A Response to Bacon’s “Of Atheism”

          God! The great cosmic actor behind all that is and happens! There are a few of us who don’t believe He exists. Put simply, the extraordinary claims that surround His existence do not even begin to have enough evidence or rational coherence to warrant a wish much less a belief in Him. I understand that my statement is a bold one, but it is rooted in a reliable approach to knowledge: any claim about the universe must be supported with evidence and good reason by the one who makes the claim. This maxim of critical thinking enjoys broad acceptance in most areas of American society (especially in our court system) but seems to be readily abandoned when the subject of God comes up. More common to God discussions are various rhetorical maneuvers such as a shift of the burden of proof to the one rejecting the claim, circular reasoning, misrepresentation, and a host of other logical fallacies. One of the most common and most disturbing of these tactics is an all out attack on atheism itself. Believers discuss the dangers of atheism and the speculated ills atheism produces in society rather than address their burden of proof. This tendency does not advance the conversation or help us arrive at an accurate understanding of the universe but, by design, obscures it. Unfortunately, this ad hominem on the part of believers is not new. Ironically, Francis Bacon, a pioneer in developing critical thinking methods, launches just such an attack in his essay “Of Atheism” (a complete copy of the text can be found here: http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html).

            Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was a prominent figure in the royal courts of Queen Elizabeth and King James, yet he is remembered more today for his immense contribution to the development of the scientific method and essay writing. Bacon advocated strongly for controlled and repeated experiments. He also challenged the importance placed on classical sources with respect to scientific inquiry. Real world tests and experiments meant much more to Bacon than Galen’s reflections. Bacon recommended that scientists coordinate with one another and repeat experiments in order to verify findings. He also worked diligently to demolish the errors within scientific understanding in his day. When it came to writing, he rejected the traditional flourish of the pen for a straightforward, simple style that is the hallmark of good writing today. Bacon writes to communicate his ideas and intents clearly. Yet, he too perpetuates unfounded beliefs and superstitions. His essays are a curious mix of clear critical thinking and brazen prejudice.  His essay “Of Atheism” exemplifies one of his substantial failures in reasoning.

            But, so what? One more dead white man wrote eloquently from a place of privilege and ignorance. I would hope that such backward thinking and prejudicial rancor would have died at some point during the intervening years. Sadly, each point that he expresses has its contemporary version with similar rationales. The popular assailant of atheism today, like Bacon, fails to address the arguments, evidence and thinking upon which professed atheists stand. Instead they speak of their own wishful thinking and then promptly launch attacks on poorly constructed caricatures of atheism and atheists. As such, Bacon’s essay demands a contemporary response. In some respects it may be unfair to assail a man so rooted in his times. For this I offer my sincerest apologies. However, given that Bacon was one of the foremost figures in history to help establish the scientific method, empiricism, and critical thinking, his essay “Of Atheism” stands as a blemish on his life work.

            Before I begin to address the content of Bacon’s essay, I want to establish what atheism is. Bacon uses the term atheism in his title and throughout the essay in a rather problematic way. For Bacon, atheism is some sort of creed or ideology around which sects are formed and movements arise. He mischaracterizes both the atheism of his day and our own. In truth, atheism is a very thin concept that describes all those who do not accept the theist’s claims: that their God or any gods exist. Beyond this fundamental position, atheists range across many wide and diverse opinions and values. I have met atheists who are materialists, dualists, spiritualists, and even a few that hope for an afterlife. The diversity of beliefs and values among atheists is rather striking. What do such atheists hold in common? That the reasons and evidence to justify a belief in God are insufficient. No more, no less.

            Bacon rushes beyond and around this basic position on God’s existence. Rather than address the question head on he recycles some worn out proofs while expressing his own wishful thinking on the matter. He then attacks the explanations for the universe that some notable, though antiquated, atheists have presented without offering a more compelling account. Then, without any evidence at all, he purports to know what atheists really believe (deep down they really believe in God). Subsequently, Bacon points out that nearly everyone believes in a god of some sort, so most of humanity is positioned against atheists. He also asserts that since the term atheist is a popular slur, there are even less atheists than might appear. One calls his enemy an atheist as an insult and thus the label sticks inflating the apparent numbers of atheists (even though the insulted person really is a believer). Bacon then presents atheism as a social ill and lays out all of the various causes of atheism. Lastly, he finishes his screed by declaring atheism as “in all respects hateful” because it robs men and nations the divine ideal for all humanity necessary to rise beyond their base natures. All this discussion and still Bacon misses the crux of atheism: the lack of reason or evidence for the existence of God. Talking around an issue is never as effective as addressing it straight on. In fact, his rhetorical maneuvering actually betrays the fundamental weakness of his theism. Now to the specifics of the essay.

            Bacon opens the essay with a preference, a wish: “I had rather believe…” He would rather believe in any old fairy tale than approach the universe without some kind of “mind” to explain it all. Bacon’s philosophy requires a first cause to justify the very existence of the universe and order of the world. Without providing any reasons, he asserts that only “Providence and Deity” can satisfy the philosophical need for a first cause to explain all the second causes around us.

