Thank you Jason Stevens and Matthew Hernandez for exceptional research contributions. (Jason was literally an atheist in a foxhole.) Jason and Matthew worked diligently in helping me fact-check, cite, and research sometimes obscure topics. Ryan Marquez, Renee Barnett, and Anna Wilson also helped me hammer out and research important details. Thanks to Corey Van Hoosen for creating the front cover and illustration in appendix C. (Corey [[email protected]] also makes the custom images for my presentations.) Thank you to my childhood friend and amateur historian Jimmy Farrell for helping me with footnote 12 in chapter 7, and Tom O’Connor for helping me with footnote 8 in chapter 6. Thanks to Micah Barnott for doing so much to advance reason, but asking for so little in return.
Thanks to Renee Barnett for being an inspiring friend and an everdependable source of support. Renee has an incredible career ahead of her. Thank you Guy P. Harrison, Brom Anderson, and John W. Loftus for friendship and patience in answering my questions. Thanks to Avram Hiller for his incredibly helpful contributions to all of my presentations.
Thank you to those at Portland State University who supported me, most notably the Philosophy Department chair, Tom Seppalainen. Tom, thank you again for providing me with an opportunity when nobody else would. You are the last believer in the meritocracy. Special thanks to my colleague who told me, “Even if you published ten critically received books from Harvard you’d never get tenure here.” Your words are a constant source of motivation.
Locally, thanks to Center for Inquiry (CFI)–Portland and Sylvia Benner; Humanists of Greater Portland and Del Allen; Oregonians for Science and Reason and Jeanine DeNoma; Josh Fost, Christof Teuscher, Erik Bodegom, and Amanda Thomas for your contributions to reason, rationality, critical thinking, and the public understanding of science. You’re making our community better.
Nationally, thanks to Mike Cornwell, Elisabeth Cornwell, Suzy Lewis, Joel Guttormson, Todd Stiefel, Kurt Volkan, D. J. Grothe, Greg Stikeleather, and Sean Faircloth. You didn’t know me, but you were very kind to me. Your efforts at making our society more rational and more thoughtful matter.
Thanks to Dan Barker, Annie Laurie Gaylor, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation for your practical, applied efforts in fighting irrationality in a way that I never could. In particular I’d like to thank Andrew Seidel for being on the frontline. Your efforts are making a difference.
Thanks to my past and present students for engaging and challenging me.
Thanks to everyone who read drafts and commented on A Manual for Creating Atheists: Sylvia Benner, Steven Brutus, Bruce Carter, John Diggins, Steve Eltinge, Alan Litchfield from “The Malcontent’s Gambit” (http://www.malcontentsgambit.com/), Gary W. Longsine, Justin Vacula, and Bob Williams.
Thank you to Massimo Pigliucci and Stephen Law for their original contributions to this book.
Thanks to my old, dear friend and editor, Christopher Johnson. Before I realized his e-mail signature is “Your best friend!” I was under the assumption—for years—that he thought that I thought that we were best friends.
Thanks to William Guy Hart for (unbeknownst to me) starting and maintaining my Facebook page. Thanks to Steven Humphrey from the Portland Mercury for taking a gamble on my articles. Samantha Russell, thank you for your lovely paintings and for your continued support.
Especially profound and heartfelt thanks to Steve Goldman and Matt Thornton for their invaluable help, council, advice, and authentic friendship. When I have questions about philosophy, Steve is my go-to. Steve and Matt were kind enough to let me record our conversations and copy our e-mail correspondence. Portions of those conversations are found throughout the book.
Thanks to Paul Pardi and philosophynews.com for hosting some of my content, driving down to Portland to review my “Easter Bunny” talk, being incredibly supportive of my work, and interviewing me for my first podcast.
Many people helped me with this project. Please accept my apologies if I failed to mention anyone, and thank you to all my supporters.
Finally, thanks in advance to those who’ve agreed to let me sleep on their couch when I go into hiding after the publication of this book.
APPENDIX A: CONSENSUS STATEMENT REGARDING CRITICAL THINKING AND THE IDEAL CRITICAL THINKER
We understand critical thinking [CT] to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, openminded, flexible, fair minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society (American Philosophical Association, 1990, p. 2).
APPENDIX B: “INTRODUCING SOCRATES” SYLLABUS
Instructor:
Peter Boghossian
Course Description:
In this 8-hour critical thinking class we will think through some difficult questions together, articulate our responses to those questions, and assess our reasoning.
