Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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.

Craig is worse than Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, etc. He doesn't just present popular "arguments" that neatly gloss over problems he knows exist with them, he says one thing when writing to the public and something very different when writing theological or philosophical scholarship. In some of his technical treatments of the kalam cosmological argument, he contradicts what he says in his popular works (for example, I recall a discussion with an ardent admirer and passionate defender or Craig who presented the work of certain physicists as evidence for God as Craig had presented the work of these physicists; not only did there work contradict Craig, but he knew that because he had published a technical review of one of the physicists works in which he criticized every part of it).

 

[Bunyip]

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.

What argument for atheism? Please identify an argument for atheism from any of the 'New Atheists' that you see as intellectually sterile.

"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

Yes, that is what I said - it is a misnomer, not an organisation or movement. Just a small group of authors, whom you dismiss as being intellectually sterile even though they are clearly not. As to Craig, yes I agree - he is a fraud. His work is however intended to make the believer feel that his faith is justified - NOT to convince the unbeliever, so I do not see how he is relevant to the discussion. Dawkins is an accomplished scientist who has made a vast contribution to his field, why you are co paring him to a charlatan like Craig, and why you think he is intellectually sterile is beyond me. What presentation of his did you see as intellectually sterile? (Or an example from Harris, Hitchens etc )

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The scientific method is well-accepted most everywhere, for the good reason that it is the only practical and reliable way of improving knowledge.

And that, of it's own, is where the scientific method is limited. We are told, according to scientists, that there are far more than three deminsions. Assuming this to be true, how can ever our scientific method ever hope to bring us a clear picture of what the universe is, the laws that government, and even the origins of life when scientifically our senses are limited, our senses are flawed, and our only understanding of the cosmos comes from what we have seen of it. We really don't know anything, and unless something dramatic happens, our species is likely doomed to really only knowing that we are probably much, much, much smaller in the universe than we think we are.

 

[Bunyip]

And that, of it's own, is where the scientific method is limited. We are told, according to scientists, that there are far more than three deminsions. Assuming this to be true, how can ever our scientific method ever hope to bring us a clear picture of what the universe is, the laws that government, and even the origins of life when scientifically our senses are limited, our senses are flawed, and our only understanding of the cosmos comes from what we have seen of it. We really don't know anything, and unless something dramatic happens, our species is likely doomed to really only knowing that we are probably much, much, much smaller in the universe than we think we are.

But the scientific method is the best tool we have to learn with - what is the alternative tool of discovery?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But the scientific method is the best tool we have to learn with - what is the alternative tool of discovery?

I never said it isn't the best tool, as, as of now, it is the best thing we have. But it's also a human invention, and as it stands we hardly know anything. Science can help to explain things, but how can we explain things that we cannot even perceive of? We live in the very infancy of our cosmic knowledge and understanding. We have seen a chunk of the universe, but, at the same time, we're also learning more about our own planet, and we don't know that much about our closest neighboring planet. For now, how can we really even begin to expect science to explain things that simple observation demonstrates, such as knowing different suns and different elements causing the different things we see? It seems very probably that the other planets in our solar system will share many of the same elements, with perhaps not that many needing to be added to the periodic table of elements, but once we have reached a solar system that has a different sun, I have no doubts the periodic table as we know it will double or more in size.
In our current state, I'd rather just take down observations rather than try too hard to figure things out.

 

[icehorse]

Legion,

On repackaging... Let's say for the sake of argument that you're correct. It's been said after all, that there are no new plots. The point is that the need is urgent, and if repackaging gets the word out, it's fine with me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What argument for atheism?

Which arguments? Those for atheism in general or those the "new atheists" offer? Also, just to anticipate a possible response:
"I've heard numerous folks, atheists as well as theists, declare that we can never prove there's no God because it's impossible to prove a negative.
We can indeed prove negatives, and we do so all the time. In fact, if we couldn't prove a negative, we couldn't prove a positive either, since every positive statement implies negative statements (an infinite number of them, actually) . If I prove that 'all the marbles in this box are white', I automatically also prove that 'none of the marbles in this box are blue', 'none of the marbles in this box are transparent' , and so on."
Steele, D. R. (2008). Atheism Explained: From Folly to Philosophy. Open Court.

