Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[icehorse]

Full disclosure, I didn't read all the posts in the middle, sorry if this ground was covered...

I'm a big fan of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hirsi Ali. They've been dubbed "new atheists", but I'd say they would probably prefer to be called "anti-theists" (which is what I'd call myself). Big difference.

Here's how I would describe what anti-theists believe (yes, I understand I'm speaking for others, this is what I've gleaned, and what I believe):

- Religion in other realms (political, social, educational...) is a threat to society.
- There are many threats to society, political religion is just one of them.
- Human rights and personal freedoms should always supersede religious dictates.
- Perhaps redundantly, the separation of church and state should be strongly defended.
- Usually, anti-theists cherish critical thinking and scientific values (evidence, logic and so on).

Of course, some anti-theists are activists, and some are not.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I'm a big fan of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hirsi Ali. They've been dubbed "new atheists", but I'd say they would probably prefer to be called "anti-theists" (which is what I'd call myself). Big difference.
.

Although the high school science curriculum was never entirely ideologically neutral but at least restricted to the harmless voodoo of physicists ,with all the academics now committed to global warming/climate change the classroom has become something quite different -

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: PBS/NASA Modules

The old commies turned into the new atheists by using classrooms with the same colorless and spiritless outlook

 

[gsa]

Although the high school science curriculum was never entirely ideologically neutral but at least restricted to the harmless voodoo of physicists ,with all the academics now committed to global warming/climate change the classroom has become something quite different -

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: PBS/NASA Modules

The old commies turned into the new atheists by using classrooms with the same colorless and spiritless outlook

I have no idea why you think that the "New Atheists" are communists or remotely sympathetic to it.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I have no idea why you think that the "New Atheists" are communists or remotely sympathetic to it.

Religious forum indeed !

"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 of 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

How a social/political opinion got bumped up to a 'law of nature' and spread through the classrooms is one of several major issues but if a person is not sick to their stomach after reading that they haven't understood it.

 

[gsa]

Religious forum indeed !

"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 of 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

How a social/political opinion got bumped up to a 'law of nature' and spread through the classrooms is one of several major issues but if a person is not sick to their stomach after reading that they haven't understood it.

To address your quote: Talk Origins Archive.

But whatever you think of Darwin, that has zero bearing on evolution. And neither has anything to do with Communism.

 

[gsa]

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.

They are just looking for interlocutors, and the "New Atheists" have reasons for engaging them. But they were making the same arguments, sometimes much more effectively, before the most recent period of engagement began in the first decade of this century. As you can see from my interlocutor, who believes that evolution is a political ideology promoted by atheist communist Nazis.

 

[Looncall]

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.

It's easy to con the gullible, especially when they have been carefully trained to be gullible.

As forr Craig, what little I have seen of his arguments have not been at all impressive.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

But whatever you think of Darwin, that has zero bearing on evolution. And neither has anything to do with Communism.

It is not what I think of Darwin, it is how a social/political opinion got transformed into a 'law of nature' as though evolutionary sciences depended on it or originated from it -

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of
Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease,
accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain--that is, the fittest would survive.... The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

That book came a decade after the Great Famine in Ireland therefore I can count myself among the savage races but whatever 'positive checks' you think occurred with the death of so many it wasn't a 'law of nature' behind it.

Some people are going to have a serious look at what our generation were saddled with and how the classrooms will become breeding grounds for a new brand of spiritless ideologies that are neither inspired nor inspiring.

 

[Laika]

The old commies turned into the new atheists by using classrooms with the same colorless and spiritless outlook

The New Atheists are Liberals, not Communists. There is a vast intellectual and political divide between them;

Communist Atheism is characterized by a claim that Atheism is a scientific fact based on philosophical materialism, whereas the new Atheists use science to engage in criticism and skepticism of religious belief, but do not assert that it is a fact, only the most reasonable position to take based on the evidence.

The New Atheists remain committed to Free Speech, secularism and Freedom of Religion and mainly debate the existence of god. Communists- to a greater or lesser degree- wanted an Atheist state in which religion would be replaced by atheism, and went much further, advocating moral and political systems in which all trace of religion was eliminated.

Here is Sam Harris trying his best to awkwardly distance himself from Communism.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Communist Atheism is characterized by a claim that Atheism is a scientific fact based on philosophical materialism, whereas the new Atheists use science to engage in criticism and skepticism of religious belief, but do not assert that it is a fact, only the most reasonable position to take based on the evidence.

