Yes, the author of the new Quillette article, a critique of sociologist Charles Murray‘s “proof” of Christianity, really is an atheist, though he says he’s not a proselytizing one. Daseler is identified as “a film editor and writer living in LA. And Daseler says in the article below that’s he’s not an ardent atheist, though he’d like to believe in God. But he sure thinks like an atheist as he takes apart Murray’s “scientific” arguments for God.
Like Ross Douthat, Murray has a new book about why we should be religious; Murray’s is called Taking Religion Seriously. And many of Murray’s arguments for God, which we’ve encountered before, overlap with Douthat’s: they are arguments for God from ignorance, posting not just God but a Christian god—based on things we don’t understand. Here’s what I said in an earlier piece on this site:
Here’s a quote from the publisher’s page:
Taking Religion Seriously is Murray’s autobiographical account of the decades-long evolution in his stance toward the idea of God in general and Christianity in particular.
Murray, then, has a harder task than just convincing us that there’s a supreme being: he has to convince us that it’s the supreme being touted by Christianity. To do that he must, as Daseler shows, support the literal truth of the New Testament, and even Bart Ehrman doesn’t do that.
But I digress; click below to read Daseler’s review, which is also archived here.
I’ll summarize Murray’s arguments for God in bold; indented headings are mine while Daseler’s test itself is indented and my own comments flush left.
a.) There is something rather than nothing.
b.) Physics is often mathematically simple, like equations for motion and gravitation.
I’ve discussed these two before, and also provided links to others who find them unconvincing arguments for God. (Why do I keep capitalizing “God” as if he exists? I don’t know.)
c.) Some people show “terminal lucidity” (“TL”). That is, some people in a vegetative state, or with profound dementia, suddenly become very lucid before they die.
In another post I pointed out Steve Pinker and Michael Shermer’s arguments against taking TL as evidence for God Daseler adds further evidence:
Terminal lucidity is no better at propping up Murray’s case for an immortal soul, as he tacitly admitted during a recent back-and-forth with the cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker. To date, only one very small study has been conducted on terminal lucidity, indicating that it occurs in approximately six percent of dementia patients. No EEGs, brain imaging, or blood samples were taken during these episodes, so any explanations of the phenomenon must be speculative. The neuroscientist Ariel Zeleznikow-Johnston has hypothesised that terminal lucidity may result, at least in some instances, from a reduction in brain swelling. “In their final days, many patients stop eating and drinking entirely,” he explains. “The resulting dehydration could reduce brain swelling, allowing blood flow to increase and temporarily restoring some cognitive function—a brief window of lucidity before the dying process continues.” Nonetheless, Zeleznikow-Johnston is quick to acknowledge that this is merely an educated guess. Murray, by contrast, jumps straight to the conclusion that corroborates his priors: episodes of terminal lucidity reveal the fingerprints of the soul.
I should add that Murray also accepts “near-death experiences” (“NDE”s) as evidence for God, as do recent books like Heaven is for Real and Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife. Both of these books have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere, and some Googling will turn up ample critiques.
d.) The universe is “fine-tuned” for life. That is, it is more than a coincidence that the physical parameters obtaining in the Universe allow life on at least one planet. Ergo, say people like Murray
This argument seems to convince many people, but not physicists. Indeed, even Daseler finds it hard to refute. But there are many alternative explanations save Murray’s view that the parameters of physics were chosen by God to allow his favorite species to evolve. There could be multiple universes with different physical parameters; most of the Universe is not conducive to life; or there could be a reason we don’t understand why the physical parameters are what they are, and are somehow interlinked. The best answer is “we don’t know,” but Murray thinks that one alternative—the Christian God—is the most parsimonious answer. But of course he wants to believe in God, and since we have no other evidence for a supreme being, it’s not so parsimonious after all.
e.) There is evidence that the Gospels are factually true.