Central arguments include the many varieties of what is variously called the "argument of/from evil", "the problem of evil", etc. Another class concerns the incoherence (indeed, inability for any intelligible formulation) of a "God" with the attributes most frequently ascribed (omnipotence, omniscience, infinitely benevolent/wholly "good", creator/designer of all that is, divinely given free will, etc.). Then there are the arguments that are usually called "negative" and include e.g., the closing of the gaps in "god of the gaps" arguments. Most of the arguments are not so easily defined, as they begin and are intricately tied to the nature of epistemic justification, evidence, justified true belief (JTB), ontology, etc. Also, unlike the handful of (mostly related) arguments for god (especially the "proofs"), they are frequently not singular but concern the nature of existence and in particular human existence vs. religious beliefs about this existence.

Yes, that is what I said - it is a misnomer, not an organisation or movement.

Actually it exists as several organizations and it is most certainly a movement. Maybe you didn't read carefully (or at all), but I'll add a bit more and emphasize different parts:
"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. One only needs to peruse the Converts’ Corner on RichardDawkins.net to get a sense of the influence of the new atheism. The thousands of reader comments posted on the site state ad nauseum that The God Delusion had given them the arguments and the courage to confidently profess their atheism (see also Bullivant 2008a)."
(ibid)
Within this quote alone, we see an example of one such organization (albeit an online one) and the implicit existence of others ("conferences" require significant organization, and without a significant following no lectures can exist). More importantly, "atheist social revival" describes a movement. A handful of authors cannot constitute either such a revival or an atheist "evangelical revival".

Further, "Michael Borer’s chapter examines the debates surrounding the rise and decline of the ‘secularization thesis’...Placing the new atheists within the historical and ongoing debates about secularization sheds light on new atheism as a minority ‘movement’ that aims to show how and why religious faith is an inferior form of knowledge that, in turn, fosters misguided worldviews." (ibid).

And finally a more positive spin: "Cimino and Smith argue that the new atheist books and the responses, debates, and criticisms they have generated create a new space where atheists are empowered and mobilized through their interaction and contention with each other and with their antagonists." (emphasis added)
I don't know about you, but mobilization suggests both organization and movement to me.

We may add unofficial organizations using identity theory and other frameworks from sociology simply by noting Dawkins' introduction of "brights" and the "brights movement". And then of course there is "The Dawkin's Circle" (which requires fees for membership), the various "atheist churches" or "church for non-believers" that have sprung up such as the First Church of Atheism (you can get ordained!) among others (Atheist 'mega-churches' look for nonbelievers), and so on.

Just a small group of authors, whom you dismiss as being intellectually sterile even though they are clearly not.

I dismissed their arguments as being intellectually sterile. So do many atheist philosophers. Theologians tend to gloat over how easily dismantled their arguments are (one author remarked that when he would teach courses in seminary intended to present the works of the great contributors to the atheist intellectual tradition in order to ensure both that those ordained were familiar with such arguments and to make them truly challenge their own beliefs, usually a few students would drop-out, unable to handle such challenges; none of the new atheist books would be acceptable because they are too easily addressed).

 

[Bunyip]

I never said it isn't the best tool, as, as of now, it is the best thing we have. But it's also a human invention, and as it stands we hardly know anything. Science can help to explain things, but how can we explain things that we cannot even perceive of?

Like quantum physics? Not sure what you are asking, science is great at explaining those things.

We live in the very infancy of our cosmic knowledge and understanding. We have seen a chunk of the universe, but, at the same time, we're also learning more about our own planet, and we don't know that much about our closest neighboring planet. For now, how can we really even begin to expect science to explain things that simple observation demonstrates, such as knowing different suns and different elements causing the different things we see? It seems very probably that the other planets in our solar system will share many of the same elements, with perhaps not that many needing to be added to the periodic table of elements, but once we have reached a solar system that has a different sun, I have no doubts the periodic table as we know it will double or more in size.
In our current state, I'd rather just take down observations rather than try too hard to figure things out.

The periodic table will remain pretty much the same on any planet.

