A Critical Review of Massimo Pigliucci’s Answers for Aristotle: Fallacies, Errors, and a Shaky Synthesis
Massimo Pigliucci’s Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life (2012) promises a grand synthesis—melding science’s empirical rigor with philosophy’s reflective depth to guide us toward fulfillment. As a biologist and philosopher with three PhDs, Pigliucci seems poised to deliver. Yet, revisiting this ambitious work reveals a disappointing mishmash—riddled with fallacies, factual missteps, and a smug dismissal of alternatives like religion that undermine its lofty goals. Here’s a critical review, unpacking why Answers for Aristotle falters as a guide to meaning, with sources to back the critique.
Overview: A Noble Aim That Stumbles
Pigliucci’s thesis is bold: science (his biology bent) and philosophy (his Stoic leanings) together answer life’s big questions—meaning, morality, existence—without God or metaphysics. He rejects New Atheism’s brashness (Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2013) but doubles down on naturalism, sidelining religion as outdated. The book blends Aristotle’s virtues with modern data—e.g., neuroscience for ethics, cosmology for purpose—but the execution’s sloppy, the reasoning shaky, and the worldview narrow. Let’s dive into the flaws.
Fallacy #1: False Dichotomy—Science and Philosophy vs. Religion
Pigliucci frames science and philosophy as the sole paths to truth, pitting them against religion (Answers, Ch. 1). Either you’re with reason or stuck in superstition—no middle ground. This false dichotomy ignores faith’s rational traditions—e.g., Aquinas’ Five Ways (Summa Theologiae)—and science’s own limits.
Critique: Science maps how—F = ma, DNA’s 3 billion base pairs—but why eludes it (Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, 2006). Philosophy probes meaning, yet Pigliucci’s Stoic lens skips God’s explanatory power—e.g., fine-tuning odds (1 in 10¹²³, Penrose, The Road to Reality, 2004). “In the beginning, God created” (Genesis 1:1) offers a cause; Pigliucci’s duo leaves “why anything?” dangling. His split’s artificial—faith and reason dance, not duel (Fides et Ratio, John Paul II, 1998).
Fallacy #2: Straw Man—Caricaturing Theistic Explanations
Pigliucci dismisses God as a “science-stopper” (Answers, Ch. 3)—a lazy “God did it” that kills inquiry. This straw man flattens theism into a cartoon, ignoring its role in sparking science—Newton’s laws, Mendel’s genes flowed from belief (Collins, The Language of God, 2006).
Critique: God’s not a plug but a framework—Genesis 1:31 (“very good”) aligns with a fine-tuned cosmos (α ≈ 1/137, Davies, 2006). Pigliucci’s “stopper” claim flops—Christians probed nature to know God’s mind (Psalm 19:1). His evolution trump card? DNA’s complexity (Axe, Journal of Molecular Biology, 2004) hints at design—science aids theism, not atheism. He’s fighting a ghost, not a case.
Error #1: Misrepresenting the Problem of Evil
Pigliucci tackles evil (Answers, Ch. 5), arguing it disproves an all-good, all-powerful God—cancer, tsunamis clash with benevolence. He calls theodicies (e.g., free will) “ad hoc” excuses, favoring naturalism’s indifference.
Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance
His “evil, so no God” leans on an appeal to ignorance—no clear reason for suffering means none exists. He assumes goodness equals no pain, misreading theism’s depth.
His “evil, so no God” leans on an appeal to ignorance—no clear reason for suffering means none exists. He assumes goodness equals no pain, misreading theism’s depth.
Critique: Plantinga’s free will defense (God, Freedom, and Evil, 1974) refutes this—evil fits a greater good, like choice or growth (Romans 8:28). Natural evil? Tectonic plates that quake also sustain life (Ward, Rare Earth, 2000). Pigliucci’s error? Ignoring scripture’s lens—Job 42:2: “No purpose of Yours can be thwarted.” Evil’s real, not final—his naturalism shrugs where theism explains.
