Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Bunyip]

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.

You are just being silly. You said that Dawkins and co (the New Atheists) were intellectually sterile, and then denied that and said that it was their arguments that were intellectually sterile - I asked for an example, and that was the example (proving negatives) YOU gave. You then pretend that I came up with it - which is just ridiculous. That was YOUR example of a 'New Atheist' intellectually sterile argument. If that is not what they said, but what I said - why did you give it as an example?

Can you prove anything outside of mathematics?

You are arguing that you can prove negatives, and attacking the 'New Atheists' for (you imagine) saying that you can't, and then finish by arguing that proof does not exist outside of math - so you contradicting your own claims post by post.
But yes, since you ask, I can think of several examples where proof exists outside of math.

 

[Bunyip]

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And as none of the above are fundamental particles, the periodic table uses a categorization schema that is useful but outdated.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:


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?

Do I imagine that man made elements will exist naturally everywhere in the universe? Nope. Although it is possible that elements we have synthesised occur naturally elsewhere.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are just being silly. You said that Dawkins and co (the New Atheists) were intellectually sterile

I said their arguments were. Actually, I just said that the new atheist movement was:

There is really only one problem: it's an intellectually sterile movement that is an insult to the atheist intellectual tradition. The rest are details as to why, but matter only if one is either interested in the history of philosophy and epistemology. For those who subscribe to "New Atheism", it's lack of any putative value and its sterility may be demonstrated quite easily by study of "old atheism" (maybe "classic atheism"?).

If you can point out where I stated that Dawkins or any other atheist was himself or herself intellectually sterile, please do so. Otherwise, I wonder why one who has so often accused me of deliberately misconstruing, mischaracterizing, and/or misrepresenting his posts repeatedly does so here.

I asked for an example, and that was the example (proving negatives) YOU gave.

You asked me for an example, and I asked you to clarify:

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

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.

Where did I ever say that this was the argument offered by new atheists? I wanted to know whether or not you were asking for arguments offered by the new atheists only, or for atheism in general that the new atheists also present. Knowing that you have stated one can't prove a negative, I included the rest for the reason I gave: "to anticipate a possible response". I suspected that you might argue that the new atheists didn't present positive arguments/proofs, or something akin to this, and just in case I cited what I did. The fact that you think what I quoted "to anticipate a possible response" was really me giving an example of an argument offered by the new atheists, then you should stop pretending to have read my posts before critiquing them.

That was YOUR example of a 'New Atheist' intellectually sterile argument.

Clearly not. Unless you think I was offering a "possible response" from the new atheism, such an interpretation isn't even possible.

 

[Bunyip]

I said their arguments were. Actually, I just said that the new atheist movement was:

If you can point out where I stated that Dawkins or any other atheist was himself or herself intellectually sterile, please do so.

Dude, Dawkins, Harris etc ARE the 'New Atheist' movement. It is he and a few other intelligent men that the 'movement' consists of.

Otherwise, I wonder why one who has so often accused me of deliberately misconstruing, mischaracterizing, and/or misrepresenting his posts repeatedly does so here.


You asked me for an example, and I asked you to clarify:

Where did I ever say that this was the argument offered by new atheists?

You just said that it was an example of the sort of intellectually sterile argument the New Atheists employ - and now deny it in the same paragraph. What can I say?

I wanted to know whether or not you were asking for arguments offered by the new atheists only, or for atheism in general that the new atheists also present.

Yes I was asking for an example of the 'intellectually sterile' argument the 'New Atheists' (Dawkins et al) use. I made that very clear twice.

Knowing that you have stated one can't prove a negative, I included the rest for the reason I gave: "to anticipate a possible response". I suspected that you might argue that the new atheists didn't present positive arguments/proofs, or something akin to this, and just in case I cited what I did. The fact that you think what I quoted "to anticipate a possible response" was really me giving an example of an argument offered by the new atheists, then you should stop pretending to have read my posts before critiquing them.

So I asked for an example of the sort of 'intellectually sterile' arguments the 'New Atheists' use, and you are upset because I foolishly assumed that the example you gave was one of them?

Clearly not. Unless you think I was offering a "possible response" from the new atheism, such an interpretation isn't even possible.

LOL For the fourth time now - I am asking for an example of the 'intellectually sterile' arguments you said 'New Atheists' (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al) use.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I wish I had some of whatever you are smoking.

In your case you are chained to an ideology which can't openly state that the Earth is round,rotating and has specific measurements attached to that fact so you are hardly a candidate for discussing religious inspiration as an expression of Christ and Christianity. Take some comfort in the saying that the first shall be last as a gentle reminder that the present dominance of your cult will be a lesson for future generations and particularly the Christian Churches who can no longer exist in the state they presently do.