 

[Bunyip]

Which arguments? Those for atheism in general or those the "new atheists" offer? Also, just to anticipate a possible response:
"I've heard numerous folks, atheists as well as theists, declare that we can never prove there's no God because it's impossible to prove a negative.
We can indeed prove negatives, and we do so all the time. In fact, if we couldn't prove a negative, we couldn't prove a positive either, since every positive statement implies negative statements (an infinite number of them, actually) . If I prove that 'all the marbles in this box are white', I automatically also prove that 'none of the marbles in this box are blue', 'none of the marbles in this box are transparent' , and so on."
Steele, D. R. (2008). Atheism Explained: From Folly to Philosophy. Open Court.

Central arguments include the many varieties of what is variously called the "argument of/from evil", "the problem of evil", etc. Another class concerns the incoherence (indeed, inability for any intelligible formulation) of a "God" with the attributes most frequently ascribed (omnipotence, omniscience, infinitely benevolent/wholly "good", creator/designer of all that is, divinely given free will, etc.). Then there are the arguments that are usually called "negative" and include e.g., the closing of the gaps in "god of the gaps" arguments. Most of the arguments are not so easily defined, as they begin and are intricately tied to the nature of epistemic justification, evidence, justified true belief (JTB), ontology, etc. Also, unlike the handful of (mostly related) arguments for god (especially the "proofs"), they are frequently not singular but concern the nature of existence and in particular human existence vs. religious beliefs about this existence.


Actually it exists as several organizations and it is most certainly a movement. Maybe you didn't read carefully (or at all), but I'll add a bit more and emphasize different parts:
"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. One only needs to peruse the Converts’ Corner on RichardDawkins.net to get a sense of the influence of the new atheism. The thousands of reader comments posted on the site state ad nauseum that The God Delusion had given them the arguments and the courage to confidently profess their atheism (see also Bullivant 2008a)."
(ibid)
Within this quote alone, we see an example of one such organization (albeit an online one) and the implicit existence of others ("conferences" require significant organization, and without a significant following no lectures can exist). More importantly, "atheist social revival" describes a movement. A handful of authors cannot constitute either such a revival or an atheist "evangelical revival".

Further, "Michael Borer’s chapter examines the debates surrounding the rise and decline of the ‘secularization thesis’...Placing the new atheists within the historical and ongoing debates about secularization sheds light on new atheism as a minority ‘movement’ that aims to show how and why religious faith is an inferior form of knowledge that, in turn, fosters misguided worldviews." (ibid).

And finally a more positive spin: "Cimino and Smith argue that the new atheist books and the responses, debates, and criticisms they have generated create a new space where atheists are empowered and mobilized through their interaction and contention with each other and with their antagonists." (emphasis added)
I don't know about you, but mobilization suggests both organization and movement to me.

We may add unofficial organizations using identity theory and other frameworks from sociology simply by noting Dawkins' introduction of "brights" and the "brights movement". And then of course there is "The Dawkin's Circle" (which requires fees for membership), the various "atheist churches" or "church for non-believers" that have sprung up such as the First Church of Atheism (you can get ordained!) among others (Atheist 'mega-churches' look for nonbelievers), and so on.



I dismissed their arguments as being intellectually sterile. So do many atheist philosophers. Theologians tend to gloat over how easily dismantled their arguments are (one author remarked that when he would teach courses in seminary intended to present the works of the great contributors to the atheist intellectual tradition in order to ensure both that those ordained were familiar with such arguments and to make them truly challenge their own beliefs, usually a few students would drop-out, unable to handle such challenges; none of the new atheist books would be acceptable because they are too easily addressed).

You drift off into a number of different topics, from 'New Atheism' to The First Church of Atheism after a rather long and amorphous general complaint about counter apologetics. Sorry, but there is nothing there for me to engage with. I can't make sense of any of your objections - for example, you attack the notion that you can not prove a negative, by pointing out an exception. But the context was clear, your example does not gel with the context. You can not prove the universal non-existence of an immaterial entity - a god.
You can not prove the absence of god Legion, you simply forget context.

Sure mate, you can prove some negatives. But you can not prove the absence of god, that was the context. Your objection does not engage with the position you are addressing, other than as a bit of misdirection. Which is painfully ironic seeing as you dismissed the argument as intellectually sterile, and yet attempted to refute it with nothing more than an equivocation. If it is such an 'intellectually sterile' point, how come you can not refute it without committing a logical failure?

