Lewis Wolpert - Still a Child at Heart

Lewis Wolpert, author of Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief (reviewed here and here) is still a child at heart; at least as regards his atheism.

The cell biologist and vice president of the British Humanist Association has elucidated the reasonable reason which reasonably lead him to reason his way to atheism.

He has stated,

[I] stopped believing in God when I was 15 or 16 because he didn’t give me what I asked for.[1]

Certainly, this is the very opposite of a reasonable reason and yet, commensurate of a child’s reasons. Lewis Wolpert thus joins a long list of atheists who became atheists as children, for childish reasons and have not developed their reasons for rejecting God beyond a child’s level. But is that really so? Has Lewis Wolpert really not developed his rejection of God any further? Is he truly stagnant in this regards?

Perhaps not as he has, after all, continued rejecting God via a virtual one liner,

There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God.[2]

Thus, he has matured from rejecting God because God did not give him that for which he asked to actually taking into consideration every supposed evidence for God and finding it wanting—apparently. We should, at this juncture, note that Lewis Wolpert is of the Circularity School of Atheism which “reasons” thusly: there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God because God does not exist. We know that God does not exist because there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God. And there actually cannot be any, nothing will ever count as evidence, because God does not exist.

In fact, Tom Price authored the following succinct mock retelling of a debate that took place between Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig:

Craig: God exists, here is the evidence.
Wolpert: God doesn’t exist, there is no evidence.
Craig: God exists, here is the evidence.
Wolpert: God doesn’t exist, who made God?
Craig: God does exist, he is an uncaused eternal being. Here is the evidence.
Wolpert: God doesn’t exist. He hasn’t done anything in the last 2,000 years.
Craig: That’s chronological snobbery. You don’t tell the time with an argument, you don’t tell if an argument is true or false, of if evidence is good or bad with a watch.
Wolpert: God doesn’t exist. We believe because we have a notion of cause and effect, this leads to toolmaking, and also to belief in God.
Craig: That’s the genetic fallacy. To confuse the origin of a belief with its truth or falsity. You need to deal with the arguments and evidence that I have presented.
Wolpert: God doesn’t exist. There is no evidence. Who made God?
Craig: Here is the evidence. God is an uncaused being. God does exist.
Wolpert: God doesn’t exist. There is no evidence.
Craig: God does exist. Here is the evidence.

Apparently, the adult, mature and erudite Professor Wolpert now has a much more adult, mature and erudite reason for rejecting God, “There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God.” Now, note the response that Wolpert offered when he was asked the following question by Keith Ward,

Ward: What sort of evidence would count for you? Would it have to be scientific evidence of some sort?
Wolpert: Well, no… I think I read somewhere: If he turned the pond on Hamstead Heath into good champagne, it would be quite impressive…[3]

Well, what have we here? It turns out that the adult Wolpert is still “reasoning” like the child Wolpert.
The child rejected God because “he didn’t give me what I asked for” and the adult says “he didn’t give me what I asked for” when I wanted to see a pond turn into good champagne. It is still about what God will or will not do for the demanding Wolpert. This is a typical human error: we place ourselves in the position of making ourselves God’s god by demanding that He serve us and do what we please: He better! Or we will reject Him!

But what does “If he turned the pond on Hamstead Heath into good champagne” mean?
What if someone were to report to Lewis Wolpert that the pond turned into champagne? He may inspect the contents of the pond, determine that it was champagne but concoct a story about how someone could have drained the water and replaced it with champagne—the reported miracle would be denied.

Does it mean that Wolpert would examine the contents of the pond, determine that it contains only water, that there is not a champagne producer just uphill, would sit by, wait for the miracles and would thereafter inspect the pond again, etc. He may then become convinced of the occurrence of a miracle. This would convince him.

It would however, convince him despite materialistic explanations such as him experiencing a hallucination, manipulation by high-tech hologram projecting aliens, an rare and unexpected concoction of nature’s laws, the outworking on an as of yet unknown law of nature, or simply stating a tenet of dogmatheism: “we do not yet understand how it happened but as science develops we will surely find a materialistic explanation.”

This may be enough for him but what would he do next? Would he shout it from the rooftops? Well, in that case his claim may be denied by the next examiner who would concoct a story about how someone could have drained the water and replaced it with champagne—his report of a miracle would be denied.

Perhaps each person on Earth could make a demand and God would have to fulfill each and every request like a wish granting genie—my first wish is unlimited wished :o). Or perhaps, God would determine what is sufficient—such as oh, I don’t know the creation of the universe and everything in it including humans who reject him for not giving them what they want.

What else can we learn from Lewis Wolpert’s foundations for atheism? Even at the tender age of 15 or 16 he held to a very strict theology. All atheists are theologians—they hold, very rigidly to theologies, or atheologies, of their own authorship.

Wolpert’s theology declared that God would do what the young Lewis pleased. Since God did not do what the young Lewis pleased then, theo“logically,” God was not. Thus, God was rejected, as He often is, for violating a human’s concept of what God is and is not, does and does not do, should and should not, etc.

Moreover, note that atheists such as Lewis Wolpert do not exist in a vacuum. They do not come to ideas about what God does and does not do and only then emerge from their vacuums and take an unbiased look around to see if God is or is not doing thus and such. Rather, they become fairly certain of that which God does not do—such as granting a 15 or 16 whatever they ask (whatever that may have been)—and then, premised upon prior knowledge, determine that God is not.

Lastly, note that Lewis Wolpert a priori doubts his very own proposed theistic proofs. This is how the conversation between Wolper and Ward continued:

Wolpert: …If he turned the pond on Hamstead Heath into good champagne, it would be quite impressive . . .

Ward: A miracle would be sufficient?

Wolpert: But then you have to remember what David Hume said, that you wouldn't believe in a reported miracle unless “the falsehood of [the] testimony would be more miraculous than the event which [it] relates.”

Ward: It's one of his worst arguments, in my view.

Wolpert: Hume is the only philosopher I take seriously. I'm big against philosophy.[4]

Thus, evidence of God would be a miracle such as turning water into good champagne. But then, as I noted above, he would deny the very miracle which he himself suggested would constitute evidence of God’s existence. Therefore, Lewis Wolpert is a dogmatheist who will not allow even the possibility of considering that anything at all could, would or should count as evidence of God’s existence.

Overall, we seem to have gotten a fascinating window into the heart and mind of someone who rejected God due to selfish and childish reasons and has subsequently merely sought further un-matured reasons for continuing to justify their rejection of God. God answers all prayers by either saying “Yes” or “No” (and/or “Wait”). Many of you will know to be thankful for “unanswered” prayer as you look back and realize that you were being hasty, selfish, misunderstood the situation that caused you to pray in the first place, etc.

[1] Lewis Wolpert, “The Hard Cell,” Third Way, March 2007, p. 16
[2] Ibid., p. 17
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.