So sailor, I suggest you take heed of the great innovator who created the first real accurate watches the world has ever known and the rate of rotation applied to the Earth as it turns once each 24 hours -

"The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon the
following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360 equal
parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are called
Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round its own
axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period, each of
those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively opposite to the
Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day at each of
those degrees and it must follow, that from the time any one of
those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just four
minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that quantity; so
that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it will be noon
with us four minutes the later, and for every degree Eastward four
minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any greater or less
quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place where we are,
can be ascertained by well known and easy observations of the Sun if
visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten degrees high
until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon until he is
only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at any time when
such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the same moment
what o'clock it is at the place we sailed from, our Longitude is
clearly discovered." John Harrison

You unfortunate people have your own ideas other than the proper fact that the planet turns at a rate other than 15 degrees per hour.

New atheists indeed ! - more like a well funded new form of stupidity couched in jargon.

 

[LuisDantas]

In your case you are chained to an ideology which can't openly state that the Earth is round,rotating and has specific measurements attached to that fact

Wait, what? Are you joking in some way? Does such an ideology even exist? What do you mean by "having specific measurement attached to that fact"?

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Wait, what? Are you joking in some way? Does such an ideology even exist?

Not joking and neither are the people who promote it -

Period of Rotation of the Earth

When readers look at that website and see a value other than a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour and once in 24 hours thereby losing the fact of a round and rotating Earth they are looking at an error made in the late 17th century,one that has never been corrected.

It would mean going through the development of human timekeeping based on the motions of the Earth and the external references used and that would take people who have enough common sense to appreciate something has gone badly wrong and enough patience to go through several major issues which arose as a consequence of the original error. It is an incredible journey but it will end with the restoration of the facts surrounding our home planet..

 

[Laika]

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

yeah, dialectical materialism is what separates the Neo-Marxists (who use ideas like economics determining politics/ base and superstructure) from the Communists (who adhere to dialectical materialism and therefore believe in a dialectic of history by class struggle and social revolution). Neo-Marxists are often derogatorily refereed to as "cultural Marxists" because conservatives haven't understood the difference. Neo-Marxism is perfectly compatible with Liberalism and to some extent goes back to Classical Economics of Adam Smith, David Ricardo etc, who believed liberalism/capitalism was a class society and accepted the Labour Theory of Value. These ideas were dropped by the economics profession in the late 19th century because they so often led to Socialist or Marxist conclusions (and because they were very hard to quantify). The New Atheists are very safely in liberal territory.

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.

Communists aren't religious, but Sam Harris was right to point out how much of it is driven by emotion. (I think) it belongs more to the Romantic school of philosophy (based on emotion) rather than a Rationalist one (based on reason), and it's utopianism, belief in progress, the innate goodness of man and high standards of social justice reflect this. It can be a very inspiring set of beliefs but most people would argue that it is a misplaced one because of a fear of emotions as irrational and being beyond the control of rational thought- and hence people assume very unstable and dangerous. it developed as a philosophy before Science and Religion became so deeply opposed after Darwin' theory of evolution and so is archaic as a belief system by today's standards. Marxists would claim to be 'scientific' but it's a much older and more philosophical definition of science that goes back to 'natural philosophy' and is therefore rejected today as pseudo-science. So in Sam Harris' defense, it's pretty hard to categorize as either science or religion as it falls in between the two. It's still Atheist though, but a very different kind of Atheism to what the New Atheists believe.
The inner experience of religion, in terms of seeking depth of conviction and insight, as well as 'purity' of a belief system, or seeking the ideologically "correct" view and set of behaviors are common to Communism as a result. It can therefore bring out a form of destructive and nihilistic perfectionism in atheists which is shared to religious fanaticism and has a political system is not unlike a theorcratic system in the way it behaves. So, Communists still haven't learned the dangers of believing in the "one true faith" and wanting to "save" everyone from the sins and destructiveness of global capitalism which is twisted irony for a group of die-hard militant atheists.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Dude, Dawkins, Harris etc ARE the 'New Atheist' movement.

They are some of the authors who lead the movement. A movement (even a "minority movement") does not consists of a handful of authors.

You just said that it was an example of the sort of intellectually sterile argument the New Atheists employ

I didn't, I asked you to specify what kind of example you wished for and then I stated, quite specificially, that what followed was to anticipate a possible response. How is that an example?

Yes I was asking for an example of the 'intellectually sterile' argument the 'New Atheists' (Dawkins et al) use.

