Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[LuisDantas]

I don't quite agree on certain points, but you seem to be saying basically that the interest in a certain level of arguments has been remarkable in the last few decades, not the arguments themselves. And in that respect I fully agree.

How is that not a matter of marketing and popular acceptance, as opposed to an actual coordinated movement?

 

[LuisDantas]

It began as such. Now it has come to be equated with atheism, and many atheists (whether they know of the term "new atheism" or not) rely on such arguments, rather than those arguments that were truly challenges to theism and religious belief systems.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you wishing the arguments usually raised by them were of better quality? That people remembered better writers more often? That people paid more attention to more meaningful confrontations between the cases for and against theism/religion?

 

[LuisDantas]

To not know why the temperatures go up and down daily (...)

I will take that as meaning "yes, I am indeed". Thanks for answering.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't quite agree on certain points, but you seem to be saying basically that the interest in a certain level of arguments has been remarkable in the last few decades, not the arguments themselves. And in that respect I fully agree.

How is that not a matter of marketing and popular acceptance, as opposed to an actual coordinated movement?

You speak of matters of "marketing and popular acceptance" as if they are somehow contrary, or opposed to, any "actual coordinated movement". History seems to tell us that the two are as close akin as might be possible, and all the more so in the modern era. Dawkins defined "brights" and created a social category defined by the "new atheism", plenty of sociopolitical movements, debates, and events have been shaped by the new atheism, and even this discussion board speaks as to the affects of coordinated movements by leaders in an hierarchical philosophical or worldview position. Also, social structures are, in general, less coordinated then they are emergent. The fact that a sociocultural phenomenon is less coordinated than emergence seems to me utterly irrelevant. Christianity is most accurately described as such a phenomenon.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Not sure what you mean here. Are you wishing the arguments usually raised by them were of better quality?

No. I wish they had any quality.

That people remembered better writers more often?

For a relatively short time (for almost a decade) I've taught high school and college students. I have found that, for the most part, people do not read much if at all, and thus can't remember writers.

That people paid more attention to more meaningful confrontations between the cases for and against theism/religion?

That arguments against theism and religious arguments in general were sophisticated, meaningful, and challenging. And that people today regard as challenging arguments from the "new atheism" because they are not presented with any arguments of substance. Nor is this restricted to atheists: Christian apologists (among other religious apologists) seem to have readily accepted this new state of affairs and presented arguments just as bereft of intellectual substance and value.

 

[Looncall]

To me it has the sense of giving the enemy a name. But I do wonder why theists are so sensitive about such challenges.
If they were really confident in their faith then why would they even care?

I suspect that what bugs the religious is the weakening of their unearned privileged status in society.
If it is no longer automatically accepted that religion is a good thing, away go goodies such as tax breaks for churches.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I will take that as meaning "yes, I am indeed". Thanks for answering.

You are products of a social/cultural phenomenon via empiricism or the 'scientific method' as you call it. The 'laws of motion' centered on astronomy were extended to terrestrial sciences via the 'laws of nature' and on to such things as biological evolution. The schools and colleges teach Darwinism which everyone associates with evolution even though that area of research had existed for centuries before. The results of such an indoctrination become obvious -

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Darwin

I can show that those who rely on the 'laws of motion' can't even manage to correlate a 24 hour day with one rotation of the planet yet these were the followers of Newton who promoted the 'scientific method' and managed to turn a social/political opinion into a 'law of nature' using biological evolution. An empiricist lacks the spirit which prevents dangerous fantasizes like Darwin's from being projected into creation as facts or realities.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But you see, the tendency of the old commies was to use a platform of 'science' to counter what they saw as a competing ideology controlling humanity via the Christian Churches. Considering that recent Christianity had descended into a moral dictatorship of sorts from which it is thankfully just emerging in fits and starts, it is no wonder the unbelievers took exception to denominational Christianity while ignoring Christ.

"You must work until "religion" is synonymous with "insanity."" You must work until the officials of city, county and state governments will not think twice before they pounce upon religious groups as public enemies."

THE SOVIET ART OF BRAINWASHING - part 2

For a Christian like me it is not living a life so as to avoid hell or playing out the ancient traditions like a puppet show but the strife between harmony and invention that runs through all spiritual people. Trying to legislate a perfect society by secularism doesn't work even though it is getting more like that in Western societies as time goes on. As a Catholic I go to Church each week and feel the comfort of a community that is dwindling and getting older but what a wonderful experience to be part of a community while still living as an individual.

The empiricist community likes to project itself as the light of reason against the superstition of religion but that is a mere historical accident created by the Churches themselves in deciding to jettison its astronomical heritage which in turned filtered down into terrestrial sciences.