Religious belief is the ability to be inspired or be inspiring therefore whatever satisfaction you draw from an ideology that is predicated on cultural/social differences using relative notions of civilized and savage and transferred on to biological evolution as a 'law of nature' it sure is anti-inspirational and little more than an excuse for a resource grab -

"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus

A few days after 'Darwin's Day' is the antidote of Valentine's day which affirms that attraction has the greater hand in the progression of life and those with the heart to appreciate it.

 

[gsa]

The New Atheists are Liberals, not Communists. There is a vast intellectual and political divide between them;

Communist Atheism is characterized by a claim that Atheism is a scientific fact based on philosophical materialism, whereas the new Atheists use science to engage in criticism and skepticism of religious belief, but do not assert that it is a fact, only the most reasonable position to take based on the evidence.

The New Atheists remain committed to Free Speech, secularism and Freedom of Religion and mainly debate the existence of god. Communists- to a greater or lesser degree- wanted an Atheist state in which religion would be replaced by atheism, and went much further, advocating moral and political systems in which all trace of religion was eliminated.

Here is Sam Harris trying his best to awkwardly distance himself from Communism.

There is some overlap, but by and large most new atheists dismiss dialectical materialism, which is pretty important for Marxism.

 

[icehorse]

It is not what I think of Darwin, it is how a social/political opinion got transformed into a 'law of nature' as though evolutionary sciences depended on it or originated from it -

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of
Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease,
accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain--that is, the fittest would survive.... The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

That book came a decade after the Great Famine in Ireland therefore I can count myself among the savage races but whatever 'positive checks' you think occurred with the death of so many it wasn't a 'law of nature' behind it.

Some people are going to have a serious look at what our generation were saddled with and how the classrooms will become breeding grounds for a new brand of spiritless ideologies that are neither inspired nor inspiring.

1 - That Darwin might have held some horrible beliefs does not in any way speak to the veracity (or not) of his scientific theories.

2 - You appear to be conflating religion with spirituality. You're probably the 100 millionth religious person to do so. I cherish my spirituality AND I'm an anti-theist, and there is no conflict between the two positions. For a long time, religious people have attempted to usurp things like spirituality and morals, but in both cases those things existed before religion and they are better off without religious beliefs besmirching them.

 

[outhouse]

Religious belief is the ability to be inspired or be inspiring

So is atheism.


One way or another makes no difference. To me, this above, is an error.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

1 - That Darwin might have held some horrible beliefs does not in any way speak to the veracity (or not) of his scientific theories.
.

You are not getting it - evolution was cause neutral until a social/political ideology was inserted into biological evolution as a 'law of nature' using social class distinctions which have nothing whatsoever to do with the biological makeup of a human being. It is not a matter at being shocked at the distinction which Darwin's makes between a dark skinned human being and a gorilla as opposed to a wider evolutionary gap between a white skinned individual and a baboon, it is the lack of response from those who should find it repulsive but don't -

"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 of 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

This is not the Sibylline oracles where you try to make sense of frantic statements, this is a very specific social doctrine between who is civilized and who is savage imposed on creation as an opinion disguised as a 'law'. If the old commies turned into the new atheists, in turn the new atheists contain the doctrines which drove the old commies into a belief that it is possible to legislate for a perfect society or secularism and its colorless creed.

 

[icehorse]

Gerald,

Horrible doctrine, agreed. Who follows it? Athiests? Not often...

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Gerald,

Horrible doctrine, agreed. Who follows it? Athiests? Not often...

Time to move on for me.

I think Western civilization has its work cut out for itself but I personally wouldn't want to revisit the mud and crocodiles that form an aggressive strain of empiricism which now dominates classrooms and media,at least not among the present audience.

I enjoyed my time on the forum and things are a lot more active than I originally thought for good and for bad.

 

[Bunyip]

"The so-called “New Atheism” is a relatively well-defined, very recent, still unfolding cultural phenomenon with import for public understanding of both science and philosophy. Arguably, the opening salvo of the New Atheists was The End of Faith by Sam Harris, published in 2004, followed in rapid succession by a number of other titles penned by Harris himself, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Victor Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens"
Pigliucci, M. (2013). New Atheism and the scientistic turn in the atheism movement. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 37(1), 142-153.

