I recently had the opportunity to dialogue briefly with Dr. Peter Boghossian, an instructor in the philosophy department at Portland State University. The conversation was a part of a unit of study I have been engaged in through my doctoral studies at George Fox University.

As prep for the exchange, I reviewed some of Dr. Boghossian's thought, as well as the work of others on the topic of atheism. Here is a list of some of the resources I used:

Articles/Audio/Video of Dr. Boghossian's thought:

• "Faith as a Cognitive Sickness"


• "Jesus, the Easter Bunny, and Other Delusions: Just Say No!"


• "Interview with Peter Boghossian"

Other work on the topic of atheism:

• The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins


• The Dawkins Delusion, by Alister and McGrath


• Where the Conflict Really Lies, by Alvin Plantinga


• "The Rise of Atheism in America"


• "Faith No More"

In addition, I think I have a fairly significant amount of personal experience with atheists, having worked in campus ministry for several years, devoting a part of my time on campus to intentionally engaging atheists in healthy conversations. As a rule, I believe I try to listen to others in order to understand who they are, and how they arrived at their current place in life. I truly love hearing life stories.

Atheism, or secularism, or humanism, is a growing force on the university campuses of America. Those of us in campus ministry need to spend a little bit of time becoming familiar with the thought of this particular demographic on campus, so we can intelligently speak to others on the topic. It is an intriguing way of viewing the world, and students (especially Christian students who have been turned off by hypocritical Christians, or the dogma of the institutional church) are often drawn into these circles. The emphasis that influential atheists place on critical thinking is often very attractive to young minds entering the academic world.

If you have never explored the world of atheism, as someone involved in campus ministry, I would recommend especially "The Rise of Atheism in America", The Dawkins Delusion, and the work of Peter Boghossian (all listed above) for starters. But in addition to this, your best opportunity for understanding will come through personal relationships. 

As you begin to understand some of the more basic ideas being presented, then you might want to explore Where the Conflict Really Lies, The Dawkins Delusion, and The God Delusion for some deeper thoughts on the topic.

Back to my recent dialogue with Dr. Boghossian...

Be prepared, Peter has some very harsh things to say about Christians, and people of faith in general. It is easy to just respond in anger, I suppose, to some of his criticism. However, I think the more healthy approach is to truly listen to what he is saying, looking for opportunities to be strengthened through his critique. Specifically, he asserts that seeking truth through the use of faith is an unreliable approach. From his perspective, seeking truth should be guided by fact and science. In my opinion, his logic is flawed (greatly), but what he has to say should cause people of faith to ask questions of ourselves.

[Side note: Dr. Boghossian's belief that reliance on objective scientific evidence in seeking truth is, in my opinion, a very UNreliable approach considering the field of science is constantly yielding new evidence (which is often contradictory to old evidence) to humanity as we continue to discover the depths of its complexity. Not to mention the fact that flawed humans reach varying conclusions with the same set of scientific facts (which is also a dilemma of Christianity to which atheists will point as they question why there are seemingly so many variations of Christian doctrine).] 

As I listened to Peter, I found myself asking: "What IS the role of faith in my pursuit of truth?" Asking tough questions of myself is a very good thing. Done in the right context, I believe struggling through difficult questions will bring me to a deeper walk with God.

I'm currently reading Jim and Casper Go to Church, and am preparing for a dialogue with Jim Casper this coming week. This book focuses specifically on how atheists view Christians, and that the way Christians "do church" sometimes seems counter to the teachings of Jesus. I look forward to addressing this book in the days ahead.

I also look forward to your hearing your thoughts as you review some of the resources I've included here.

Google is moving from an information based engine to a knowledge based engine.

Over the years Google has grown tremendously. The information it has acquired from its users is mind-blowing the question is is there a limit to what they will be able to do with this information and do they or will they ever know too much?

Regardless, this new technology is pretty impressive and I hope it helps with my doctorate research:)

The past couple of weeks in my D.Min. program have included some fascinating readings, lectures, and conversations. Dr. Alvin Plantinga’s newest offering, Where the Conflict Really Lies, kicked things off. In the book, he makes the argument that there does exist deep conflict between science and religion, but it is not the conflict that one ordinarily supposes.

Plantinga appeals to Newtonian and Quantum physics, microbiology, astronomy, and cosmology to show that what conflict does exist between Christian theism and science is superficial at best. He then uses those same fields to show deep concord between Christian theism and science, and deep conflict between science and naturalism. Scientific theory is agnostic about metaphysical and theological questions. Naturalism, however, is not.

Yet to follow the science, Plantinga asserts, one is forced to conclude vis-à-vis a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence that the trustworthiness of one’s cognitive faculties is very, very low. Why? Because a naturalist’s commitment to unguided natural selection as the driving force of evolution necessarily entails that only those functions which aid in reproduction and evolutionary adaptation have a high probability for selection and preservation in the future generations of a given species. Rational cognition, it seems, fails to meet the evolutionary adaptive criteria.

