Debating Divinity: A Critical Look at Ross Douthat's Arguments for God

The Double-Dip Dilemma and the Case for Belief

Ross Douthat's new book, "Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious," has sparked a fascinating, if slightly self-serving, debate. Douthat, leveraging his platform at The New York Times, has published excerpts arguing for God's existence. While the ethics of using a newspaper column to promote one's own book are debatable, the arguments themselves are worth examining.

Douthat attempts an "anti-Hitchens," striving to convince nonbelievers of God's reality. Unfortunately, his arguments feel recycled and unconvincing, relying on the same tired tropes that have failed to persuade many skeptics.

The Converging Arguments: Cosmic Design, Consciousness, and Religious Experience

Douthat presents three main lines of argument for God: cosmic design (the "fine-tuning" of the universe), the unique nature of human consciousness, and the prevalence of religious experiences. He believes the convergence of these arguments strengthens the case for belief.

However, each of these arguments faces significant counterarguments. The fine-tuning argument, for instance, fails to account for alternative explanations like the anthropic principle or the multiverse hypothesis. Similarly, our growing understanding of the neurological basis of consciousness weakens the claim that it requires a divine origin.

Douthat's claim that human consciousness is evidence for God also ignores the growing evidence for consciousness in other animal species. Do squirrels and ravens bear God's image too?

Finally, attributing religious experiences to divine intervention neglects the powerful influence of psychology, individual perception, and even neurochemistry. Many experiences, while deeply felt, do not necessarily reflect objective reality.

The Intelligibility of the Universe: A Misguided Argument?

Perhaps Douthat's most intriguing argument hinges on the intelligibility of the universe. He marvels at humanity's ability to comprehend the cosmos, suggesting it transcends the capabilities granted by natural selection.

However, this argument overlooks the crucial role of culture and accumulated knowledge. Human understanding builds upon generations of learning, passed down through language and writing. Our capacity for scientific discovery is not a miraculous leap but a gradual, cumulative process.

Many animals exhibit abilities beyond what might be strictly necessary for survival. Lyrebirds mimicking chainsaws, parrots learning human speech – these are not direct products of natural selection but rather byproducts of evolved capacities.

Beyond Evolutionary Expectations: Culture, Communication, and Confirmation Bias

Douthat argues that our achievements, like playing chess or landing on the moon, far exceed what evolution could have "intended." This ignores the exponential power of culture and communication, uniquely developed in humans. These capacities, while built on an evolutionary foundation, allow us to transcend its immediate limitations.

Ultimately, Douthat's arguments seem rooted in confirmation bias, bolstering a pre-existing faith. He relies on the Argument from Lived Spiritual and Religious Experience, neglecting the crucial point that absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence, especially when such evidence should be readily apparent.

The most compelling argument for God would be direct, irrefutable proof. Until that emerges, Douthat's efforts feel like an attempt to justify belief rather than a genuine exploration of truth. As Victor Stenger wisely observed, "The absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence – if that evidence should be there." It isn't.