Critique of Henson's "Dossier of Reason": Deism Segment

Daniel Henson, ex-youth pastor, has a paper he calls "Dossier of Reason". In it he develops his personal case against Theism.

Let’s take up the ill-named ”Dossier of Reason” at Deism, part II, which he claims as an analysis of knowledge and belief.

In Deism, part I A, Henson claims that,

”Science therefore follows the evidence and attempts to disprove it’s [sic] own theories as a way of supporting them. So a scientific theory is not just a guess or belief, it is a testable model that best explains the nature of phenomenon [sic].”

This is simplistically correct, but incomplete. Scientific theory is also contingent and subject to falsification at any time. It never produces incorrigible truth. It addresses only material subjects. It does not address non-material subjects. Henson fails to acknowledge these limitations of science. These limitations are even more important than the fine qualities of science which Henson does mention.

The claim of “knowledge system” vs “belief system” is in the process of being corrupted here. It is necessary to “believe” that falsification will not occur, if a scientific theory is to be taken as incorrigible truth.

What Henson does here is to convolute the meaning of “knowledge” to correspond only to the output of science; this is false, as will be shown.

In Deism part I B, Henson goes awry almost immediately.

”Religion is a non-falsifiable theory that puts forth no useful predictions about how the nature of things should be if the theory is true, and so it cannot be tested or falsified. It is a belief system, not a knowledge system..

Both science and Theism arrive at their conclusion in the same manner: concept; deductive hypothesis, analysis, conclusion. Science uses physical analysis techniques which match physical objects and pursues understanding of the physical realm; Theism uses rational techniques which match rational objects and pursues understanding of the non-physical and pre-physical realms.

The question, “why”, is illegitimate according to Dawkins; the only legitimate questions are what and how. Who gave the Materialists the anti-rational authority and ability to declare the illegitimacy of questions? It is only the unfounded belief system of Scientism which allows such presumption of rational dictatorship. Such a dictatorship of the intellect is supremely anti-rational.

” Religions looks at areas where we do not have answers and believes things about those subjects. It does not know things, it believes thing[sic]. When science doesn’t know, religion believes. The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge.”

This assertion is based on a complete lack of understanding of rational processes, and is based on the belief system of Scientism and the belief system of Materialism, both of which have been demonstrated to be internally contradictory and non-coherent (despite their claims to be the sole source of knowledge, neither can demonstrate that it is the only source of knowledge, using its own evidentiary rules).

Again, empiricism and logic are both based on the same axioms and have the same rational force which those axioms provide. Rational analysis uses Reductio Ad Absurdum along with empirical observation in order to come to rational conclusions. These conclusions have as much force as knowledge as do empirical, scientific conclusions. In fact they have more consistency as conclusions because they are not subject to the Inductive Fallacy and contingency in the sense that scientific conclusions are. This actually means that scientific conclusions are more accurately called “contingent beliefs” than are the conclusions of rational analysis.

Henson’s Deism premise I A is fatally incomplete and his premise I B is completely false.

But this is Henson's conclusion:


"Religions looks [sic] at areas where we do not have answers and believes [sic] things about those subjects. It does not know things, it believes thing. When science doesn’t know, religion believes. The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge."

This completely false conclusion will be used to prop up the Scientistic, Materialistic propositions coming up. The delusion is actually that Scientism is a valid, coherent belief.

His next part is this:

” There is no compelling reason to believe in any god.”

Atheists use “compelling” as a weasel word; in fact you cannot “compel” a dogmatist with any amount of logic for your case, or demonstration of fallacy in their case. Dogmatists are just not compelled by such things as those which go against their worldview. So this statement has no actual meaning.

From here Henson takes the usual dodge to avoid the actual analysis of Atheism qua Atheism. He denies that Atheists have any burden to give reasons for rejecting any and all theories. It is enough that they just reject them without giving any reason, rational or otherwise for having done so. In fact his first point after denying any intellectual responsibility for himself is this:

”B. 1. There is no argument, evidence or experiment that can positively demonstrate the existence of a god, or positive evidence.”

This is asserted as a truth claim with no evidence presented to support it. It is sheer rejectionism. And his use of “positive” is dependent upon his belief in Scientism (yes, belief):

”Instead, all of the arguments for god are negative evidences, or gaps in scientific understanding where god might possibly exist despite not having any evidence or demonstration that he actually does.”

First off this is a statement of universal Truth, which he cannot possibly know.

Second, it is false: there is no reason whatsoever to believe in the faith of Scientism, and it is only under the presupposition of the faith of Scientism that the concept of “god of the gaps” has any meaning.

Third, evidence is constantly ignored or ridiculed rather than refuted: another reason that this assertion is false.

