The post addresses his views on atheism (particularly his critique of New Atheism), his stance on religion, and his philosophical positions (e.g., scientism, stoicism, and the limits of science), using recent sources, scientific data, theological arguments, and logical analysis.
The tone is respectful yet firm, aiming to expose fallacies and provide a counter-narrative grounded in evidence and reasoning.
Refuting Massimo Pigliucci’s Atheistic, Religious, and Philosophical Claims
Massimo Pigliucci—triple-PhD holder, professor at the City College of New York, and former editor of Scientia Salon—is a towering figure in atheism, skepticism, and philosophy. An outspoken critic of New Atheism, a defender of philosophy’s primacy over science in certain domains, and a proponent of Stoicism, Pigliucci blends secular humanism with a nuanced rejection of religion. His writings—like “New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn in the Atheism Movement” (2013) and his blog Rationally Speaking—challenge the likes of Dawkins and Harris while offering a softer atheism that respects religion’s cultural role. But do his claims hold up? As we weigh reason and faith, let’s dissect his atheistic, religious, and philosophical positions, exposing fallacies and refuting them with science, scripture, and logic.
Pigliucci’s Atheistic Claims: A Softened Skepticism
Pigliucci identifies as an atheist but distances himself from New Atheism’s “obnoxious” tone (Rationally Speaking, 2011). In “New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn” (Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2013), he accuses figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens of scientism—over-relying on science to dismiss God—and neglecting philosophy. He argues atheism isn’t a default position (contra Ron Nicolas’ critique) and that science doesn’t demand atheism, citing methodological vs. philosophical naturalism distinctions (Wikipedia, Pigliucci entry).
Fallacy #1: Straw Man—Misrepresenting New Atheism
Pigliucci paints New Atheists as anti-philosophical, claiming they dodge theology and caricature religion. This is a straw man. Dawkins’ The God Delusion (2006) engages Aquinas’ Five Ways, dismantling them logically—e.g., the First Cause argument’s infinite regress flaw. Harris’ The End of Faith (2004) critiques religion’s historical harms, not just its metaphysics. Pigliucci’s “scientism” jab ignores their broader point: science undermines supernatural claims when evidence lacks (e.g., fine-tuning, Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, 2006).
Pigliucci paints New Atheists as anti-philosophical, claiming they dodge theology and caricature religion. This is a straw man. Dawkins’ The God Delusion (2006) engages Aquinas’ Five Ways, dismantling them logically—e.g., the First Cause argument’s infinite regress flaw. Harris’ The End of Faith (2004) critiques religion’s historical harms, not just its metaphysics. Pigliucci’s “scientism” jab ignores their broader point: science undermines supernatural claims when evidence lacks (e.g., fine-tuning, Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, 2006).
Refutation: New Atheists don’t reject philosophy—they prioritize empirical falsifiability. Pigliucci’s own atheism leans on science—DNA complexity (3 billion base pairs) and cosmic order (α ≈ 1/137)—yet he balks when others push harder. His “science doesn’t demand atheism” hinges on a false dichotomy: methodological naturalism (science’s practice) often leads to philosophical naturalism when no supernatural evidence emerges. “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1)—if nature’s all we see, why not probe further?
Fallacy #2: Ad Hominem—Dismissing New Atheists’ Credentials
Pigliucci implies only philosophers like him (three PhDs!) can tackle atheism properly (Scientia Salon, 2015). This is ad hominem—Harris and Dawkins lack philosophy degrees, so their arguments don’t count. But ideas stand on merit, not titles. Victor Stenger’s A Defense of New Atheism (2014) notes their books target a public fed up with religion’s excesses—philosophy’s turf isn’t exclusive.
Pigliucci implies only philosophers like him (three PhDs!) can tackle atheism properly (Scientia Salon, 2015). This is ad hominem—Harris and Dawkins lack philosophy degrees, so their arguments don’t count. But ideas stand on merit, not titles. Victor Stenger’s A Defense of New Atheism (2014) notes their books target a public fed up with religion’s excesses—philosophy’s turf isn’t exclusive.
Refutation: Truth isn’t credential-gated. Dawkins’ evolutionary lens and Harris’ neuroscience insights enrich atheism—Pigliucci’s own biology PhD doesn’t outrank them. Scripture backs lay wisdom: “Out of the mouth of babes” (Psalm 8:2). The New Atheist surge post-9/11 (PhilPapers, Pigliucci, 2013) reflects real-world stakes—philosophy’s navel-gazing can’t claim monopoly.
Pigliucci’s Religious Claims: A Reluctant Respect
Pigliucci doesn’t outright scorn religion—he calls it a “social amenity” (Rationally Speaking, 2013) and resists New Atheist “scam” labels. In “Should We Be Skeptical of Religion?” (Philosophy Garden, 2023), he advocates Pyrrhonian skepticism—doubt, not denial—since supernatural claims might evolve. He grants religion’s minority non-theistic forms (e.g., Buddhism) but focuses on theistic ones, rejecting metaphysical naturalism’s foes.
Fallacy #3: Appeal to Ignorance—Future Evidence Excuse
Pigliucci’s “evidence we don’t see might be vast” (Philosophy Garden, 2023) is an appeal to ignorance. If unseen evidence matters, why not unicorns? He admits rejecting “specific claims so far”—but that’s atheism’s core. Waiting a “millennium” for better claims dodges the now.