Objectives:
1) Learn how to identify consequences
2) Learn how to reason through a problem (problem-solving)
3) Learn how to assess our thinking
4) Learn how to assess our current relationships
5) Learn how to articulate our ideas
6) Develop higher stages of moral reasoning
7) Develop verbal self-control
8) Understand how our identities are formed
9) Understand the roles that pleasure-seeking and gratification play in our lives
Class Structure:
The class has two separate parts: (1) Discussion Questions, and (2) Discussion Analysis.
Part I
Discussion Questions
Every 25 minutes we will start with a question that is taken, in some form, from the Platonic dialogues (on occasion we may start with a reading from the dialogues). For example, a typical question could be, “How much control do we have over who we are?” We will then think through the question, and pose possible answers. I will participate in the discussion as a guide.
The discussion could take any one of a number of unexpected turns. It is okay if it does—evaluating different responses and analyzing those responses is part of the practice of learning. Until you become accustomed to the way that issues will be discussed, this may be perceived as a lack of structure. Also, if you are used to more formal class settings where exactly what you will learn is mapped out in detail beforehand, then this way of teaching class may initially be difficult for you. This is something that you need to be aware of in our discussions.
Part II
Discussion Analysis
The next 5 minutes we will analyze the discussion. We will identify the stages and process of our reasoning, assess our thinking, and attempt to figure out how we could have been more effective both in our reasoning and in our articulation. We will use what we have learned in the next discussion.
I have the following expectations:
That you will be respectful of others. This does not mean that you have to agree with someone else’s viewpoint, but you do need to let them speak without personally criticizing them.
That you will ask if you have any questions, or if some
thing is unclear. If something is bothering you, then you need to tell me.
At times in our discussion I may say “STOP!” If I do, this means that we need to stop what we are doing, and I will direct you to write about what we are discussing.
What are the expectations that you have of me?
Finally
We can make this a very rewarding experience for everyone involved. It is an opportunity for us to explore issues and ideas in a way that challenges us intellectually. We will have an opportunity to think about ideas that everyone has wondered about, but few have had an opportunity to explore in depth in a classroom setting. My role is to help you articulate your thoughts and give you a process to evaluate critically your ideas. But there is only so much that I can do. Ultimately, you must take responsibility for your own learning. So perhaps our first question should be, “What does it mean to take responsibility for our learning?”
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
The following are questions that we will be asking ourselves throughout this course. I have listed the names of where these ideas can be found in the event that you would like to read more on your own. Unless otherwise stated, all names refer to works written by Plato.
What is it to be a man? What is it to be virtuous? (Apology, Meno)
What is courage? (Laches)
Do people knowingly do bad things? (Gorgias, Protagoras, Hippias Minor)
What is justice? (Republic)
Are people responsible for who they become? (Republic)
Can a man be unjust toward himself? Can one be too modest? (Immanuel Kant’s “Metaphysics of Virtue,” in the first part of the Metaphysics of Morals, Gorgias, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics)
Why obey the law? (Crito, Republic)
What’s worth dying for? (Apology, Crito)
When is punishment justified? (Gorgias, Crito)
How important is personal responsibility? What does “character counts” mean? (Republic, Gorgias, Laws)
Are customs and conventions important? What kinds of customs and conventions are there (styles, manners, laws, social class)? (Republic)
What’s the best life? What are the possible lives we can lead? Is the life of the tyrant the best life? (Republic)
How much control do we have over who we are? (Republic)
What obligations do we have toward others? (Republic)
What are the claims of loyalty and friendship? (Republic, Lysis)
What are our obligations toward our families? (Republic)
What makes a way of life appealing to us? What attaches people to the way of life? (Republic)
APPENDIX C: ANTIRELATIVISM ROADMAP
GLOSSARY
Agnostic
Someone who’s unsure whether or not God(s) exist.
Apologetics
A defense of the faith. (The word “apologetics” is often misunderstood as an apology for faith or for having faith.)
Aporia
Confusion, puzzlement, perplexity. The state of pause caused by philosophical examination.
Atheist
A person who does not think there’s sufficient evidence to warrant belief in God(s), but who would believe if shown sufficient evidence.
A person who doesn’t pretend to know things he doesn’t know with regard to the creator of the universe.
Auditing
A practice in the Church of Scientology in which a minister or a ministerin-training gives “auditing commands” to a person, referred to as a “preclear.” Auditing commands are questions or directions.
Augustine (St. Augustine of Hippo) (354–430)
A medieval Christian philosopher of enormous authority and influence.
Azande
An ethnic group of approximately one million people living in and around central Africa.
