Douglas J. Navarick is a Professor of Psychology at California State University. He is sometimes published in Skeptic magazine. His perspective is that many atheists are not skeptical, but are instead dogmatic, and thus suffer from a similar, if not identical, pathology as the hyper-religious. His opposition to dogmatic thinking is well-grounded, but his method of identifying dogmatic thinking is mistaken. Navarick claims that the “Four Horsemen” of the New Atheism —Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, share "the off putting dogmatism of the hyper-religious". I disagree and I am going to try to explain where I think Navarick is wrong.
Navarick argues that the evidence for ESP is greater than the evidence for abiogenesis. He says the evidence for the former is at best weak, but the evidence for the latter is non-existent. This is one of his mistakes. Macroevolution is evidence for abiogenesis because they are logically related to each other probabilistically. If macroevolution was disproved then life would be more likely to be a supernaturalistic phenomena and abiogenesis, because it is the naturalistic explanation for the start of life, would be less probable. Similarly, if the one to one relationship between chemistry and biology was disproved then life would be more likely to be a supernaturalistic phenomena and abiogenesis would be less probable.
Navarick, like many other non-atheists, has this big blind spot. He does not acknowledge the logical connection between macroevolution being a strictly naturalistic phenomena, life being a strictly naturalistic phenomena, and life having a strictly naturalistic origin. All evidence for one is evidence for the latter, and vica versa, yet Navarick basis his argument on a refusal to acknowledge this. Instead, he downplays the significance of the logical connection between physics, chemistry, and biology each being exclusively naturalistic to advance his argument that life itself is supernaturalistic.
He defines God thusly: "A willful, creative, force that transcends material reality and operates both through and independently of natural laws." Any force that operates through natural laws would appear to us as natural laws. To justifiably conclude otherwise we would need good evidence that natural laws by themselves are insufficient. Contrary to what Navarick tries to argue, we have no good evidence that natural laws are by themselves insufficient. What remains are God of the gaps arguments which are weak arguments. If that is how God operates then God is hiding from us and therefore we should disbelieve in God.
Navarick claims that his God theory makes "a strong prediction" that efforts to create living cells will fail. This is a good example of a weak, God of the gaps argument. This is because we can expect efforts to create living cells to fail for other reasons that are consistent with abiogenesis being true. In particular, abiogenesis may be a rare, and slow to occur, process. We do not have a full understanding of the physical conditions at the time and place life began and we cannot go back in time to witness it. There was a lot of time, water, molecules, heat, comets and meteorites, minerals, solar radiation, variations in local conditions, etc. for a rare abiogenesis process to occur once naturally, and the required combinations of events may be complex and very difficult to identify and reproduce.
He also cites the lack of evidence for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe as evidence for his God theory. But it is not clear why his God failed to fill our universe with intelligent life, why his God relied on the cruelty intrinsic to evolution as the natural law to disguise her presence, why his God first placed us humans on this particular isolated planet and Galaxy so many billions years after the universe began, why his God would create such an expansive universe beyond what we need, the origin of his God, etc. In contrast, there are naturalistic explanations for our not yet encountering other intelligent life. Multi-cellular life may be much slower and less likely to evolve than single celled life, intelligent life may be too fragile to usually survive for long in our frequently harsh to life universe, the tremendous distances between galaxies and stars make it less likely we will encounter intelligent life, and our searches to date may not be looking at good signals or in the best locations.
Navarick proposes that life is an independent property that catalyzes biochemical reactions without actually participating in these reactions. Life, he argues, thus precedes the reactions, it does not result from them. He cites as evidence cryopreservation, where "all biochemical activity ceases ... but the cells remain alive". Yet there is nothing about cryopreservation that is inconsistent with life consisting of biochemistry alone. Life ceases when the biochemistry ceases due to insufficient temperature. The biochemistry, and therefore life, resume when the minimum requisite temperature returns. We encounter a similar phenomena of non-biological chemistry stopping, and then resuming, with changes in temperature without inferring a supernatural catalyzing force.
Navarick sounds desperate to retain supernaturalism against the odds. As many hard skeptics do, he starts with a biased commitment to retaining the viability of supernaturalism against the evidence and then homes in on whatever excuses he can find. From there he promotes his agnostic perspective as the most reasonable conclusion. He acknowledges that theists and atheists can be agnostic and categorizes them as being reasonable, while claiming that gnostic theists and atheists are two equally dogmatic extremes, as if rational reasonableness is a synonym for the geometric middle ground between opposing positions.
Navarick unfairly assumes any atheist who does not explicitly cite either evidence or uncertainty, without prompting, when explaining why they are an atheist, is dogmatic. But empiricism is not a synonym for agnosticism, defined as being "without a claim of knowledge", as Navarick claims. Empiricism can dictate a firm conclusion. Navarick implicitly basis his argument for characterizing many atheists as being dogmatic on denying that evidence for naturalism is pervasive, diverse, and consistent, while evidence for supernaturalism is almost non-existent. He does not explicitly concede that his argument rests on this assumption and that his argument is therefore biased against atheism.
It is no doubt true that some atheists adopt a somewhat circular, closed minded, dogmatic approach to justifying their atheism, like Navarick claims. Not all atheists are epistemologically sophisticated. However, Navarick's survey results, where he catagorizes atheists as nonbelievers, agnostic atheists, or gnostic atheists, and concludes that the category that by his measure was most popular, gnostic atheists, are dogmatic, is too flawed to provide an accurate measure of the prevalence of dogmatism among atheists.