Yes I know what it is Legion, and dismissing those men as 'intellectually sterile' is just ridiculous. Sure mate - your a genius and Dawkins is an idiot. If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

 

[Bunyip]

Hello sailor - the guy indoctrinated into the belief that there are more rotations than 24 hour days within the Earth's orbital circumference.

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

Tell me, the most immediate experience humans have of temperature are the massive daily fluctuations in temperature as the Earth turns towards and away from the Sun within each 24 hours yet you poor fools have forced yourselves to believe that 24 hour days fall out of step with rotations -

” 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

Give something the gloss of authority via schools and colleges and pretty soon you can't understand how you and your location responds to a single rotation as the temperature rises and falls. Now ,that's indoctrination !.

I wish I had some of whatever you are smoking.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi, Icehorse. As a self-professed anti-theist, I count on your understanding if I want to comment on this.

Here's how I would describe what anti-theists believe (yes, I understand I'm speaking for others, this is what I've gleaned, and what I believe):

- Religion in other realms (political, social, educational...) is a threat to society.

Not exactly. Religion, by its very nature, can, will, and must spread to those other realms. That is proper and a good thing, IMO.

Except that there must be no special privilege to religion. It will guide the goals and priorities of adherents, as is only to be expected. But it lacks the power to make ideas or actions acceptable or unacceptable. It must lack that power for a healthy society to exist.

Also, I am anti-theistic, not anti-religious. There is a significant difference, for theism I find unadvisable and dangerous, while religion I want to see healed from its serious illnesses, over-reliance and over-emphasis on belief in God chief and foremost among them.

- There are many threats to society, political religion is just one of them.

Misguided, unwise, unquestioned religion specifically.

- Human rights and personal freedoms should always supersede religious dictates.

Definitely.

- Perhaps redundantly, the separation of church and state should be strongly defended.

Yes, by refusing to even acknowledge any concept of religion on laws and other guides of state behavior. Absolutely nothing should ever be accepted or refused by the State or its representatives on grounds of religious nature or religious privilege.

If anyone wants to do things out of religious motivation, then so be it. But there must be no need to appeal to special privileges of a religious nature in order to do so. In fact, religious privilege should not exist at all. If it can't be asked for within the parameters of individual personal rights, then it is probably all-out unacceptable anyway.

- Usually, anti-theists cherish critical thinking and scientific values (evidence, logic and so on).

I hope to.

Of course, some anti-theists are activists, and some are not.

"Activism", in this case, being basically speaking openly and writing books and texts presenting their opinions. It is possible that someone sees anti-theism activism as a license for bossing people around, but I don't think I have ever heard of it happening, and I don't suport that as a valid approach.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes I know what it is Legion, and dismissing those men as 'intellectually sterile' is just ridiculous. Sure mate - your a genius and Dawkins is an idiot. If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

I'm not dismissing Dawkins (or even Harris and other popular non-academic "new atheists") as themselves intellectually sterile. I'm dismissing their arguments for atheism as less than bereft of value (less, because better arguments existed before and are now ignored or unknown). I don't think William L. Craig is intellectually sterile either, but his popular works certainly are. C. S. Lewis and Kreeft may not be as sophisticated as apologists as are Swinburne or Plantinga, but deliberately so (as lewisnotmiller rightly pointed out, part of the issue has to do with how accessible the works are). Likewise, Nietzsche (even in translation) can present challenges to many an average person that Anthony Flew or even Quentin Smith might not.

"When I mentioned to colleagues that I was preparing an edited book on the new atheism, there were generally two responses. First, I was told that there was in fact nothing new about the new atheism. Everything that is said by the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett had already been said, and said better, by Russell, Paine, Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, and others. There is, of course, much truth to this. As Damon Linker (2008, A14) writes, the new atheism is “not particularly new. It belongs to an intellectual genealogy stretching back hundreds of years, to a moment when atheist thought split into two traditions: one primarily concerned with the dispassionate pursuit of truth, the other driven by a visceral contempt for the personal faith of others.” Although much of the content of the new atheism may have precedents, what is original is the new found urgency in the message of atheism, as well as a kind of atheist social revival that their writings, lectures, and conferences have produced. In other words, the ‘new’ atheism is not entirely about new ideas, but a kind of evangelical revival and repackaging of old ideas." (emphases added, italics in original)
From the editor's introduction to
Amarasingam, A. (Ed.). (2010). Religion and the New Atheism: A Critical Appraisal (Studies in Critical Social Sciences 25: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1). Brill