            Bacon’s line of reasoning in this first part of his essay suffers from two insurmountable errors: preferences, like wishes, do not make something real and God cannot logically satisfy the need for a first cause. An honest inquiry into the reality of our world and universe requires us to set aside our preferences for what we will discover. Personal preferences for a world that has sunshine and rainbows day after day or tap water that tastes like lemonade does little to describe what actually exists. Likewise, preferring to believe in imaginary beings does nothing to establish God’s existence or critique the atheist position. Bacon’s sole purpose of stating his preference is to disparage atheism as lacking sense or feeling.

            Bacon’s preference for a Deity arises out of his inability to see beyond the putative problem of a first cause. The primary premise and presupposition of his argument from causation is that for every action there must be a cause. By accepting this worldview he posits that a search for a beginning cause leads us unavoidably to God, the beginning of everything. Setting aside the fact that it does not necessarily follow that God is that first cause, the logical problem is that as the first cause God still requires an accounting for what caused Him to act or come into being. As an entity that causes all in our universe to move and be, He too is answerable to the primary premise that describes a universe that needs Him. One cannot invoke a premise and then suspend the implications of that presupposition upon reaching a conclusion. To do so, renders the logical argument inconsistent and incoherent. Bacon claims “that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.” I would counter that is so until they learn to recognize the logical contradiction in his first cause argument. Moreover, observations by experimental physicists have demonstrated that everything does not need a cause (I would recommend A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss for a full treatment on current scientific understanding on this matter). While inherently flawed the argument from first cause still persists among believers even today.

            Bacon then launches an attack on the ancient idea of atomism. A feature of the philosophy of Epicureanism, atomism describes the entire universe as being made up of tiny bits of uniform matter called atoms. This ancient notion claims that divine intervention or supernatural forms or beings are not necessary for the universe to be and operate. Atoms collide and interact together randomly in such a way that the present order has come about. Ancient Epicureans relied solely on speculative imagination not scientific observation or experiment to develop this idea. Yet, Bacon does not point out this lack of evidence or observation. Rather, he holds it up as simplistic and ridiculous because it eliminates the need for a deity in the universe. He baldly asserts that a cosmos of a “fifth essence” motivating earth, water, air, and fire is a “thousand times more credible.” Bacon provides no basis or explanation for this claim other than his stated need for a “divine marshal” to direct and order it all. No reasoning. No observational evidence. Not even an anecdote. In truth, a belief in a fifth essence or a divine marshal directing the universe is no more credible than atomism because simply saying something is so does not make it so. The burden of proof rises beyond mere pronouncement.

             Bacon then insists that atheists do not truly believe in atheism because if they really did they would not have to continually talk about their atheism. He portrays them as in search of disciples to strengthen their unbelief much like sects of Christianity. Bacon’s assertion does not logically follow his observation. Whether speaking much on one’s convictions indicates a lack of sincerity or not is beyond what can be known. Even today, we do not have the means to assess a person’s sincerity in their expression. We can guess and make inferences of various sorts but this only works on an individual basis, not on an entire class of people. One thing I can surmise about Bacon based on his claim: whenever he is talking a lot about an opinion it is because he does not really believe it (according to his line of reasoning). Bacon’s assertion about the sincerity of professed atheists is laughable and epistemologically flawed.

            Bacon next criticizes atheism from an appeal to popularity. He points out that atheists often claim as atheists people who in fact were not atheists. He provides Epicurus as such a person who has been called an atheist by atheists but, in fact, was not an atheist. Epicurus claimed that the gods do exist but they are not relevant or concerned with the affairs of mankind. So, Bacon reasons, the number of atheists is inflated (assuming that cases like Epicurus’ happen over and over again with other people). Bacon then tells us of all the people who believe in a god of some sort: from “the very subtlest philosophers” to “even those barbarous people.” Bacon also points out that since being called an atheist is a slur, there will seem to be more atheists than there truly are. As religious belligerents fight, they will call their enemies atheists from time to time and thereby inaccurately inflate the number of people perceived to be atheists. (Ironically, I have observed that the social stigma attached to being an open atheist keeps many atheists closeted.) Bacon engages in all of these many rhetorical contortions in order to show that the vast majority of people believe in God and far fewer people do not than it might appear. Any appeal to popularity is fallacious from the start. If the majority of people believe the world is flat, it is still not flat. The number of people who hold something to be true has no bearing on its veracity. For this reason the appeal to popularity is one of the most basic logical fallacies. Bacon continues to talk around the issue instead of addressing the need for evidence and sound reasoning to support his theism.

            For Bacon, atheism is a pathogen, a blight on human society that, like other social ills, has numerous causes. Atheists arise from those who lack the right feelings to understand religion. According to Bacon, one must have sensitivity when “handling holy things.” Repeatedly treating religion without the right feelings desensitizes one to God’s existence and in that way creates atheists. The many divisions and debates among the various religious groups also bring about atheism. Scandals by priests also cause atheism. The practice of “profane scoffing” of holy things little by little erodes belief and brings about atheism. Lastly, the rise of learning during times of “peace and prosperity” takes men’s minds away from God because “troubles and adversities” do more to keep mankind in religion.

