Why Massimo Pigliucci’s Arguments Against God’s Existence Are Wrong

Below is a long, informative blog-style post titled "Why Massimo Pigliucci’s Arguments Against God’s Existence Are Wrong," which critically examines and refutes Pigliucci’s key atheistic arguments against the existence of God. As a philosopher, biologist, and prominent skeptic, Pigliucci has articulated his atheism in various writings and talks, such as his blog Rationally Speaking, his book Answers for Aristotle (2012), and articles like “New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn in the Atheism Movement” (2013). This post focuses on his core objections—God’s lack of empirical evidence, the problem of evil, the inadequacy of theistic explanations, and the superiority of naturalistic alternatives—dissecting their fallacies and countering them with scientific, philosophical, and theological evidence. The tone is respectful yet rigorous, with sources provided to substantiate the refutations. He was one of my philosophy professors at CUNY. 

---

Why Massimo Pigliucci’s Arguments Against God’s Existence Are Wrong

Massimo Pigliucci—philosopher, biologist, and Stoic advocate—stands as a vocal atheist, rejecting God’s existence with a blend of skepticism and intellectual flair. Known for his critiques of New Atheism (Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2013) and his blog Rationally Speaking, Pigliucci argues that God lacks evidence, fails to solve the problem of evil, offers weak explanatory power, and pales against naturalistic accounts. His atheism is nuanced—he shuns the brashness of Dawkins or Harris—but his case still hinges on familiar objections. As we probe life’s big questions, let’s unpack his arguments, expose their weaknesses, and show why they don’t dismantle the case for God—using science, philosophy, and scripture, with sources to back it up.

Argument 1: No Empirical Evidence for God

Pigliucci often asserts that God’s existence lacks empirical support (Rationally Speaking, “The Problem with God,” 2010). In Answers for Aristotle (2012), he argues science—his domain as a biologist—finds no trace of the supernatural. Miracles? Unverifiable anecdotes. Prayer? Statistically null (e.g., Benson’s 2006 heart surgery study, American Heart Journal). He leans on methodological naturalism: if God’s not testable, He’s not real.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance
Pigliucci’s “no evidence, no God” is an appeal to ignorance—absence of proof isn’t proof of absence. Science excels at the natural—F = ma, DNA’s 3 billion base pairs—but metaphysics lies beyond its scope. Expecting God in a petri dish misjudges the question.

Refutation: Evidence exists—just not in Pigliucci’s lab. The universe’s fine-tuning—G = 6.674 × 10⁻¹¹, α ≈ 1/137—yields odds of life-friendly conditions at 1 in 10¹²³ (Penrose, The Road to Reality, 2004). Random chance strains credulity; design fits (Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, 2006). Historical claims—like Jesus’ resurrection—hold up under scrutiny (Craig, Reasonable Faith, 2008), with multiple witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6). Pigliucci’s “no data” skips this—Psalm 19:1: “The heavens declare the glory of God.” He demands physical fingerprints for a non-physical Being—category error.

Argument 2: The Problem of Evil Disproves an All-Good, All-Powerful God

In “The Problem with God” (Rationally Speaking, 2010), Pigliucci echoes Epicurus: if God’s omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why evil? Natural disasters (e.g., 2004 tsunami, 230,000 dead) and human suffering (cancer) clash with a loving deity. He rejects theodicies—free will, soul-making—as “ad hoc” excuses (Skepticality, 2012).

Fallacy: False Dichotomy
Pigliucci assumes God’s goodness means no pain—either He’s not all-powerful or not all-good. This false dichotomy ignores a third option: evil serves a purpose beyond human grasp. He oversimplifies divine intent into a human welfare metric.

Refutation: Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense (God, Freedom, and Evil, 1974) resolves this: God allows evil for a greater good—like free choice, which enables love (Romans 8:28: “All things work together for good”). Natural evil? Part of a cosmos with laws—earthquakes from tectonic plates that sustain life (Ward, Rare Earth, 2000). Lisbon 1755 (80,000 dead) isn’t God’s malice but nature’s autonomy—Job 38:4: “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?” Pigliucci’s burden—proving no reason exists—fails; he just doesn’t like the mystery.

