Remember my last post about the responses of atheist PZ Meyers to Michael Egnor’s eight questions for the New Atheists?
Well, some other “New Atheists” have responded and he decided to write a new post about one of the funniest ones.
The New Atheist in question answers the questions, but first he attacks Egnor for not allowing comments to the blog post, for being Roman Catholic, for being close-minded(?), and so on.
He then writes this:
The only “doctrine” inherent in “New Atheism” is a desire to observe a secular society and evidentialist arguments…Critical thinking is not conclusion and that’s where Egnor gets everything wrong.
In other words, he doesn’t have any answers to the questions!
Lest you think I am kidding, I will show his answers.
First, let’s review the questions:
- Why is there anything?
- What caused the Universe?
- Why is there regularity (Law) in nature?
- Of the Four Causes in nature proposed by Aristotle (material, formal, efficient, and final), which of them are real? Do final causes exist?
- Why do we have subjective experience, and not merely objective existence?
- Why is the human mind intentional, in the technical philosophical sense of aboutness, which is the referral to something besides itself?
- Does Moral Law exist in itself, or is it an artifact of nature (natural selection, etc.)
- Why is there evil?
And now his answers:
I don’t know. Let’s use the scientific method and critical thinking to continue to try to figure it out and let’s leave religious presuppositions out of policy decisions so we don’t create legal inequality between belivers [sic] and non-believers.
That’s it. He only gave one answer. To all eight questions! He gave the same answer to all eight questions. “I don’t know”. My guess about his “policy” comments is that he is basically concerned that a majority of morality-enabled voters might put legal brakes on his selfish pursuit of happiness. E.g. – by passing laws defending the unborn or laws defending traditional marriage or laws protecting religious liberty, etc.
Anyway, if you want something funny to read, then you should definitely read this post. The funniest stuff is Egnor’s response to the New Atheist, and you have to click through to read that. I guarantee you will fall off your chair laughing. You readers think *I* am snarky and mean. You think *I* make fun of atheists for not being able to ground morality. Ha! Wait till you read Egnor. I’m *nice*.
We all need to get used to dealing with atheists this way. We need to bring their scientific, philosophical and moral deficiencies to the surface for all to see. And we must use questions to do it.
Atheists oppose science and evidence
- Physicist Frank Tipler weighs in on Stephen Hawking’s theory
- Peter Atkins claiming that nothing exists, (the physical universe is actually nothing)
- Stephen Meyer debating Michael Shermer on the origin of life
- Richard Dawkins explains why he won’t debate William Lane Craig
- How good are the arguments in the new book by Richard Dawkins?
- Richard Dawkins cites fraudulent research, runs from public debate
- Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
- Richard Dawkins cites German professor as authority on historical Jesus
- Analyzing Christopher Hitchens’ case against God
Theists support science and evidence
- The origin of the universe from nothing
- The fine-tuning of the cosmological constants to permit life
- The fine-tuning of the galaxy, solar system, and planet to permit life
- Origin of the building blocks in the simplest replicating cell
- Origin of biological information in the simplest replicating cell
- Sudden origins of all major body plans in the Cambrian explosion
- Irreducible complexity in molecular machines
- The limits on what natural selection and random mutation can do
- Peer-reviewed paper says there is no atheistic explanation for the Cambrian explosion
- Does the Cambrian explosion disprove Darwinian evolution?