Anyone who’s studied religious history with an open mind knows this is bogus, for the canonical gospels were written well after Jesus’s death, and by people who had never met the purported Savior. Murray does some mental gymnastics to obviate this, but he isn’t successful. And, as Daseler points out, the New Testament is full of mistakes (so is the Old Testament: there was, for example, no exodus of the Jews from Egypt). Here’s a handy list provided by Daseler:
- There was no census during the reign of Caesar Augustus for which citizens had to return to their ancestral homes, as the Gospel of Luke maintains.
- Cyrenius was not the governor of Syria at the time of Jesus’s birth.
- There’s no record, outside the Gospel of Matthew, of Herod the Great slaughtering hundreds of newborn babies.
- When Jesus quotes the Old Testament in the Sermon on the Mount, he quotes from the Septuagint, which was written in Greek, a language neither he nor his listeners spoke.
- The Romans didn’t allow the Jewish Council to meet at night.
- By law, capital trials of the kind Jesus underwent had to be conducted over two days, and never on a Sabbath or holy day.
- There was no tradition of releasing a prisoner to the Jewish people before Passover. The notion that Pontius Pilate, a notoriously ruthless governor, would have released Barabbas, a murderous insurrectionist, is highly unlikely.
- Crucified criminals were commonly left on their crosses for days, as a warning to would-be malefactors, then dumped in mass graves, not promptly taken down and buried in rich men’s tombs.
And this is to say nothing of the supernatural events described in the gospels, such as Matthew’s report that, after the crucifixion, “the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many,” an incident that, had it actually occurred, would certainly have been recorded by additional sources. Likewise, there are scenes that, logically, must have been invented. If Jesus and Pilate had a private conversation together just before Jesus died, how does the author of the Gospel of John know what they said? And if Matthew and Luke actually witnessed the events they describe, why did they feel the need to plagiarise so many passages word-for-word from Mark?
Still, Murray thinks that the gospels are statements of witnesses, which simply cannot be true based on both historical and internal evidence.
Murray also has a weakness for nonreligious woo, which speaks to his credulity. Daseler:
Like Douthat, Murray has a capacious definition of the word religion that encompasses a fair amount of woo as well as Christian orthodoxy. “I put forward, as a working hypothesis, that ESP is real but belongs to a mental universe that is too fluid and evanescent to fit within the rigid protocols of controlled scientific testing,” he writes, discarding his commitment to fact-based assertions. Murray devotes an entire chapter to discussing near-death experiences—or NDEs, as they’re popularly known—and terminal lucidity, the rare but documented phenomenon of brain-damaged patients regaining some cognitive abilities just before they die. “In my judgment [NDEs and terminal lucidity] add up to proof that the materialist explanation of consciousness is incomplete,” he writes. “I had to acknowledge the possibility that I have a soul.”
The only credit Daseler gives Murray is that the sociologist isn’t “preachy”, and hedges his assertions with words like “I think.”
In the end, Murray offers the same tired old arguments advanced against God during the last few decades: all arguments based on ignorance, ignorance equated to a Christian God. And although Daseler says he wants to believe, he simply can’t because, unlike Murray (who claims to proffer evidence in the book The Bell Curve for group difference in intelligence), Daseler is wedded to evidence. And so the reviewer fights his own wishes in favor of evidence—or the lack thereof:
I’m not nearly as ardent an atheist as this review might lead some to think. I wasn’t raised with any religion, so I don’t have a childhood grudge against any particular creed. And unlike Christopher Hitchens, who liked to say that he was glad that God does not exist, I can’t say I’m overjoyed to think that the universe is cold and conscienceless. I’d be delighted to discover that there is a supreme being, so long as He/She/It is compassionate and merciful. I am, in short, exactly the type of person Murray is trying to reach—someone much like himself before he started reading Christian apologetics. Every time I open a book like his, some part of me yearns to be persuaded, and to be given an argument or a piece of evidence that I’ve yet to consider. But Murray fails to deliver. After reading his book, I’m less, not more, inclined to take religion seriously. It’s hard to believe in God when even very bright, thoughtful people can’t come up with good reasons why you should.
