Assessing The Surprising Return to Belief in God — S2 E04

Overview

Brierley argues that atheism, particularly new atheism, is inadequate because it cannot answer existential questions about purpose, value, or flourishing. He contrasts this with theism, suggesting that atheism’s limitations support a divine explanation.

Logical Coherence and Fallacies

Appeal to Consequences

Brierley repeatedly claims that atheism’s inability to provide ultimate meaning invalidates it:

But actually, science and reason are good for some things, but they won’t tell you why you’re here. They won’t tell you your value. They won’t lead to a meaningful flourishing life.

This commits an appeal to consequences fallacy. The desirability of meaning or value does not establish the truth of theism. A rational mind would argue that subjective meaning, derived from personal goals, relationships, or cultural norms, is sufficient without requiring objective purpose or a deity.

Strawman Fallacy

Atheism is caricatured as offering “nothing” or being “anemic”:

Suppose it were true that atheism doesn’t offer anything. So what? Our kind of post-Christian ideology, humanist ideology, secular, liberal, whatever you want to call it, is actually rather anemic.

This is a strawman fallacy, misrepresenting atheism and secular humanism as devoid of ethical or existential frameworks. Secular humanism, for instance, emphasizes human dignity and flourishing through reason and empathy, which Brierley overlooks. A moral non-realist would note that robust subjective systems of sociability exist without divine grounding.

Hasty Generalization

Brierley asserts that new atheism has been “abandoned” due to its failures:

And what I’ve noticed is that people have kind of abandoned today the new atheist project.

This is a hasty generalization, lacking evidence of widespread rejection. A rational mind would point to ongoing secular trends (e.g., Pew Research showing declining religious affiliation in Western nations) and argue that atheism’s influence persists in various forms.

False Cause

The decline of new atheism is attributed to its lack of a unifying vision:

It appeared that once they had agreed that God didn’t exist and religion was bad for you, there was very little else they could actually agree on because they started to splinter over where their movement should go.

This is a false cause fallacy, assuming internal disagreements caused new atheism’s decline. A rational mind would argue that movements often fracture due to diverse priorities, not because atheism itself is flawed.

---

Argument 2: A Cultural “Turning of the Tide” Toward Faith

Overview

Brierley claims that a cultural shift is occurring, with secular intellectuals and society at large reconsidering Christianity, signaling a “turning of the tide” in faith.

Logical Coherence and Fallacies

Hasty Generalization (Repeated)

The thesis of a cultural shift relies on anecdotal evidence:

I believe we’re at a turning of the tide moment. Yes, it’s gone a long way out and things may get worse before they get better, but I believe that tide is starting to turn.

This is a hasty generalization, extrapolating from isolated examples (e.g., Douglas Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali) to a broader trend. A rational mind would demand data, noting that global secularization trends (e.g., declining church attendance in Europe) contradict this claim.

Anecdotal Fallacy

Individual stories, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s conversion, are used to suggest a trend:

She wrote a viral article titled Why I am now a Christian.

This is an anecdotal fallacy, as single cases do not prove a cultural shift. A rational mind would notes that these are outliers, not representative of broader societal changes.

Confirmation Bias

Brierley selectively highlights cases supporting his thesis:

And I was seeing a very similar phenomenon to Douglas Murray. And it’s really what led me to write the book, The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God.

This exhibits confirmation bias, emphasizing pro-theistic examples while ignoring counterevidence, such as persistent secularization. A moral rational mind would require systematic data to substantiate claims of revival.

Appeal to Emotion

The narrative of a returning “sea of faith” evokes hope and urgency:

Something has changed in the tide of faith that just maybe God might be surprising us.

This is an appeal to emotion, using evocative imagery to persuade. A rational mind would argue that emotional resonance does not validate claims of a divine movement.

---

Argument 3: God Makes Sense of Human Existence (Fine-Tuning)

Overview

Brierley argues that the fine-tuning of the universe for life suggests a purposeful intelligent design, making theism a better explanation than atheism.

Logical Coherence and Fallacies

God of the Gaps

Fine-tuning is attributed to a divine intelligent mind:

What if the evidence points to this life permitting universe actually being the product of an intelligent mind which intended for us to be here?

This is a God of the gaps fallacy, inserting a deity to explain a scientific mystery. A rational mind would argue that fine-tuning could have naturalistic explanations (e.g., multiverse theories) or remain unexplained without necessitating a god.

False Analogy

The dice-rolling analogy oversimplifies cosmic probabilities:

Now, what if I rolled this dice 70 times and every single time I got a six? Okay, that’s pretty unlikely, but it’s possible, right?