Pigliucci’s “evidence we don’t see might be vast” (Philosophy Garden, 2023) is an appeal to ignorance. If unseen evidence matters, why not unicorns? He admits rejecting “specific claims so far”—but that’s atheism’s core. Waiting a “millennium” for better claims dodges the now.
Refutation: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when expected signs (e.g., miracles, fulfilled prophecies) fail—Bayes’ theorem shifts priors (P¬G|¬E > PG|E absent). The Bible’s historical backbone—Jericho’s walls (Wood, Biblical Archaeology Review, 1990)—beats vague Vedic tales (Flood, Introduction to Hinduism, 1996). “Seek and you will find” (Matthew 7:7)—Pigliucci’s agnostic stall lacks rigor.
Fallacy #4: False Equivalence—Religion as Philosophy’s Peer
He equates religion’s coping mechanisms with philosophical schools (Rationally Speaking, 2013)—Epicureanism to Christianity. This false equivalence ignores religion’s supernatural baggage—resurrection vs. rational ethics.
He equates religion’s coping mechanisms with philosophical schools (Rationally Speaking, 2013)—Epicureanism to Christianity. This false equivalence ignores religion’s supernatural baggage—resurrection vs. rational ethics.
Refutation: Philosophy tests ideas; religion often demands faith. Existentialism’s freedom (Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1943) doesn’t need a deity—Christianity’s cross does (1 Corinthians 15:14). Pigliucci’s soft spot for religion’s “value” skips its falsifiable flaws—e.g., no flood geology (Ward, Rare Earth, 2000).
Pigliucci’s Philosophical Claims: Stoicism and Science’s Limits
Pigliucci champions Stoicism (Stoic Meditations podcast) and argues science can’t answer moral or metaphysical questions (Answers for Aristotle, 2012). He slams New Atheist “scientism” as overreach—e.g., Harris’ The Moral Landscape (2010)—and insists philosophy reigns there (Skepticality, 2012).
Fallacy #5: Category Error—Splitting Science and Philosophy
Pigliucci’s “science can’t do morality” is a category error. Neuroscience (Greene, Moral Tribes, 2013) maps empathy’s roots—oxytocin spikes in trust (Nature, 2005). He wants philosophers for “meaning,” but science informs it—e.g., evolution’s survival lens.
Pigliucci’s “science can’t do morality” is a category error. Neuroscience (Greene, Moral Tribes, 2013) maps empathy’s roots—oxytocin spikes in trust (Nature, 2005). He wants philosophers for “meaning,” but science informs it—e.g., evolution’s survival lens.
Refutation: Harris’ point—well-being as a measurable goal (The Moral Landscape)—bridges science and ethics. Stoicism’s virtues (wisdom, courage) align with brain wiring (Damasio, Descartes’ Error, 1994). “Love your neighbor” (Matthew 22:39) fits survival data—Pigliucci’s divide’s artificial.
Fallacy #6: Appeal to Authority—Philosophy’s Turf Claim
His “ask the philosopher, not the biologist” (Skepticality, 2012) is an appeal to authority. Why’s philosophy king? Science’s facts—DNA’s complexity, cosmic constants—shape metaphysics (Penrose, The Road to Reality, 2004).
His “ask the philosopher, not the biologist” (Skepticality, 2012) is an appeal to authority. Why’s philosophy king? Science’s facts—DNA’s complexity, cosmic constants—shape metaphysics (Penrose, The Road to Reality, 2004).
Refutation: Fine-tuning (α ≈ 1/137) suggests purpose—philosophy interprets, science finds (Davies, 2006). Pigliucci’s Stoic calm (Meditations, Epictetus) echoes brain plasticity (Doidge, The Brain That Changes Itself, 2007)—science underpins it. “Test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)—no field owns truth.
The Bigger Picture: Pigliucci’s Half-Measures
Pigliucci’s atheism shies from New Atheism’s boldness, his religion view hedges with undue deference, and his philosophy clings to silos. His fallacies—straw man, ad hominem, appeal to ignorance, false equivalence, category error, appeal to authority—reveal a thinker more protective of turf than truth. As Lent deepens, scripture and science align: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). Pigliucci’s critique misses the universe’s design—life’s rarity (Ward, 2000), Christ’s historicity (Craig, Reasonable Faith, 2008). He’s half-right but wholly unconvincing.
Sources:
- Pigliucci, Massimo. “New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2013.
- Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. 2006.
- Harris, Sam. The End of Faith. 2004 & The Moral Landscape. 2010.
- Stenger, Victor. “A Defense of New Atheism.” Science, Religion and Culture, 2014.
- Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma. 2006.
- Penrose, Roger. The Road to Reality. 2004.
- Ward, Peter & Brownlee, Donald. Rare Earth. 2000.
- Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith. 2008.
- Greene, Joshua. Moral Tribes. 2013.
- Doidge, Norman. The Brain That Changes Itself. 2007.
- Bible (RSV): Psalm 19:1, Matthew 7:7, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, etc.
This post refutes Pigliucci’s claims with detailed arguments, exposing his fallacies and grounding the countercase in diverse evidence.
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.