concluded that he uses the arguments of other atheists very well, and that this ability has helped him become an apologist. However, when he tries to come up with his own arguments, the result is disastrous. Anyone who would claim that something relating to animals in his butt is evidence that God doesn’t exist is not ready for serious academic discussion (or doesn’t think that his readers are). 

Almost as illogical as Richard’s “Argument from No Blue Monkeys in My Butt” is his claim that disagreement on a topic means that the disagreeing parties are both wrong: 

[T]he one thing all religions seem to have in common is a belief that love has something to do with the meaning of life. On virtually everything else they disagree—so virtually everything else is probably false.[v] 

Instead of simply reading this ridiculous comment and then moving on (as Richard apparently expects his readers to do), let’s follow this argument through to its logical conclusion. According to Richard, when all groups unanimously agree on something, that something is probably true. But if two different groups have two different beliefs, both beliefs are probably false. Thus, since different religions disagree about the nature of God, all beliefs about God are most likely false. Since Christianity teaches monogamy, while Islam allows polygamy, both views of marriage must be false. But why stop here? Those who favor democracy hold that “the people” should have a right to vote; those who support monarchy believe that the king should have all authority. Since there is a disagreement, both views are probably wrong. Theists believe in God; atheists do not believe in God. Hence (and here’s the key), both theists and atheists must be wrong, meaning that God both does and does not exist. Richard’s argument, if followed, leads to a contradiction. If we declare two different beliefs to be false because people disagree about those beliefs, and if those beliefs have opposite truth values (i.e. one is true if the other is false, such as belief in the existence or nonexistence of God), then we end up claiming that two views, one of which must be true, are both false. Thus, if Richard’s argument is correct, we arrive at a contradiction, meaning that his reasoning is utterly flawed. 

Sometimes Richard’s errors aren’t so easy to spot: 

The adoption of Metaphysical Naturalism will benefit the survival of any society, by eliminating fatal or exhausting religious conflict and instead managing disagreement with reasonable debate, by stopping the waste of time and other resources on falsehoods and taboos, by encouraging humanistic cooperation and preservation (especially against extremism, apocalypticism, fatalism, and religiously-inspired apathy, bigotry or panic), and by instilling the proper values necessary for an enduring, contented culture, one actively interested in exploring and colonizing the universe and ending misery and want.[vi] 

Here Richard argues that Metaphysical Naturalism is better than any religion, because if society were to adopt his view, there would be no religious conflict. Since everyone would have the same worldview, we could concentrate our energies on more important things, like colonizing the universe.  

This seems pretty straightforward, but there is a gaping problem. Richard claims that the adoption of his view by society would bring an end to religious conflict. But what does he mean by “adoption”? He can’t be referring to a simple adoption of his view by a government, for this would not put an end to religious conflicts, whether internal or external. For instance, if Congress suddenly voted in favor of a Metaphysical Naturalism Amendment to the Constitution, there would still be Christians, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, and others contending for their faiths. Thus, there would still be conflict. 

Nor can Richard be referring to the adoption of Metaphysical Naturalism by a majority of citizens in a society. Muslims will still contend for Islam, even if they are in the minority. So what does Richard mean? Apparently, he is claiming that if everyone in a society were to adopt his view, then no one in that society would be arguing about whether or not his view is true. His argument, then, amounts to this: “If we all believed in Metaphysical Naturalism, then there would be no disagreements about the truth of Metaphysical Naturalism.” If my point isn’t clear yet, just compare Richard’s reasoning with the following arguments, which are based on similar logic: 

If everyone were to become a Red Sox fan, then there would be no more enmity among baseball fans. Everyone would agree that Boston is the team to support, and we could focus on more important things, such as enjoying baseball games. Thus, everyone should become a Red Sox fan. 

If Christianity were adopted by everyone, then no one would disagree about whether or not Christianity is true. We wouldn’t have to worry about Muslim extremists anymore, for Islam would be a thing of the past. The war in Iraq would be over! Thus, everyone should adopt Christianity. 

Interestingly, Richard uses a similar strategy when he argues for the abolition of income tax. One of his justifications for his policy is that “so much of the time of legislators and the resources of political action groups is wasted on endless yearly debates over taxation.”[vii] In other words, if we were to abolish income tax, then legislators wouldn’t have to debate about income tax. But this logic could be used to justify any policy change: 

If we just made it a law that immigrants could come to the U.S. at will, then we wouldn’t have to worry about patrolling our borders or making immigration policies. We could then take those resources and use them elsewhere. Thus, U.S. borders should be open to everyone. 

If people would simply agree that abortion is wrong, the abortion controversy would be over. This would allow officials to spend their time debating other issues, such as health care. Thus, people should agree that abortion is wrong. 