Error #2: Overstating Science’s Moral Reach
Pigliucci claims science informs ethics (Answers, Ch. 6)—e.g., oxytocin drives trust (Nature, 2005). He nods to Harris’ The Moral Landscape (2010) but insists philosophy refines it—Stoic virtues rule.
Fallacy: Category Error
He blurs science (facts) and philosophy (values)—a category error. Neuroscience shows what is (Greene, Moral Tribes, 2013), not what ought (Hume’s is-ought gap). Oxytocin’s nice, but why prioritize trust?
He blurs science (facts) and philosophy (values)—a category error. Neuroscience shows what is (Greene, Moral Tribes, 2013), not what ought (Hume’s is-ought gap). Oxytocin’s nice, but why prioritize trust?
Critique: Objective morality—“murder’s wrong”—transcends biology (Romans 2:15: “law written on their hearts”). Pigliucci’s Stoic “reason” picks virtues arbitrarily—why courage over mercy? “Love your neighbor” (Matthew 22:39) grounds ethics in a Lawgiver; his science-philosophy mix floats unmoored.
Fallacy #3: Begging the Question—Naturalism’s Primacy
Pigliucci assumes naturalism explains all (Answers, Ch. 2)—quantum fluctuations (ΔEΔt ≥ ħ/2, Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, 2012) birthed the cosmos, evolution shaped life. God’s redundant.
Critique: He begs the question—why those laws? A “vacuum” with rules isn’t nothing—something’s behind it (Penrose, Cycles of Time, 2010). Abiogenesis odds (1 in 10⁷⁷, Axe, 2004) defy chance—naturalism’s “it just happened” mirrors his “ad hoc” jab at theism. “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1)—a cause beats a fluke.
Error #3: Underestimating Religion’s Historical Role
Pigliucci grants religion cultural value (Answers, Ch. 7) but denies its truth—e.g., Christianity’s “myths” lack evidence. He skips its intellectual heft.
Fallacy: Hasty Generalization
His “myths” label—a hasty generalization—ignores data. Christ’s resurrection has witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6), historical corroboration (Craig, Reasonable Faith, 2008).
His “myths” label—a hasty generalization—ignores data. Christ’s resurrection has witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6), historical corroboration (Craig, Reasonable Faith, 2008).
Critique: The Bible’s spine—Jericho’s fall (Wood, Biblical Archaeology Review, 1990)—beats vague Vedic tales (Flood, Introduction to Hinduism, 1996). Pigliucci’s Stoicism apes Christian ethics—love, justice—without crediting “Do unto others” (Matthew 7:12). Religion’s not just a relic; it’s a root.
Why It’s a Bad Book: A Shaky Synthesis
Answers for Aristotle aims high but lands low. Pigliucci’s fallacies—false dichotomy, straw man, appeal to ignorance, category error, begging the question, hasty generalization—pile up. His errors—misreading evil, overstating science, underplaying faith—compound the mess. The science-philosophy blend feels forced—Stoicism’s calm (Epictetus, Meditations) lacks a “why” without God. As Lent calls us deeper, “Test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) finds this wanting—naturalism’s thin where theism’s thick.
Sources:
- Pigliucci, Massimo. Answers for Aristotle. 2012.
- Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma. 2006.
- Penrose, Roger. The Road to Reality. 2004 & Cycles of Time. 2010.
- Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. 1974.
- Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith. 2008.
- Axe, Douglas. Journal of Molecular Biology. 2004.
- Ward, Peter & Brownlee, Donald. Rare Earth. 2000.
- Collins, Francis. The Language of God. 2006.
- Greene, Joshua. Moral Tribes. 2013.
- Krauss, Lawrence. A Universe from Nothing. 2012.
- Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae.
- Bible (RSV): Genesis 1:1-31, Psalm 19:1, Romans 8:28, etc.
This post critiques Answers for Aristotle, exposing Pigliucci’s fallacies and errors with detailed arguments and robust sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.