 

[icehorse]

Hi Luis,

I think your first comment on "no special privilege" is spot on. And I can still assert that religion in the public sphere is a threat, even though it's not going away anytime soon.

I'd like to hear more about your distinction between anti-theism vs. anti-religious... I wonder if you're headed towards describing spirituality?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion,

On repackaging... Let's say for the sake of argument that you're correct. It's been said after all, that there are no new plots.

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after."

The point is that the need is urgent, and if repackaging gets the word out, it's fine with me.

There are a few problems here. One is that in order to understand even the scientific endeavor, let alone Western culture, one should be familiar with the single greatest influence on Western culture: Christianity. It's shaped languages, fundamentally contributed to Western individualism, even created the modern concept of religion.

More importantly, it's repackaging bad arguments from the side of the split of the atheist tradition that decided anti-religious views were more defining of atheism and were more important than justification, philosophy, or epistemology, or even truth. It's created a target for conservative christians who can point to this movement as a sign of all that is wrong with the world, easy-pickings for theologians and christian apologists who have themselves produced popular books that no longer offer anything of value as they just address the failures of the new atheists' arguments (shooting fish in a barrel), the introduction of nonsensical constructions indicative of the level of argument proffered ("lack of belief in god" in order to justify atheism as nothing other than a default state rather than an epistemic position), and retarded the discourse between believers and non-believers by reducing it to misunderstandings about science, proof, and both the apologist and atheist intellectual traditions and their respective natures.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Just to cut through the chaff.

You say that the claim that you can not prove god does not exist is intellectually sterile because you have some examples of things that are not gods that you can prove do not exist.
That is just a red herring, a little semantic slight of hand. Sure, you can prove square circles do not exist, but you can not prove the absence of god.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You drift off into a number of different topics, from 'New Atheism' to The First Church of Atheism after a rather long and amorphous general complaint about counter apologetics.

It's fluff, not "counter apologetics".

Sorry, but there is nothing there for me to engage with.

I didn't expect there would be. Such is the level of discourse thanks largely to the new atheist movement (or movements, one could say, as the "brights movement' is just one example).

you attack the notion that you can not prove a negative, by pointing out an exception.

No, I quoted someone noting that this idea is prima facie incorrect and demonstrably so because every proof is a proof of a negative. Clearly, the fact that the example was an example of this, not merely an example of a proof of a negative, seems to have escaped you.

You can not prove the absence of god Legion, you simply forget context.

I have argued repeatedly that proof is for mathematics. I can't prove anything about the "real world". However, in the more colloquial sense, one can absolutely prove god doesn't exist (after all, we have multiple proofs that he does, and once again these are all proofs of negatives). The issue is that once proofs leave the realm of mathematics (and the further from formal logic they get), the more they are open to interpretation, criticism, etc. Which is why I am interested in epistemic justification, not "proof".

But you can not prove the absence of god, that was the context.

In many cases, we can get as close to proof as is possible outside of mathematics. Sometimes, it requires proving a particular god doesn't exist (YEC is demonstrably false, ergo, there exists no god who created this world 6,000 years ago).

Your objection does not engage with the position you are addressing

It wasn't intended to. I said that it was in anticipation of a potential response.

If it is such an 'intellectually sterile' point, how come you can not refute it without committing a logical failure?

I didn't commit a logical failure. First because I only quoted someone else, second because I believe that proof is for mathematics, and third because to the extent one can prove things about the real world, one can absolutely "prove" the non-existence of god. I've seen such proofs (many are, ironically, derived from proofs of god with appropriate and necessary variations).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The periodic table will remain pretty much the same on any planet.

You don't seriously believe that, do you? There is literally an entire universe out there, much of which he have not even had a glimpse at, and you are that confident it will remain about the same on any planet? Just by looking at our own planet we can tell that some things that are abundant in one area are scare or non-existent in another. Why should we expect the universe to be any different?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You don't seriously believe that, do you? There is literally an entire universe out there, much of which he have not even had a glimpse at, and you are that confident it will remain about the same on any planet? Just by looking at our own planet we can tell that some things that are abundant in one area are scare or non-existent in another. Why should we expect the universe to be any different?