This is a false analogy, as dice rolls are independent events, whereas cosmic constants may be interdependent or constrained by unknown physical laws. A rational mind would argue that the analogy misrepresents cosmological complexity.

Argument from Incredulity

The improbability of fine-tuning is used to reject chance:

Now, let me ask you, why would we assume that this universe with us in it, which is actually way more improbable than my 70 rolls, is just a result of chance.

This is an argument from incredulity, assuming improbability implies design. A rational mind would argue that improbability does not preclude naturalistic explanations.

Appeal to Ignorance

Multiverse theories are dismissed as speculative:

Maybe there’s an infinite number of universes giving you an infinite number of chances to roll the dice. Maybe, but we don’t have any scientific evidence for it.

This is an appeal to ignorance, assuming lack of evidence for multiverses supports theism. A rational mind would argue that scientific uncertainty does not default to a divine explanation.

Non Sequitur

The leap from fine-tuning to the Christian “logos” is unsupported:

It’s the Greek word logos. And of course, it’s the word that is used of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John, the pre-existent word of God, the logos, speaking life into existence.

This is a non sequitur, as cosmic order does not point to a specific religious figure. A rational mind would argue that connecting science to Christian theology requires additional justification.

---

Argument 4: God Makes Sense of Human Value

Overview

Brierley argues that human value, dignity, and rights are best explained by theism, specifically the Christian doctrine of humans being created in God’s image.

Logical Coherence and Fallacies

Appeal to Intuition

Moral intuitions are used to argue for divine morality:

So why do we respond in horror to the idea that our belief that rape is wrong is just the happen stance of the hand that we happen to have been dealt by the sociocultural forces of evolution.

This is an appeal to intuition, assuming moral horror supports objective morality. A moral non-realist would argue that moral feelings are evolutionary or cultural products, not evidence for a deity.

Strawman Fallacy

Atheistic morality is framed as arbitrary:

And I said, ‘Okay, but ultimately your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact we’ve developed five fingers rather than six. And he said, you could say that.

This is a strawman fallacy, as moral non-realism does not equate to amorality. A moral non-realist would argue that subjective moral systems, based on empathy and social cooperation, can be consistent and functional.

Non Sequitur

The leap from moral intuition to divine creation is abrupt:

I think it only makes sense to me this idea that we believe in human value, dignity, rights, if what it says on the first page of the Bible is true, that everybody, male and female, is created in the image of God.

This is a non sequitur, as moral intuitions could arise from evolutionary or social factors. A moral non-realist would argue that human value can be grounded in naturalistic principles.

Argument from Tradition

Tom Holland’s historical perspective is used to support theism:

They went back to a person called Jesus of Nazareth. And the movement that he had established and that in his name completely changed the world that Tom Holland now lives in.

This is an argument from tradition, assuming Christianity’s historical impact validates its truth. A rational mind would argue that cultural influence does not prove divine origin.

False Cause

The claim that Christian values uniquely shaped modern ethics is overstated:

He realized, I didn’t get these values certainly from the Greeks and the Romans. I didn’t get them from science or atheism.

This is a false cause fallacy, as values like dignity could have multiple sources, including secular philosophy. A rational mind would argue that Christianity’s role is not exclusive.

---

Argument 5: God Makes Sense of Human Purpose

Overview

Brierley argues that a cultural “meaning crisis” reflects the failure of secular stories to replace Christianity, suggesting that God provides ultimate purpose.

Logical Coherence and Fallacies

Appeal to Emotion

The “meaning crisis” is framed as a societal ill requiring a divine solution:

One of the reasons, I think, is because we’re living in what a lot of psychologists call a meaning crisis in the West.

This is an appeal to emotion, using distress to argue for theism. A moral non-realist would argue that meaning crises can be addressed through secular means, such as therapy or community.

False Dichotomy

The contrast between Christian and secular stories oversimplifies options:

Now, as you lose that story, as our culture becomes increasingly post-Christian, the question is, well, what story will end up shaping people’s lives?

This is a false dichotomy, ignoring non-Christian spiritualities or secular narratives. A rational mind would argue that diverse stories can coexist without a divine narrative.

Slippery Slope

The claim that losing Christianity leads to cultural chaos is exaggerated:

And we get the culture wars and we get a a society that’s pulling apart at the seams.

This is a slippery slope fallacy, assuming secularization causes societal collapse. A realist would argue that pluralistic societies can thrive.

Argument from Popularity

Jordan Peterson’s influence is used to suggest a hunger for Christian meaning:

And it was because here was a psychologist filling whole auditoriums, thousands of people turning up to hear him speak for two or three hours at a time on the book of Genesis.