I'm not sure I fully understand your point, but you seem to be conflating secularism and atheism, and similarly drawing parallels between atheists.
My exact point was that secularism <> atheism, and that atheism doesn't have an overarching dogma, offering the Soviets as an example of atheists I DON'T share belief with.
I feel as responsible or connected to Soviet style atheism as you would to Hinduism, I'm guessing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I suspect that what bugs the religious is the weakening of their unearned privileged status in society.

Then why do we find so many simplistic, popular religious arguments rejoicing in how bereft of value the "new atheism" is? Those like William L. Craig are fueled by the intellectual sterility of modern atheism (in particular, the extent to which modern atheism is defined by the new atheism). They can supply arguments to bluster the beliefs of those who are already converted (or were raised and never gave up their religion) and present challenges to those undecided that were answered over a century ago.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Then why do we find so many simplistic, popular religious arguments rejoicing in how bereft of value the "new atheism" is? Those like William L. Craig are fueled by the intellectual sterility of modern atheism (in particular, the extent to which modern atheism is defined by the new atheism). They can supply arguments to bluster the beliefs of those who are already converted (or were raised and never gave up their religion) and present challenges to those undecided that were answered over a century ago.

Whether those questions were answered or not, the fact that they remain questions puts into doubt the effectiveness of earlier arguments as far as a populist movement goes. Ultimately, it is not always the most intellectually rigorous argument which wins, but the won most convincing to the audience it's been presented to. Hitchens, at least, was quite open about following the traditions of British public school debate, rather than trying to come up with the most complete and intellectually bullet-proof argument.

I don't subscribe to anti-theism, so question the long-term effectiveness of at least some of the 'New Atheists' more common points, but it's hard to deny the methods and arguments used have been more successful in gaining common traction than previous attempts.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Whether those questions were answered or not, the fact that they remain questions puts into doubt the effectiveness of earlier arguments as far as a populist movement goes

"'tis true. 'tis true 'tis pity/ And pity 'tis 'tis true". There are two responses to this. On the one hand, it does indeed put in doubt the arguments of old. On the other, it speaks to the inability (and even incapacity) of the "populist movement" to comprehend (or recognize) such arguments. I tend to think that any "populist movement" is at fault rather than deem the positions and arguments of those like Nietzsche, Sartre, Freud, Camus, etc., were invalid.

Ultimately, it is not always the most intellectually rigorous argument which wins

Truly. Hence the rejoice of those like Craig who take advantage of the "new atheism" by presenting idiotic arguments for theism that were easily countered over a century ago.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I'm not sure I fully understand your point, but you seem to be conflating secularism and atheism, and similarly drawing parallels between atheists.
My exact point was that secularism <> atheism, and that atheism doesn't have an overarching dogma, offering the Soviets as an example of atheists I DON'T share belief with.

Scream "I DON'T" all you like which shows you did get the point - the old commies did understand that you could use the education system as a conduit for any ideology you like under the heading of 'science'. They looked at the failings of denominational Christianity as a competing entity rather than the tenets of Christ as an individual expression of faith and that more or less sums up participants coming to this 'religious' forum as atheists/empiricists.However quaint the old commie text is, it has the same rabid outlook held by many who don't feel how people of faith look at the world and life in general.

"The first thing to be degraded in any nation is the state of Man, himself. Nations which have high ethical tone are difficult to conquer. Their loyalties are hard to shake, their allegiance to their leaders is fanatical, and what they usually call their spiritual integrity cannot be violated by duress. It is not efficient to attack a nation in such a frame of mind. It is the basic purpose of Psychopolitics to reduce that state of mind to a point where it can be ordered and enslaved. Thus, the first target is Man, himself. He must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic reaction pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable only of animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself, or of his fellows, as capable of "spiritual endurance," or nobility" Old Commie conviction

The Catholic Church has to accept the responsibility for jettisoning its astronomical and by association, its scientific heritage after the Galileo affair for that has set up this current nightmare where spiritual matters become partitioned from research into astronomy and terrestrial sciences. It also allows these noiseboxes to condemn religion as an artifact of a society who knew no better.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Scream "I DON'T" all you like which shows you did get the point - the old commies did understand that you could use the education system as a conduit for any ideology you like under the heading of 'science'. They looked at the failings of denominational Christianity as a competing entity rather than the tenets of Christ as an individual expression of faith and that more or less sums up participants coming to this 'religious' forum as atheists/empiricists.However quaint the old commie text is, it has the same rabid outlook held by many who don't feel how people of faith look at the world and life in general.