I guess I’m like Hitchens here: why wish for something that doesn’t exist? Why not face up to reality and make the best of it? Apparently Murray doesn’t share those sentiments.
If you want a decent but flawed explanation of “God of the gaps” arguments, click on the screenshot below. You can have fun mentally arguing with the author’s claim that some “gaps” arguments from theism are better than related arguments from naturalism, though the piece as a whole is anti-supernatural. Personally (and self-aggrandizingly), I think the discussion in Faith Versus Fact is better. But I like the picture (it’s uncredited), and the author does quote theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
“. . . how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.”
But in the 80 years since Bonhoeffer was hanged by the Nazis, we still haven’t found God in what we know.
I’ve long thought the fining tuning argument (the Anthropic Principle, IANM) to be vacuous. Lazy, at best. I like Douglas Adams’ response (a paraphrase); it’s like a puddle being amazed that the hole it finds itself in matches its shape perfectly.
I came here to mention just that!
For the same reason that you capitalise Thor or Zeus or indeed Harry Potter (none of whom exist). In the singular (and unlike the uncapitalised “gods”) God refers to a particular character of a particular mythology.
And I agree with Edward that the fine-tuning argument is not nearly as good as this review says. For one thing, it depends on our existence (or the existence of life in general) being in some way special, such that there would be some sort of problem with a universe that did not contain life. That’s entirely begging the question. While folks like us might matter to folks like us, there’s no basis for presuming that we’re significant in any cosmic sense.
ProfCC sez: (Why do I keep capitalizing “God” as if he exists? I don’t know.)
There are many coyotes in the country but if you were to discuss the similarly nonexistent trickster of native American lore you would capitalize the name as ‘Coyote’.
Innate politeness. I find myself capitalizing the names of religions, and that is mainly politeness, but I guess I could also say they are proper nouns.
The fine-tuning argument always gets me. Of course, everything is just right. We evolved for it.
Apart from the exceptional comment I am making now, I don’t chime in on this or any other issue for which we cannot have a definitive, science-based answer (that includes the determinism-or-free will issue that crops up on occasion. [Sorry, no offense.]). I don’t care that we can’t prove God’s non-existence. I only care about the real-world consequences of one’s belief (or disbelief) in his non-existence: whether one engages in violence, intolerance, or oppression as a consequence of one’s beliefs. All the rest is dysentery.
Thinking is not dysentery, even if the subject seems beneath you. Atheists and theists both have reasons to discuss things that cannot be “proven”, if for no other reason than to hone their own thinking. I do it from time to time and I have no trouble at that end and I stay hydrated. I’ve got to hand it to you. You’ve managed to find a way to feel superior to everyone while commenting on a subject you claim you don’t comment on.
(That was a reference to both Rabbi Hillel and Woody Allen. It is a humorous plea to follow the Golden Rule, that’s all).
Oh! My bad. Apologies….Carry on.
I enjoyed the ‘dysentery’! Must remember that.
I’m with you Danny, but in the Hitchens quote linked to in the post there is a good reason to care (and to be glad) that we can conclude there is no god, and especially no Yahweh.
“It is a totalitarian belief…the wish to be a slave [to a] tyrannical authority that can convict you of a thought crime…and must indeed subject you to a total surveillance round the clock…before you are born and, even worse, and where the real fun begins, after you are dead. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true? Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate?”
We sure miss that guy.
Thanks Mike. I guess I’d have a comparable reply to your point as well: people can be a totalitarian in their heads; that’s nobody else’s business. It is their actions based on such beliefs that need to be carefully monitored, don’t you think? Also, can we can conclude with certainty that there is no God? How? I, personally, do not give the issue any thought: it’s a non-issue for me. (Despite growing up in an observant Jewish home, my parents, God bless them (haha), NEVER discussed God and religulous belief. That’s kept me free😀; I keep my house kosher to honor my mom’s memory, however.)