Particularly given that it hasn't remained constant on this planet.

 

[Bunyip]

It's fluff, not "counter apologetics".

I didn't expect there would be. Such is the level of discourse thanks largely to the new atheist movement (or movements, one could say, as the "brights movement' is just one example).


No, I quoted someone noting that this idea is prima facie incorrect and demonstrably so because every proof is a proof of a negative. Clearly, the fact that the example was an example of this, not merely an example of a proof of a negative, seems to have escaped you.

LOL No mate, none of the 'New Atheists' rely on such an argument anyway - you are tilting at windmills. They only mention that you can not prove gods absence in response to apologists endlessly trying to shift the burden of proof.

And no, you can not prove the non-existence of god, no matter how much you may delight in re-wording that fact into an argument you think you can refute.
The argument is: You can not prove the non-existence of god.
NOT (as you appear to think nobody notices the substitution): You can not prove a negative.

I have argued repeatedly that proof is for mathematics. I can't prove anything about the "real world". However, in the more colloquial sense, one can absolutely prove god doesn't exist (after all, we have multiple proofs that he does, and once again these are all proofs of negatives). The issue is that once proofs leave the realm of mathematics (and the further from formal logic they get), the more they are open to interpretation, criticism, etc. Which is why I am interested in epistemic justification, not "proof".


In many cases, we can get as close to proof as is possible outside of mathematics. Sometimes, it requires proving a particular god doesn't exist (YEC is demonstrably false, ergo, there exists no god who created this world 6,000 years ago).


It wasn't intended to. I said that it was in anticipation of a potential response.


I didn't commit a logical failure. First because I only quoted someone else, second because I believe that proof is for mathematics, and third because to the extent one can prove things about the real world, one can absolutely "prove" the non-existence of god. I've seen such proofs (many are, ironically, derived from proofs of god with appropriate and necessary variations).

The main failure is one of honesty, the 'New Atheists' make no such argument anyway.

 

[Bunyip]

You don't seriously believe that, do you? There is literally an entire universe out there, much of which he have not even had a glimpse at, and you are that confident it will remain about the same on any planet? Just by looking at our own planet we can tell that some things that are abundant in one area are scare or non-existent in another. Why should we expect the universe to be any different?

The periodic table works in whole number increments of neutrons, protons and electrons. It would remain essentially the same across the universe. The distribution and proportions of different elements will of course vary, but the periodic table will not.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LOL No mate, none of the 'New Atheists' rely on such an argument anyway

I didn't say they did. You do, and I know you have. My inclusion of the bit about proof was in anticipation of a possible response you might make, given that you've presented this position before.

And no, you can not prove the non-existence of god, no matter how much you may delight in re-wording that fact into an argument you think you can refute.

Can you prove anything outside of mathematics?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The periodic table works in whole number increments of neutrons, protons and electrons. It would remain essentially the same across the universe.

According to the standard model, at one point none of these elements existed. And as none of the above are fundamental particles, the periodic table uses a categorization schema that is useful but outdated. More importantly:

The distribution and proportions of different elements will of course vary, but the periodic table will not.

Synthetic element: "In chemistry, a synthetic element is a chemical element that does not occur naturally on Earth, and can only be created artificially. So far, 20 synthetic elements have been created (those with atomic numbers 99–118). All are unstable, decaying with half-lives ranging from a year to a few milliseconds"

Do you imagine that synthetic elements we've created on Earth will exist in some proportion/distribution everywhere in the universe?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Particularly given that it hasn't remained constant on this planet.

In addition to the things commonly found, such as iron, I strongly believe it will be found that the common elements in a solar system will be based on what kind of sun it has (and perhaps be discovered to be determined by something even larger, perhaps up the formation of a galaxy and even beyond), with each different sun having blasted out some of the same elements, but also other elements as well given they are different types of suns (such as how different minerals cause a fire to burn a different color), as it was created. If there are other universes, we may find there are certain elements that are common throughout each universe, but many that happen exclusively within a certain universe.
And, of course, there are probably still some here on Earth we do not know about.