"The first thing to be degraded in any nation is the state of Man, himself. Nations which have high ethical tone are difficult to conquer. Their loyalties are hard to shake, their allegiance to their leaders is fanatical, and what they usually call their spiritual integrity cannot be violated by duress. It is not efficient to attack a nation in such a frame of mind. It is the basic purpose of Psychopolitics to reduce that state of mind to a point where it can be ordered and enslaved. Thus, the first target is Man, himself. He must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic reaction pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable only of animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself, or of his fellows, as capable of "spiritual endurance," or nobility" Old Commie conviction

The Catholic Church has to accept the responsibility for jettisoning its astronomical and by association, its scientific heritage after the Galileo affair for that has set up this current nightmare where spiritual matters become partitioned from research into astronomy and terrestrial sciences. It also allows these noiseboxes to condemn religion as an artifact of a society who knew no better.

Still not sure I'm understanding you, but I'll play along based on my best guess at your meaning.

1) You can use the education system as a conduit for any ideology you like under the heading of science, huh? How does that sentence read if you replace 'science' with 'religion'? Any education system can be manipulated for any purpose.

2) The 'Commies' don't share an ideology of any sort with me. If you believe they do, please let me know what it is.

3) Atheism <> secularism. I see no point in promoting society to be more atheist. It makes little sense to me. I do want society to be secular. IN this (as I've already stated) theists may be my ally or my opponent. Conflating atheism with secularism, whether done by theists or atheists (or new atheists, if you will) is both incorrect and harmful.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"'tis true. 'tis true 'tis pity/ And pity 'tis 'tis true". There are two responses to this. On the one hand, it does indeed put in doubt the arguments of old. On the other, it speaks to the inability (and even incapacity) of the "populist movement" to comprehend (or recognize) such arguments. I tend to think that any "populist movement" is at fault rather than deem the positions and arguments of those like Nietzsche, Sartre, Freud, Camus, etc., were invalid.

I think applying fault is the only difference in our position. My take is that by it's very nature, a populist movement in ANYTHING is going to have weaker arguments than is possible, be it politics, religion, or anything else. There is no inherent blame in that (to my mind), it is mere fact.
Imagine you enter a room of scientists, to explain a certain scientific concept. If all of those scientists are of the same field, then perhaps the explanation and the discussion can reach the full heights of intellectual discussion. But if the scientists are a mixed bag of backgrounds, the discussion will either sideline some completely (ie. non-populist/elitist) or be dumbed-down to the point of more general comprehension.

So, sure, I would agree that a populist movement will not have the most intellectually rigorous arguments possible. I just don't see that as blameworthy. Should they instead increase the complexity and rigor of the arguments, and end up holding debates attended by 10 people with philosophy and theology degrees? And if so, would this be a more positive outcome? Perhaps it would...I'm honestly not sure on the last...but I'd hedge towards 'No'.

Complete sidenote, but Freud never seemed particularly compelling to me, in almost anything I studied. *shrugs*

Truly. Hence the rejoice of those like Craig who take advantage of the "new atheism" by presenting idiotic arguments for theism that were easily countered over a century ago.

How many people capable of understanding more intellectually sound arguments do you think Craig convinces? And how many, therefore, would understand more complex arguments from an atheist position if they were offered?
It's not like Russell's writing aren't readily accessible, for example.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

You can use the education system as a conduit for any ideology you like under the heading of science, huh? How does that sentence read if you replace 'science' with 'religion'? Any education system can be manipulated for any purpose.
.

By their very doctrine, empiricists are both anti-scientific and anti-religious, after all, I just demonstrated that for all the fuss about the speculative agenda called 'climate change' ,the same people can't read the rotation of the Earth out of a simple temperature graph showing days and rotations keeping in step as effect follows cause -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar temperature variation.jpg

It is one thing to project a 'hockey stick' graph and promote it as scientific fact and make a very expensive fuss about it, it is something else when you have normal daily temperature graph in front of you and can't associate the fluctuations with a rotational cause once each 24 hour day and every day.

In intellectual terms, you are what you eat so the very fact that you are unresponsive or oblivious to what is taught in schools and colleges gives me a distinct advantage in any and all matters.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

By their very doctrine, empiricists are both anti-scientific and anti-religious, after all, I just demonstrated that for all the fuss about the speculative agenda called 'climate change' ,the same people can't read the rotation of the Earth out of a simple temperature graph showing days and rotations keeping in step as effect follows cause -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar temperature variation.jpg

It is one thing to project a 'hockey stick' graph and promote it as scientific fact and make a very expensive fuss about it, it is something else when you have normal daily temperature graph in front of you and can't associate the fluctuations with a rotational cause once each 24 hour day and every day.