Plantinga asserts that one cannot reason one’s way to a scenario of unguided natural selection resulting in the development of trustworthy reasoning skills. The probability is just too low. So the naturalist is caught in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, he claims that all that can be known about our existence comes through rational reasoning. But on the other hand, that same reasoning leads to the conclusion that the ability to reason could not have come about through the process of unguided natural selection. That, in turn, forces a move by which the naturalist must conclude that if his processes of cognitive reasoning have led to such an fundamental, untrustworthy conclusion, the process itself must be untrustworthy and all conclusions based on that process are subject to being jettisoned.

If you are confused by the above paragraph, you’re in good company. It is a circuitous argument that includes a lot of philosophical shorthand that I had to read and re-read to attempt to understand. (If I’ve missed anything here, I’m sure my colleagues will note it in the comment thread below.)

In all, Plantinga does a decent job of describing how much of the debate between atheists and Christians is on the order of superficial conflict. It is to the areas of deep concord and deep conflict that the discussion should turn. Yet as long as one side can get a rise out of the other by dwelling on matters of superficial importance, that turn will be waylaid. Critics of Plantinga say that his argumentation succumbs to confirmation bias from the outset and are happy to dismiss the volume altogether. While it does seem, at times, that Plantinga leans heavily on assumptions supporting Christian theism, he does so to the same degree that Dawkins, Dennett, and the other “New Atheists” employ assumptions supporting their respective theses.

Alongside Plantinga, I was reading and listening to Dr. Peter Boghossian, a professor of Philosophy at Portland State University. Dr. Boghossian was gracious enough to join us for our cohort’s weekly chat and let us put some questions to him about why he adheres to his particular methodology for atheism (or, I think he would say, skepticism). Again briefly, Dr. Boghossian holds that faith is a “cognitive sickness” that results in holding widespread delusions. He asserts that all faith claims are necessarily objective knowledge claims about the world and defines faith as “belief without evidence.” He claims that he is willing to revise any belief he currently holds, provided that he is presented with sufficient evidence to warrant a change of belief.

In his public lectures, Dr. Boghossian can come off as intentionally confrontational toward his dissenters (indeed, he thinks that “people of faith” have been the recipients of too much intellectual hand-holding), which serves for quite an engaging talk but can limit civil debate. In our chat, however, Dr. Boghossian was an absolute gentleman, kind and attentive, honest and straightforward (though I couldn’t help but wonder if he didn’t feel a little like the only sane man in an asylum—all the rest of us are clearly delusional).

My point of contention with Dr. Boghossian begins with (what I perceive) is an intentionally vague understanding of what constitutes “evidence” and a corresponding bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand that allows him to redraw what kind of evidence is admissible for inclusion in a given debate regarding faith claims. It is easy to take for granted that all parties at the table agree on the same working definitions for the basic concepts being discussed. However, disagreements in these basics often lead to two or more parties talking past one another.

So, I posited a simple question to Dr. Boghossian during the chat: “Peter, I am hoping for some clarification around your evidence base. You often say that you are willing to reconsider any belief you hold if there is substantial evidence to warrant reconsideration. You seem to hold an assumption that there is a commonly shared understanding of what constitutes ‘evidence’ and what does not. Evidence in science presumably has a narrower definition than it does in, say, law. So, my question is simple: What does/does not count as ‘evidence’ warranting a belief’s consideration?”

Now, if you’ve ever been in a text-based chat before, it can be disorienting. There are often several streams of conversation occurring simultaneously as one scrolls back and forth between locations in the chat thread. I was not surprised, therefore, when the question went unanswered. It might have simply gotten lost in the shuffle.

So I posted it a second time. Still, no response from Dr. Boghossian, though there were a couple affirming, “good question, Andy” comments from others in the chat room. Finally, I posted a third time. This third posting elicited the tongue-in-cheek pleas of my colleagues to have the question addressed (my friend Russ quipped, “Peter: Please, oh please, for the love of … god? … answer Andy’s question or he’ll get cranky…). Dr. Boghossian graciously apologized, saying that he was typing as fast as he could in order to address as many questions as possible. 

His brief response was to say, “It’s not possible for me to respond to ‘what constitutes good evidence,’ as this is a radically contextual question. I’d have to know what, exactly, is the claim in question before I could even begin to answer this.”

So it seems, on the whole, that Dr. Boghossian’s evidence base is a moving target, open to the inclusion of some types of evidence at some times (historical testimony, perhaps) and closed to that same type of evidence at others.  I also noted that he modified my question by adding the word “good” as an adjective describing “evidence.” I was not asking what constitutes good or valid or convincing evidence. That is a second order concern. First, we must all understand what we mean when we say “evidence” in the first place.

Why does this matter? Because Dr. Boghossian’s entire diagnosis of faith as a “cognitive sickness” rests on what does and does not constitute valid evidence. By his definition, a narrow evidence base necessarily results in a greater population of deluded people than a wide evidence base. What I may want to bring “to the adult table” (a phrase he often employs in referring to discussions about faith based on the presentation of evidence) may include things that I find out, upon arriving at the adult table, are inadmissible to those already seated. Were that to happen, I would be banished back “to the children’s table” (the corollary pejorative he uses in the same breath) to sit and think about what I’d done.