Over and out for today.
Haha yes I make strawberry-rhubarb tarts to honour my mom (and to needle our host…).
I vaguely recall Woody Allen’s line in Annie Hall about the magazines Commentary and Dissent merging and would henceforth be called Dysentery.
Yes, that’s it!
It is a shame when people you respect for their writing and ideas (Charles Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali) get religion. I hope they get better soon.
I put together a considered summary of my views on fine tuning that I always take down from the shelf when required.
The fine tuning argument actually works against the concept of a god, and not for it. Fine tuning isn’t actually fine tuning, rather it’s the inevitable outcome of forces acting exactly in accordance with their properties. Even simple things like throwing a ball. The ball goes exactly as far as the conflicting forces and conditions allow: the strength of my arm, the wind, temperature, rolling resistance, etc. The result is technically predictable down to the smallest fraction that nature allows, in which a millimetre is a massive distance. There are no approximations. Every part of the universe behaves in this way. Were there a god involved we might expect to see at least small variations and exceptions for which we couldn’t account. There are none.
Exactly. An entity exactly fitting its environment is exactly what one expects in an a-theistic universe.
What, in contrast, is the best indicator of intelligent intervention? Why, it is an animal not fitting its environment! An animal in a zoo can only have come about through intelligent intervention, it could not be there naturally. In contrast, an animal in its natural environment is what is predicted by naturalism.
So, if we find humans in a universe utterly un-suited for humans, then I’ll start believing in God, since it could only be a miracle!
Your comment subtly links to another observation I make, on the very rare occasions I find myself responding to creationists. Isn’t it strange that the components of organic life, every single one, can be found in non life. It maybe that evolution has tinkered somewhat with the molecules and the chemicals but, ultimately, life and non life are built from the same molecules. If God had come along with some special creation then surely we would find substances that were unique to organic life?
Lots of substances are unique to organic life. Finding them is regarded as a sign of life. It just depends on how you define “substances”. The elements carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur, iron, zinc, selenium, etc. are found in the non-living world. All but the simplest molecules are unique to organic life. Not just proteins and ribonucleic acid but molecules down the simplicity scale to methanol and amino acids also. The only bio-relevant molecules I can think of that occur without life are carbon dioxide, water, and diatomic gasses.
There is an explanation for this. All the other bio-molecules are highly reduced (hydrogen-rich) species that in the presence of atmospheric oxygen will become oxidized (ultimately to CO2 and water) with the liberation of heat and a uniform increase in the entropy of the universe. To produce these reduced complex molecules from inorganic precursors, thus reducing entropy locally in a system, requires not only the capture of energy from the sun or other sources but also the generation of “reducing equivalents” — neutral hydrogen atoms (not protons) — from water. This is what life does. It also has to protect its laboriously created reduced molecules from spontaneous oxidation using anti-oxidants that life has to manufacture and recycle. Oxygen, like rust, never sleeps.
Evolution has tinkered enormously with the atoms to make even methanol, never mind brains.
Now, you don’t need to invoke God to explain any of this. It all obeys the laws of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics just as a thrown ball does. The entropy of the universe never reduces as a result of life ticking away somewhere. But it’s just a little too glib to say there are no substances unique to organic life. Elements, yes. But in making life from non-life, evolution had to produce many unique substances.
Thanks Lesley, I clearly oversimplified my comment.
In addition to the problems in the gospels listed above, biblical scholars have tracked the way the gospels changed before being included in the bible. It is interesting because it shows how Christianity changed in its early days. Bart Ehrman is a good author on this. He considers himself to be an “agnostic atheist”. He has a blog, podcast and many books.