While many arguments from Sense and Goodness are based on faulty logic, Richard just as frequently bases his arguments on faulty data. For instance, he claims that God’s “only purported purpose for sex was procreation, not lust or entertainment,”[viii] and that the Bible “contains hardly a hint of . . . any mature acceptance of sexuality.”[ix]  

I would normally say that a person who makes such a claim obviously hasn’t read the Bible. However, Richard says that he’s read the Bible from cover to cover and that he’s even read the New Testament in Greek, so I’m not sure what his errors imply. The Bible doesn’t say that God’s only purpose for sex was procreation. Consider this Bible passage, in which King Solomon praises his wife’s beauty: 

How beautiful are your feet in sandals,

O prince’s daughter!

The curves of your hips are like jewels,

The work of the hands of an artist.

Your navel is like a round goblet

Which never lacks mixed wine;

Your belly is like a heap of wheat

Fenced about with lilies.

Your two breasts are like two fawns,

Twins of a gazelle.

Your neck is like a tower of ivory,

Your eyes like the pools in Heshbon

By the gate of Bath-rabbim;

Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon,

Which faces toward Damascus.

Your head crowns you like Carmel,

And the flowing locks of your head are like purple threads;

The king is captivated by your tresses.

How beautiful and how delightful you are,

My love, with all your charms!

Your stature is like a palm tree,

And your breasts are like its clusters.

I said, “I will climb the palm tree,

I will take hold of its fruit stalks.”

Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine,

And the fragrance of your breath like apples,

And your mouth like the best wine![x] 

Solomon describes his beloved’s breasts as “two fawns” and as “clusters of the vine.” Now recall Richard’s discussion of breasts. He rails against God for creating them and concludes that their true purpose is to advertise health. Who has a more mature view of sexuality here? 

Needless to say, the Song of Solomon isn’t about the joys of child-rearing. I’m sure Richard is familiar with this part of the Bible, so I still don’t understand why he would say that the Bible teaches that sex is only for procreation. Richard is also wrong when he says that the Bible lacks a mature view of sexuality. According to the Bible, God created sex. He could just as easily have given us the ability to reproduce asexually, but he didn’t. He wanted man and woman to be together, and he made sex pleasurable. When he finished creating us this way, he called everything “very good.”[xi] And contrary to what Richard says, sex has purposes other than procreation. For instance, sexual pleasure can strengthen the marital bond between a man and a woman, which is certainly good for marriage. So, while he says that the Bible lacks a mature view of sex, it should be clear that Richard simply lacks a mature view of the Bible.  

At times Richard even seems deluded, as when he argues that atheists are the most persecuted minority in the world: “[A]s atheists know better than anyone else on the planet, if you say you don’t believe you often become a social outcast.”[xii]  

This is the epitome of egocentrism. Around the world, people have been shunned, oppressed, tortured, and killed for their beliefs, yet Richard thinks that he’s got it worse than all of them. He even shares with his readers the suffering that resulted from his stand against theism: “For the first time, rather than being merely constantly pestered, I was being called names, and having hellfire wished upon me.”[xiii] If Richard were to study other cultures, he might realize that there are people in the world who go through more than mere name-calling for the sake of their beliefs, and that graduate students at prestigious universities shouldn’t be calling themselves “social outcasts.” 

Given the poor quality of Richard’s arguments, it is shocking to read the following claims in his book and on his website: 

From long experience, I can vouch for the fact that the study of philosophy has steadily improved my ability to identify and correct my own errors, and to identify (and thus avoid) the errors of others. It has thereby improved my ability to think well and clearly, and has made my continuing education in all other things easier and more fruitful.[xiv]  

Every hour that devout believers spend praying, reading scripture, attending sermons and masses, I spend reading, thinking, honing my skill at getting at the truth and rooting out error.[xv] 

Now, nearing middle-age, I have found myself with that coherent, sensible, complete, evidentially well-supported philosophy of life that I had been looking for.[xvi]

My strongest ability is the refinement of persuasive and expository arguments, giving them logical structure and force without leaving them dry or obscure. I am also talented at developing illuminating analogies or examples.[xvii]

At every step of the way [in this book] I use sound reason and scientific evidence to argue that there is probably only a physical, natural world without gods or spirits.[xviii] 

Even more interesting is that Richard inadvertently implicates a number of his atheist colleagues in his crimes against reason: 

The Internet Infidels were also instrumental in helping to complete the latest phase of my intellectual development, especially Jeff Lowder and many affiliated colleagues: Evan Fales, Victor Stenger, Keith Augustine, Dan Barker, just to name a few, who also gave advice about improving this work specifically.[xix] 

Shame on all of them! Either they lacked the reasoning ability to see the flaws in Richard’s arguments from breasts and blue monkeys (in which case they should all stop writing), or they don’t care that atheism is based on ridiculous arguments (in which case they should stop trying to persuade the world that their beliefs are important). Either way, they are guilty along with Richard. Aristotle would not be pleased.

Go to Chapter Three: "Consistently Inconsistent"