Argument 3: God Is an Inadequate Explanation

Pigliucci argues God’s a “science-stopper” (Answers for Aristotle, 2012)—“God did it” halts inquiry. In “New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn” (2013), he contrasts this with science’s progress—e.g., Darwin’s evolution vs. Genesis. God’s too vague, he says, dodging specifics like “how” or “why” (Rationally Speaking, 2014).

Fallacy: Straw Man
He caricatures theism as anti-curiosity—a straw man. Christians like Newton (gravity) and Mendel (genetics) probed nature under God’s banner. Pigliucci’s “vague” jab ignores theology’s depth—e.g., Aquinas’ Five Ways (Summa Theologiae).

Refutation: God’s not a plug; He’s a framework. Genesis 1:1—“In the beginning, God created”—sparks “how” questions—Big Bang cosmology (H² = (8πG/3)ρ, Friedmann) aligns with a start (Planck 2018). Science details mechanisms; God grounds the “why”—purpose over chaos (Proverbs 3:19: “By wisdom the Lord laid the earth’s foundations”). Pigliucci’s evolution trump card? DNA’s complexity (Axe, Journal of Molecular Biology, 2004) suggests design—science aids theism, not atheism.

Argument 4: Naturalism Explains Everything Better

Pigliucci favors naturalism—reality’s self-contained, no gods needed (Philosophy Garden, “Should We Be Skeptical of Religion?”, 2023). Quantum fluctuations (ΔEΔt ≥ ħ/2) birthed the universe (Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, 2012); evolution shaped life; morality’s cultural (Pigliucci, How to Be a Stoic, 2017). God’s redundant.

Fallacy: Begging the Question
He assumes naturalism’s true—begging the question. A “vacuum” with laws isn’t nothing—it’s something. Why those laws? Naturalism’s “it just is” mirrors his “ad hoc” critique of theism.

Refutation: Naturalism falters. Fine-tuning odds (1 in 10¹²³) defy randomness—multiverse theories are untestable (Penrose, 2004). Abiogenesis? No lab’s cracked life’s spark—odds of a protein forming: 1 in 10⁷⁷ (Axe, 2004). Morality? Objective “oughts” (e.g., murder’s wrong) transcend culture—Romans 2:15: “The law written on their hearts.” “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1)—a purposeful cause beats an uncaused fluke.

Fallacy #5: Overreliance on Skepticism—Doubt as Proof

Pigliucci’s Pyrrhonian skepticism (Philosophy Garden, 2023)—doubt everything, affirm little—treats God’s absence as evidence. This overreliance on skepticism stalls: if all’s doubtable, why trust naturalism?

Refutation: Doubt’s a tool, not truth. Historical evidence—Christ’s empty tomb, 500 witnesses (Craig, 2008)—anchors faith. Cosmic order—entropy’s low start (1 in 10^(10¹²³), Penrose, Cycles of Time, 2010)—suggests intent. “Seek and you will find” (Matthew 7:7)—Pigliucci’s “maybe later” ducks the data now.

Why Pigliucci’s Wrong: A Broader Lens

Pigliucci’s arguments—no evidence, evil’s problem, God’s inadequacy, naturalism’s edge—crumble under scrutiny. His fallacies—appeal to ignorance, false dichotomy, straw man, begging the question, overreliance on skepticism—reveal a thinker wedded to doubt over discovery. Science shows a fine-tuned cosmos (Davies, 2006), history backs Christ (Craig, 2008), and philosophy demands a cause (Aquinas). As Lent deepens, “Test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) favors God—Pigliucci’s atheism leans on shrugs where theism builds on substance.

Sources:

• Pigliucci, Massimo. Answers for Aristotle. 2012.
• Pigliucci, Massimo. “New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2013.
• Pigliucci, Massimo. Rationally Speaking, “The Problem with God.” 2010.
• 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.
• Krauss, Lawrence. A Universe from Nothing. 2012.
• Ward, Peter & Brownlee, Donald. Rare Earth. 2000.
• Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae.
• Bible (RSV): Genesis 1:1, Psalm 19:1, Romans 2:15, John 1:1, etc.

---

This post refutes Pigliucci’s arguments against God’s existence with detailed counterpoints, exposing his logical missteps and grounding the rebuttal in diverse evidence.