Fourth, where is the scientific data to back up this claim?

Fifth, this is the assertion of the belief in Scientism which was promised to follow the failed “knowledge theory” above. He asserts that non-scientific propositions are god-did-it, or “god of the gaps” failures. This is a basic premise of the belief in Scientism, which claims that science will ultimately answer every and all questions, leaving none for non-physical questioning. The belief in Scientism is based on the lack of understanding of the limitations which inhere in the material investigations available to science, and on the Philosophical Materialist premise that nothing exists which is not material, a premise which has no proof or support under its own belief system: and it is a belief system, not a scientific system. The fact that Henson is invoking a belief system here invalidates his entire dependency upon science as the sole source of knowledge. It is a demonstration of the internal non-coherence of his beliefs.

This means that no logical argument will even be considered except under Scientistic belief.

This entire section, therefore, is a rational, logical failure.

His final statement here is this:

” As our understanding of the universe increases, the gaps in which god can exist become smaller. God was born out of ignorance of the natural world, and the more we understand the natural world and just how natural it really is, the less room there is for god to fill those gaps in knowledge.”

He has embedded his conclusion in his premises, a conclusion which is totally without scientific proof, which he demands as the sole source of knowledge: he does not know that god was born out of ignorance of the natural world; he has no evidence of that: none. He has embedded a prejudice into the premises.

The second presumption is that a creating deity must fit into the creation: blatant Philosophical Materialist failure. There is no reason that a creator of anything must fit into the gaps in his creation. This is primary logic and Henson fails it completely.

Total failure.

The next premise Henson claims is even more outrageous:

”C. 1. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.”

Here Henson completely abandons science altogether and goes completely off the reservation. No scientist would claim that absence of evidence for Dark Matter, or the Higgs Boson, or a unifying theory of existence is evidence confirming its non-existence. The entire basis for science is to develop evidence where none exists! To prejudice a conclusion in advance like Henson tries to do here is completely outside science and even under his own Scientistic belief system rules this cannot be accepted. It is another internal contradiction and non-coherence.

Even his example is well outside of logic: An invisible dragon breathing heatless fire. The original premise is that the dragon had no discernible characteristics; how then is it to leave evidence?

Here is his argument c:

”c. The thing being proven to not exist, is the type of thing that if it existed evidence would show.”

Repeat: The original premise is that the dragon had no discernible characteristics; how then is it to leave evidence? Non-coherent.

Then finally,

” If the definition of god in question involves a god that actively interacts with the physical universe, absence of evidence would be evidence that this type of god does not exist.”

Henson is invited to debunk the claims regarding the miracle at Lourdes. There is no “absence of evidence”; there is an absence of investigation and an absence of intellectual rigor in making claims for Atheism.

Blatant failure.

When false premises stack up and multiply, the arguments become massively irrational. That has happened here.

Henson’s final entry in this section is even more slipshod:

” b. Even though I cannot “Know” there is no god with absolute certainty, I can say that I know god does not exist in the same way that I can say that I know Santa Clause [sic] does not exist or that I know the earth revolves around the sun.”

Santa Claus is an obvious adult fabrication for children: no science involved there. Planetary orbits are indeed scientific knowledge of material objects. Neither of these is even closely analogous to the deductive case for a non-physical creating agent. The argument is completely beside the point, trivial and without force in refutation.

The remainder of the Deism argument is an amazing twist: after having dedicated the first part of the Deism article to claiming Scientism as the only source of knowledge, Henson attacks the apologetic arguments, not with science, but with attempts at non-scientific argumentation - which he has denied as having any knowledge-value(!) So no matter what he says in denial of the apologetics, it is in violation of his own principles and is therefore non-coherent and unacceptable as having any value in his own argument.

Failure. Utter failure.

The basis for all arguments seen so far includes (a) the belief system: Philosophical Materialism; (b) the belief system: Scientism; (c) false theories of knowledge; and (d) unsupported universal Truth statements which are prejudicial only and without logical or empirical force.

Making a lengthy, multi-premise logic argument requires that each and every assertion be demonstrably and incontrovertibly the case, logically sound, and axiomatically grounded. A single failure invalidates the entire chain. But in rationalized argumentation, it can be shown that most if not all of the premises fail, because they are induced falsely to support a presupposed conclusion, not deduced rigorously to reveal that which “is the case”. That is what has been done here: rationalization.

Accepting an argument purely because it reaches your desired conclusions is irrational. Yet for Atheists, Critical Thought is for the other guy, not for application to friendly, compatible arguments, it appears. To have accepted this argument without critically analyzing it is anti-rational; worse would be to read it and accept it as truth.

Addendum: link added 5.31.12