In intellectual terms, you are what you eat so the very fact that you are unresponsive or oblivious to what is taught in schools and colleges gives me a distinct advantage in any and all matters.

You're kinda just going with a stream of consciousness at this point, aren't ya?
Not that I particularly expect you to either care, or perhaps even believe me, but I have 2 degrees in education, have taught at both primary and tertiary levels, and done so in 2 different countries, neither of which is the one that you possibly have some understanding of.

But if there is something on topic you want to discuss, then go for it.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

You're kinda just going with a stream of consciousness at this point, aren't ya?
Not that I particularly expect you to either care, or perhaps even believe me, but I have 2 degrees in education, have taught at both primary and tertiary levels, and done so in 2 different countries, neither of which is the one that you possibly have some understanding of.

But if there is something on topic you want to discuss, then go for it.

Empiricists are anti-scientific never mind being anti-religious and all you have to do is follow the stream of data coming off a daily temperature graph and the fluctuations seen in response to a rotating Earth to affirm the point -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar temperature variation.jpg

Your cult assumes more rotations than days along with the 'solar vs sidereal' reasons given for the dumb conclusion -

" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard

All these guys telling me how many academic degrees they have but those pieces of paper are merely certificates of indoctrination and not achievement.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Empiricists are anti-scientific never mind being anti-religious and all you have to do is follow the stream of data coming off a daily temperature graph and the fluctuations seen in response to a rotating Earth to affirm the point -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar temperature variation.jpg

Your cult assumes more rotations than days along with the 'solar vs sidereal' reasons given for the dumb conclusion -

" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard

All these guys telling me how many academic degrees they have but those pieces of paper are merely certificates of indoctrination and not achievement.

Only too happy to compare actual knowledge on education and educational processes and theories any time you like, big guy, but all you're doing here is going off topic. Start a new thread.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Only too happy to compare actual knowledge on education and educational processes and theories any time you like, big guy, but all you're doing here is going off topic. Start a new thread.

New atheists/Old commies are more or less the same, have the same roots and outlook when it comes to science but know enough to realize the education system is the key to spreading ideologies.

Extreme views can be air-brushed out at a later date and especially the notion that evolution began with Darwin's opinions which in turn are used against the Biblical texts and matters of faith . Fair enough -

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Darwin

I don't look at the success of the empiricists/atheist sensibilities but the inactions of those who should be offended by these notions under the term 'laws of nature' and expressed in that way.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Imagine you enter a room of scientists

Please don't make me. It happens to often and enters my sleeping mind as nightmares.

If all of those scientists are of the same field, then perhaps the explanation and the discussion can reach the full heights of intellectual discussion. But if the scientists are a mixed bag of backgrounds, the discussion will either sideline some completely (ie. non-populist/elitist) or be dumbed-down to the point of more general comprehension.

You hit upon an extremely deep point here, actually. Time was your average physicist spoke Latin and the modern languages of scholarship (at that time, German, French, and Italian mostly), was more familiar with the philosophy and the history of philosophy than mathematics (hence the formulation of quantum mechanics known as "matrix mechanics" was developed by one who did not known what matrices were), and we had sociologists, not social neuroscientists, social psychologists, etc. Modern science is extremely interdisciplinary, which is great on the one hand, but it means that for any given field, specialists are actually scant because to be a real specialist requires specialization in something as specific as the construction of satellite temperature records from MSU signals (which is the only reason Dr. John Christy has continually been asked to contribute to the IPCC reports). If one attends a seminar or conference for specialists, increasingly these have become people who are ostensibly in the same field having to tell their ostensible colleagues the basics of their work.

So, sure, I would agree that a populist movement will not have the most intellectually rigorous arguments possible.

The problem (or part of it) is, as I see it, partly the increasing lack amongst scientists of more general philosophical knowledge and the familiarity with the philosophy & history of science. Hence the reduction by those like Dawkins of theology and philosophy to his knowledge of the sciences and an inability to engage in the type of discourse scientists & academics such as Russell, Whitehead, Freud, Lewis, etc., were capable of.

Basically, the increasing specialization has made it so much harder for any academics to be polymaths of the type that virtually all academics were less than a century ago.

It's not like Russell's writing aren't readily accessible, for example.

But much of them were meant to be and were (not his and Whitehead's PM, but his history of western philosophy and "why I am not a Christian" and so many other works now considered largely inaccessible were intended to be accessible).