I think it would be fascinating to continue discussions with Dr. Boghossian around the question of evidence. If the bounds of an evidence base are fluid, then so must the definition of faith be fluid. One cannot have static understanding of faith based on fluid definitions of evidence and belief (though we did not, in our discussion, broach the question of what qualifies as belief). This may all sound like silly semantics, but if the stakes are sufficiently high, then semantics are important.

Are the stakes sufficiently high? As a person of faith, I think so. But leave my faith out of it for a moment. Dr. Boghossian is working with one of his students (or former students, the exact relationship is unclear to me) on a proposal that would have the DSM-IV (the standard of mental disorder classification) revise its definition of delusion so that the current religious exemption is removed. Presently, a diagnosis of delusion has three criteria: certainty, incorrigibility, and implausibility. All that simply means is that the person is certain of the content of the delusion, is unwilling to consider evidence to the contrary, and the content of the delusion itself contains beliefs that are highly implausible. There is also a common understanding that religious beliefs, while they may seem to present these three criteria to the skeptical observer, are different than delusions, falling more in line with things like memory, illusion, or perception.

So, I think the stakes are high. Before we go about clinically diagnosing people who hold religious beliefs (especially those we don't find particulary appetizing) as mentally ill, we need to be quite certain that we’re all on the same page with how we are going to define things like “evidence.” If we can do that, I’m game for whatever discussions come next.

Dr. Peter Boghossian in his recent lecture "Jesus, the Easter Bunny, and Other Delusions: Just Say No!"[1] argues that faith-based belief processes are unreliable and do not lead one to truth. Boghossian is an atheist who is on a mission to help people convert from a faith-based belief process (a state of delusion) to a reliable process of reasoning.  In an interview with the Portland Mercury he states that he has helped, “hundreds of people lose their faith. I have hundreds of emails and Facebook thank yous from people who have lost their faith, who have liberated themselves from that unreliable process of reasoning. Every single person is capable of living a life free of delusion. Everyone.”[2] Let me capture the essence of his argument from the above mentioned lecture.

1.      Faith-based belief processes are unreliable.

2.      An unreliable process decreases the likelihood that one will have true beliefs.

3.      An unreliable process leads to unreliable conclusions.

Boghossian argues that the goal of a reasoning process should be to maximize beliefs that are true and to minimize the number of false beliefs a person holds. Thus one must avoid using reasoning processes that are unreliable. Ultimately Boghossian argues that any faith-based belief process is unreliable and will not point you towards the truth. Instead of leading to truth, the faith-based belief process leads people into being delusional.

He uses an illustration to demonstrate that not all processes lead to equally reliable results. He talks about a bathroom door in his home that needs to be replaced because of a large hole. In order to replace the door the door needs to be measured. He then argues that there are different processes one could use to measure the door some which lead to reliable results and others which lead to unreliable results. For example using your elbow to measure the door most likely does not lead to a reliable measurement that allows you to successfully replace the door. However, using a tape measure (a more reliable process for determining the size of the door) leads to a more reliable result.

Boghossian moves on to expose unreliable nature of a faith-based belief process. The topics he chooses to make his case are somewhat random: intercessory prayer, speaking in tongues, the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (which Protestants don’t buy into) and faith based healings. Boghossian’s selection of topics and the reasoning process with which he engages them is rather frustrating:

1.      Firstly, Boghossian’s critique of the faith-based belief processes is that he takes believes that are not universally accepted by all Christian traditions (such as transubstantiation which Protestants don’t belief in.) Moreover, he chooses beliefs which really that are on the periphery of the Christian faith (besides prayer which is central). His critique of a Christian faith-based belief processes should start with the central figure of Christianity - Jesus. Instead of engaging beliefs that are central to the Christian faith, Boghossian dabbles around in non-central issues. Since Boghossian title of his talk includes Jesus, it seems fair to expect that he actually deals with Jesus. However, I am glad he does not deal with the Easter Bunny.

2.      Secondly, his critique of the Christian faith-based belief processes is very shallow. For example with both the intercessory prayer and speaking in tongues he refers to one academic study and dismisses both as delusional. He does not engage other academic studies on prayer. He simply finds one study (quantitative?) with which he argues his case. A second example of his shallow engagement is tha he does not look at how prayer has been understood theologically within the Christian tradition (for example the Reformed view on prayer). There seems to be no true desire to engage Christian beliefs and belief processes. Instead of engaging Christian beliefs and belief processes Boghossian’s desire seems to be to simply dismiss them. The absence of a desire to reason is rather surprising.

3.      Thirdly, during the question and answer time he dismisses scientific theory (Quantum Mechanics) that could challenge and undermine his argument. Furthermore, he does not allow for testimony in which people share about how their faith has made a difference in their lives. However, Boghossian did not object when one of his students gave a several minute long testimony about how Boghossian has liberated him from his Catholic roots. This seems to show that Boghossian only wants to engage others selectively. He does not seem to be as open to changing his mind as he claims to be.

4.      Fourthly, Boghossian is not true to his own process in evaluating Christian faith-based belief process. He has engaged in an unreliable process (see point 1 and 2) which has led him to an unreliable conclusion.