Bayes’ Theorem
Provides the probability of an event given measured test probabilities.
Chaerephon
Socrates’s close friend. Chaerephon appears in Plato’s Apology, Charmides, and Gorgias.
Coherence theory of truth
States that a proposition is true if it coheres or fits with other propositions.
Confirmation bias
The tendency to privilege confirming evidence and disregard disconfirming evidence.
Critical thinking
A skill set and an attitude. For a description and definition of the ideal critical thinker, see appendix A.
Cruise, Tom (human body: 1962– ) (Thetan: several trillion years)
American film actor and producer. Awarded Scientology’s Freedom Medal of Valor in 2004.
Delusion
The current DSM-IV definition of delusion can be found on page 765.
German psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) offers three criteria for delusion: certainty (someone is absolutely positive their belief is true), incorrigibility (the belief is incapable of revision), and impossibility or falsity of content (bizarre or highly improbable content) (Maher, 2001).
Deepak Chopra
Indian-born American. New Age guru. Deepity black belt.
Deepity
A statement that is seemingly profound yet trivial on one level and meaningless on the other.
Defensive posture
Self-protection from criticism, personal shortcomings, whatever challenges one’s worldview, or that which is perceived as threatening.
Doxastic
Belief and reasoning about belief. “Doxastic” comes from the ancient Greek word “doxa,” which means belief.
Doxastic closure
A belief or a belief system that cannot be revised. (Systems of belief and individual beliefs have degrees of closure.)
Doxastic openness
A belief system or belief that can be revised. (Systems of belief and individual beliefs have degrees of openness.)
Empirical claim
A claim about the world.
Enlightenment (New Enlightenment)
“The growing up stage in man’s development, his determination to put away childish things, to stand upon his own two feet, to be no longer under tutelage, and above all, to use his reason and to think for himself” (Thrower, 2000).
Epistemic
Of or related to knowledge or knowing.
Epistemology
The study of knowledge.
Evidence
That which justifies belief and guides one toward truth.
Falsifiable
Capable of being shown false. Usually applied to hypotheses.
Faith
Pretending to know things one doesn’t know
Belief without evidence
An irrational leap over probabilities
Feminism
Equal rights for women.
Foundationalism (also, Foundationalist theory of truth)
Beliefs receive justification from “basic” or “foundational” beliefs.
Four Horsemen
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. The phrase “Four Horsemen” comes from the New Testament’s Book of Revelation.
God
An undetectable metaphysical entity that caused all of existence to come into being but whose existence was not caused.
Genetic fallacy
The endorsement or condemnation of a claim based upon its past as opposed to its merit. The original source of an idea is or is not a reliable basis for evaluating truth. For example, Massachusetts Representative Michael Capuano favors higher taxation on the wealthy; Marx had the same economic way of thinking; therefore, Capuano is wrong.
Hadith
Actions or statements attributed to the Muslim prophet Muhammad not found in the Koran.
Hermeneutic circle
The impossibility of stepping back from one’s experiences and objectively interpreting a text, work of art, event, or phenomena.
Humanism
A practice and a worldview focusing on human values, concerns, and issues. Humanists
come to decisions, particularly moral decisions, completely independent of supernatural considerations.
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Approves, monitors, and reviews all research involving human subjects (people).
Intervention (see “Treatment”)
Justification
Sufficient reason to believe.
Knowledge
Justified True Belief (K = J T B.) Knowledge claims must satisfy these three criteria: they must be justified, true, and believed. This formula for knowledge was originally articulated in Plato’s Theaetetus.
Knowledge claim
Mind-independent, objective statements of fact about the world.
Logical possibility
A logically possible statement can be asserted without implying a contradiction. For example, “There exists a golden mountain,” is logically possible. There could be a mountain made of gold. However, “A square is a circle,” is not logically possible because the definition of a square precludes it from being a circle. (If you can imagine something, then it doesn’t contradict the laws of logic.)
Luther, Martin (1483–1546)
German theologian. A pivotal figure in the Protestant Reformation.
Manu
From Hindu mythology, the gods created Manu who became the progenitor of humanity.
Meme
A concept that spreads from one person to another.
Multiculturalism
A doctrine stating that a community containing multiple cultures can peacefully coexist.
Metaphysics
The branch of philosophy that studies “being,” “first cause,” and “what there is.”
Pathogenic belief
A belief that directly or indirectly leads to emotional, psychological, or physical pathology.
Pedagogy
The method and practice of teaching.
A Manual for Creating Atheists Page 24