This is an argument from popularity, assuming interest validates Peterson’s views. A rational mind would argue that popularity reflects cultural trends, not truth.

Appeal to Authority

Peterson’s psychological lens is presented as authoritative:

He was saying, “Actually, if you’re looking for the story of who you are and what matters in life, go and read the Bible.”

This is an appeal to authority, as Peterson’s expertise does not make his biblical interpretations true. A reasonable skeptic would question his theological claims.

---

Argument 6: The Church Must Prepare for Meaning Seekers

Overview

Brierley urges the church to prepare for an influx of “meaning seekers,” arguing that Christianity’s narrative is uniquely suited to address their needs.

---

Logical Coherence and Fallacies

Appeal to Consequences

The call for readiness assumes theism’s necessity:

Is the church ready to receive these people? These people who are the meaning seekers who are going to be looking for a place to call home, a place to find meaning.

This is an appeal to consequences, implying that the need for meaning supports Christianity. A moral non-realist would argue that secular communities can fulfill this role.

Argument from Tradition

The reference to historical Christian resilience supports the call:

Christendom has died many deaths over the centuries, but it has always been reborn because it has a God who knew his way out of the grave.

This is an argument from tradition, assuming past patterns predict future revival. A rational mind would argue that historical trends do not guarantee future outcomes.

Appeal to Intuition

The emphasis on Jesus as truth appeals to relational intuition:

Obviously what the Bible holds out as truth is is not just an idea or an argument. It’s a person. It’s Jesus Christ.

This is an appeal to intuition, assuming a relational view of truth is superior. A rational mind would argue that truth is propositional, not personal, and subjective experiences do not validate objective claims.

Strawman Fallacy

Secular culture is depicted as chaotic and isolating:

And I think in an increasingly digital age as well as people can live completely independently of other human beings by using their phone.

This is a strawman fallacy, caricaturing secular society. A moral non-realist would argue that digital tools can foster community, and secular societies maintain social bonds.

---

Q&A Section Analysis

Overview

The Q&A section addresses audience questions about truth, church readiness, and cultural trends, reinforcing earlier arguments but introducing additional fallacies.

Logical Coherence and Fallacies

False Dichotomy

The contrast between materialist and Christian stories persists:

And when they find that the the story they’re already living in, this materialist atheist story of reality just isn’t ultimately making sense, I think they are going to be more open to the idea that yes, truth has been revealed in scripture and in a person, Jesus Christ.

This is a false dichotomy, ignoring alternative narratives. A moral non-realist would argue that secular stories can be fulfilling.

Appeal to Authority

References to C.S. Lewis and Tom Holland lend undue weight:

And I would point you to CS Lewis as a brilliant example of this who who did a wonderful job of logical analytical ways of reaching people through his apologetics books like mere Christianity and the problem of pain.

This is an appeal to authority, as Lewis’ success does not prove Christianity’s truth. A rational mind would demand evidence beyond influence.

Anecdotal Fallacy

Claims about young men attending church rely on anecdotes:

In Finland, recent research showed a doubling in the number of young men attending church in recent years.

This is an anecdotal fallacy, as isolated examples do not establish a trend. A rational mind would require comprehensive data.

Non Sequitur

The suggestion that Christianity’s “weirdness” attracts seekers is unsupported:

He goes there because he’s not looking for kind of something that already looks like the culture around him. He’s looking for something different for for something that’s um mysterious, weird.

This is a non sequitur, as cultural distinctiveness does not prove truth. A rational mind would argue that novelty or mystery can be found in secular contexts.

---

Conclusion

From a moral non-realist perspective, Brierley’s arguments exhibit numerous logical fallacies and unjustified leaps, particularly in linking moral intuitions to a divine creator. Key issues include:

• Emotional Appeals: Arguments rely on intuitive moral feelings and existential needs, assuming these necessitate a deity.
• Misrepresentation of Atheism: Atheism is caricatured as nihilistic, ignoring secular ethical frameworks.
• Speculative Claims: The “turning tide” lacks empirical support, relying on anecdotes.
• Circular Reasoning: Theistic conclusions presuppose God’s existence.
• False Dichotomies: Christianity is contrasted with atheism, ignoring alternative worldviews.

A moral non-realist would argue that morality and meaning can be constructed subjectively through human experience, culture, and reason, without objective truths or a deity. While Brierley’s narrative resonates with theistic audiences, it fails to withstand rigorous scrutiny, particularly when evaluated against moral philosophy and cultural trends.

---