I like Ehrman, but I think he’s not skeptical enough about many aspects of the Gospels. For example, he believes that Jesus had twelve disciples and that they traveled together through Galilee for many months or even years. Is this plausible? Are there similar examples in history? Thirteen people is a lot. How did they get food in a region where people barely had enough to eat? Not to mention that Jesus first had to conceive and then execute the plan masterfully—“I need 12 guys, one for each throne in the Kingdom, then…”
I would like to advise people like Murray and Douthat to read Francesca Stavrakopoulou’s “God: An Anatomy” (if they have not already done so). Brings God back to earth so to speak.
And if you want to read about history in the bible being the servant of theology read anything (or watch on youtube) by Israel Finkelstein.
Physicists don’t claim to have a full description of any hypothetical Universe with different basic constants. All they said so far was that certain aspects of our Universe would not work out if certain constants differed in a specific way. It is conceivable that intelligent life could still arise, as long as sufficient complexity were possible, in at least some conceivable Universes.
I was misled by the argument (e) there is factual evidence that the gospels are true and was well into my adult years before I understood it was not “really” true at all.
My basic argument against Christianity is that I’ve grown up around Asian and Polynesian religions that developed independently and without contact with the Abrahamic faiths.
All religions are no less valid and ness less a creation of humanity.
These arguments have been asked and answered a gazillion times. But still they raise them like they are gotcha moments. can’t they at least try come up with something new?
Some do try. They fail to find arguments that are any good.
I always find the “something from nothing” question incoherent. “Nothing” is the absence of “something”, so that presupposes the existence of “something”. Also, if God existed before (or outside of) that “something”, then there wasn’t “nothing”.
I was going to make the same point but you beat me to it. I find all these arguments incoherent including the “fine-tuned universe made just for us” one. As someone else already pointed out, it is we who are fine-tuned (by evolution) for the universe, not the reverse. I find it hard to fathom why so many apparently smart people take such arguments supposedly “proving” a creator god seriously.
Why? Wishful thinking, motivated reasoning.
Read the book “Heretic.” The author puts the Jesus myths in the context of other miracle workers of the period and concludes that he was no more noteworthy than any of them.
I was reminded of David Bowie. I didn’t think it a very powerful scene. But there it is. A bit of magic might have saved Jesus 🙂
Mr Murray has force feed his own gap. That satiety is not reality when it lacks substance in the form of evidence.
Being atheistic is to me like getting off that perpetuating grind, the constant blather about god, gods. It’s a resting state where discovering truths is as enriching, fun, and as wide as the universe we live in.
The Atheist Song
I’m an atheist and I’m OK
I eat my meals with no cause to pray
(I still like hymns, the KJV, the stories of J.C.)
“What dreams may come” are zero
And that’s alright with me
© 2025, no charge for noncommercial use, all other rights reserved.
Regarding terminal lucidity cases, it could be that as the brain dies the smaller inhibitory neurons die off first, temporarily disinhibiting the larger excitatory neurons and resulting in a brief period of lucidity. Just a guess though. I have watched relatives in comas die and did not see any sign of terminal lucidity.
An interesting observation about all the clever higher criticisms of scripture is how poorly they get broadcast to the over 8 thousand million people on planet Earth. To me this is evidence for the non existence of a devilish realm. Matthew 4v8 The devil took Jesus to 25000 ft and said, “Look there is the whole world and it can be yours if you worship me” and Jesus said, “That is only 200 miles in each direction which is 3.14 * 200 * 200 = area of 125600 sq miles compared to surface area of Earth = 197000000. So no deal” Matthew 18v3 says unless people become like little children they will not enter the kingdom of heaven but it might as well say, “Unless you aren’t smart you will not enter heaven”. However in reality people trick themselves with clever twisted excuses.
Black Sabbath song, “Sabbath bloody Sabbath” says, “Nobody will ever let you know, When you ask the reasons why, They just tell you that you’re on your own
Fill your head all full of lies, You bastards” However the more common reason is people are often too polite and don’t talk about religion for fear of upsetting anyone.
If God fine- tuned the earth for life the fine-tuning for my life must have been magnitudes greater. Whilst flattered by the attention I can’t help thinking that some bits could have been given greater thought.