Rosenberg on Reality

Last updated on: February 5, 2018 at 12:16 am by Andrew

Rosenberg on Reality 2018-02-05T00:16:56-05:00 Andrew

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

You have to admire philosopher Alex Rosenberg. His skepticism is piercing. In An Atheists Guide to Reality, he provides a list of questions and their answers, asserting ” how totally unavoidable they are, provided you place your confidence in science to provide the answers.”

“Is there a god? No. What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is. What is the purpose of the universe? There is none. What is the meaning of life? Ditto. Why am I here? Just dumb luck… Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding? Is there free will? Not a chance! … What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them. Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral. Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes. What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don’t look for it; it will find you when you need it. Does history have any meaning or purpose? It’s full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.” (Page 2)

Now this is clearly a strong form of scientism (which has its own problems), but what is definitely controversial, specifically among atheist thinkers, is how far his skepticism goes, both in philosophically biting the bullet on things like morality, free-will, and consciousness, but even more specifically asserting atheism requires such an epistemology (a strict scientism). I don’t agree with his metaphysics or epistemology, but I appreciate the philosophical challenge though; we all have to square our world views.

To be a “good atheist”, he’s asserted that science has revealed a universe bankrupt of purpose, meaning, morality, and free-will. All these things, the conscious self as a whole, is an illusion birthed from Darwin’s pond. He continues:

“The big obstacle to accepting science’s answers to life’s relenting questions is deep, subtle, insidious, purely psychological, and probably hardwired into our genes. It’s a problem even the most scientistic among us grapple with. It’s not that some people will find the answers science gives scare or hard to follow. The problem doesn’t even look like a problem. It has to do with the way we –educated or uneducated, atheist or theist, agnostic, deist, scientist – in fact, all human beings – like our information to be ‘packaged’. We are suckers for a good story – a description of events in the form of a plot with characters driven by motives… We prefer our information to come in a package with a naturalstarting place, an exciting, tension-filled middle, topped off by a satisfying finish. We prefer stories with plots that make sense of the order of events by revealing their meanings.” (Page 7-8)

Though it maybe troubling, failing to discard these notions is just prudish if you take atheism and science seriously. There is something interesting at play here with Rosenberg’s all-in-atheism. Though I disagree with his metaphysical and epistemology, I find his skepticism incredibly consistent. Consider five propositions:

God doesn’t exist (atheism)
Matter is all that does (naturalism)
Free will is an illusion
Consciousness is an illusion
Morality is subjective/relative

Folks like Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are happy to jump on 1 + 2. Actually, Sam Harris agrees with all but 5, and finds that morality is “objective”. How one can espouse 3 + 4, but reject 5 is a much longer conversation. Daniel Dennett would be another interesting case, jumping in with 1, 2, and 4, but religiously (pardon the pun) holding on to 3 and 5. Though there is no conscious self and all causes are natural and determined, but free will exists? This would be another longer conversation (and I’ll let Harris critique that view), the bottom line is that he finds the pursuit to salvage free will simply “theology” [1].

Rosenberg’s skepticism would not only concur, but throw Harris into the religious camp as well with his views on morality. Espousing any of those things is just special pleading and very unatheist. Again, Rosenberg has his own metaphysics and epistemology to defend, but there’s something incredibly fresh about consistent skepticism, as opposed to pick-and-choose skepticism.

Notes:

[1] Harris, Sam. Free Will, page 18.

Quote Bank

Previous Post

January 28, 2018

On Romanus Cessario, Non Possumus, and Theological Marxism

Next Post

February 12, 2018 From Evangelical to Progressive

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Book Reviews Deep Scene Breakdown Deep Song Breakdown Events with Adam Lee Iron Heart Musings Podcast Quote Bank

Select a Month January 2026 September 2025 August 2025 June 2025 March 2025 February 2025 November 2024 August 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 September 2023 August 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 December 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 August 2020 June 2020 March 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 September 2017 August 2017 May 2016 April 2016 November 2015 October 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 March 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How much was Judas paid to betray Jesus?

Select your answer to see how you score.

10 pieces of silver 20 pieces of silver 12 pieces of silver 30 pieces of silver