            Here Bacon’s attempt to pathologize atheism by trotting out a list of speculative causes fails amidst a flurry of logical fallacies and clichés. Of these charges Bacon’s observation on the atheist’s lack of sensitivity has some merit. For Bacon, emotion counts as evidence when approaching the question of God’s existence. If such is the case, one who lacks these feelings will put greater weight on empirical evidence and sound reasoning and thus be more likely to embrace atheism. The thing Bacon misses is that emotion cannot be used as evidence—ever. Emotion can guide and give reasoning impetus but no more. Otherwise, a guilty verdict in a criminal court could be made based on the feelings of the jury, without factual evidence. One plus one could equal three because that equation makes me feel happier compared to the equation one plus one equals two. In this way, it is plausible that a decline in religious sentiment could contribute to a growth in atheism.

            On the other hand, the ugly conflicts between different religious groups, priestly scandals, and mockery of holy things only make religious belief less appealing. Bacon implies that the number of atheists grow because they miss the truth of God’s existence among religion’s embarrassing indelicacies. Distracted by these meaningless failings of religious people, atheism grows. In this way Bacon maligns atheism as arriving at too hasty a conclusion. I can accept that the negative effects of religious institutions can incline one to question the validity of religious claims, however, as I have stated earlier, the question ultimately comes down to evidence and reasoning. Ultimately it is the increase in the number of those who employ critical thinking and demand good evidence that will bring about a rise in atheism.

            The last cause Bacon cites is the rise of learning in a time of peace. Here Bacon invokes the Biblical cliché that peace and prosperity promotes pride and a turning away from God. Clichés give the illusion of substance but contribute little to nothing to his argument. Historically, religions have survived and thrived through good times and bad. That troubles and adversities bring people to religion is a cliché promoted by believers without providing any evidence or support. The cliché does serve Bacon’s purpose though: to present atheism as a social ill by enumerating a speculative list of its causes. Fortunately, it takes more than logical fallacies and clichés to establish atheism as a social ill. In fact, atheism and secularity actually correlates to greater levels of social well-being according to recent studies (see the work by Phil Zuckerman, “Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions. Sociology Compass (2009) http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf).

            Bacon next attacks atheism for destroying mankind’s potential. Invoking a type of Cartesian dualism, Bacon asserts that man’s body is beastlike and base. If there is not a God then man’s spirit is left without a being or ideal with which to rise above his beastlike nature. Given humanity’s dualistic nature, without God all of mankind is debased like a dog without a master. God provides man a better nature, confidence, and a capacity to strive beyond himself. God opens the way for mankind to be more than he is. Without God, all of humanity is left to its animalistic nature. For this reason Bacon declares atheism is hateful.

            Bacon’s argument here rests entirely on two key assumptions: human beings are dualistic in nature and God is the only source available to humanity for higher values. Both assertions are tautological and fallacious. The evidence that human beings are dualistic is lacking and problematic. Mental processes and biological functions that used to be attributed to some unseen fifth essence or mind have been demonstrated to arise from the brain or physiology while dualists have failed to demonstrate where mind is located and at what location does it influence body.  Bacon also states that our higher nature is beyond our bodies and comes from God. In fact, we humans are a much more complex mix of desires, impulses towards altruistic acts, as well as selfishness. Our instincts towards cooperation and empathy have been shown to be as powerful as fight or flight instincts. Furthermore, atheism does not destroy humanity’s nobility because God is not the only source for value or good. Bacon is guilty of using an “either/or” fallacy when there are numerous values evidently available for humanity to pursue: freedom, justice, love, and kindness, just to name a few. It is not God that provides the “force and faith” for man to grow beyond himself but the idea of God that men in the past have given credit for the virtues already within their nature. It is not our inherent nature that reduces humanity to the status of a dog but the divestment of values from human beings in order to establish a God and a need for that God to give those ideals back to humanity. In other terms, we have given God credit for providing us values that we already possess. Bacon continues to talk around the issue and construct a need for a God that is as unsupported as the existence of his God.

            Bacon concludes his essay by declaring that “atheism is in all respects hateful” and robs both individual men and entire nations the greatness only God can give. He ends with a lengthy quote in Latin attributed to Cicero in which Cicero credits all of Rome’s greatness to the divine. To the very end Bacon engages in unsupported claims, wishful thinking, inaccuracies, and a multitude of logical fallacies. All without bringing evidence or reason to bear on the central question: does God exist? And so it is still today. We encounter numerous critics who heap attacks on atheism: people like Bacon who vilify and slander those who cannot accept theistic claims but do not provide reason or evidence to convince them otherwise. The great weakness of ad hominem attacks, like the one in this essay, is that as atheist numbers grow and real atheists become known as people who contribute to society and care for their neighbors, the slander will cease to stick. What will you say then, Sir Francis Bacon?