Well, just to further indicate the distance from what you think I used as an example of an argument from the new atheists, here's a quote from Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis:
"Before proceeding with the scientific evidence bearing on the God hypothesis, let us make a quick review of those disproofs of God's existence that are based on philosophy."

First, his review of the only source used (Everitt's The Non-Existence of God) are mischaracterizations. Second, contrary to what you have said, Stenger argues that there are indeed proofs of god's non-existence. Third, the proofs aren't based on philosophy. Fourth (and most importantly), the entire book demonstrates an incapacity and inability to deal with philosophical and theological literature by reducing the almost the entirety of this matter to scientific evidence and presenting theism as if it were an hypothesis. It isn't, making the work an exercise in futility. Apparently, though, this wasn't enough for Stenger, who subsequently wrote The New Atheism. Here he defends (in one chapter) attacks against the idiotic idea that treating theism like a scientific hypothesis is tenable by giving examples of ways in which the sciences have contributed to non-scientific endeavors or "gifts that nature and life give us" by stating:
"At the same time, we do not admit that scientific thinking makes no contribution to our appreciation of these endeavors. Understanding the physics of music helps in its appreciation, performance, and the manufacture of instruments. Recordings make it possible to enjoy music under many circumstances, such as while riding an exercise bike. Science helps detect art fraud and provides new visual art forms with the aid of computers. Soon every poem and novel ever written will be available for downloading from the Internet, which has already become invaluable to writers and scholars as an easily retrievable information source."
As with the entirety of his defense of his treatment of theism from a scientific perspective in this later book, the examples our poor, moronic, and in most cases demonstrably false. My brother's degree was in musicology, and my cousin (once removed) who was visiting yesterday is pursuing her doctorate at Princeton in musicology. Neither of them no anybody who studies physics or is familiar with physics beyond a high-school level, and certainly none who have gained an appreciation of music by studying physics. Actually, I do understand where Stenger is coming from here, as my appreciation of a lot of art was made possible only via my study of projective geometry. However, it is one thing to assert that for some, the mechanics or physics underlying artistic or similar endeavors can aid to their appreciation and understanding, and quite another to say that these are actually contributions. Detecting art fraud or the availability of poetry thanks to computers and the internet is not a contribution to literature or art. He uses this logic throughout his defense.

Out of curiosity, how many examples would you like? After writing substantially more than I have included, I realized that you tend not to read my posts before responding and there isn't much point in giving examples for you that you won't actually read. However, the more concise I am, the more you respond to what I have actually posted. So I will give as many examples as you are willing to read, but I don't know that number.

 

[LuisDantas]

They are some of the authors who lead the movement. A movement (even a "minority movement") does not consists of a handful of authors.

Are you sure? Who even identifies himself as a New Atheist anyway?

Perhaps no one at all. Which is why I am not sure it is even fair to call it a movement of any kind. It seems to be instead a trick of perception, a propaganda piece ran amok.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Are you sure? Who even identifies himself as a New Atheist anyway?

1) Most racists don't identify themselves as such, and many an agnostic doesn't either. If sociology has taught us anything, certainly it is that what groups one claims to be a member of is a fraction of the total.
2) I found several hundreds of examples of people actually claiming to be new atheists using corpora.
3) The statement you responded to is something of a definition of a movement (as opposed to a sect, denomination, cult, etc.) Movements have founders and leaders. They are defined (in the literature) by such characteristics.
4) I already quoted explicit references in the scholarly literature describing the "new atheism" as a movement and have given reasons why it should be regarded as such. If you wish to dispute these, then you should respond to them, not to what I have asserted having already given reasons for describing the "new atheism" as a movement.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Tell me, what exactly do you see as a threat there? I want to guess that it is no so much religion as lack of wisdom, perhaps compounded by a proselitist stance, a tradition of social control, a dogmatic conviction and an atrophied discernment?

I think we should make an effort to call a spade a spade and tell that which is dangerous from that which is necessary. And yes, there is considerable overlap. As any successful dictator will tell you, most personal freedoms are both dangerous and necessary.

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

I don't use the word "spirituality". If it has a clear meaning or a clear distinction from religion, I never quite got the grasp of what those would be.

Theism is unadvisable because it is, of course, based on a conception of deity. And deities are inherently personal in both importance and meaning. No one knows whether there are any, much less what on Deity Earth they are like or about. Many people have passionate or unchangeable feelings about what they "must" be like, but so do many other people with completely incompatible conceptions about the same attributes. That is very much a self-evident fact. It is challenge enough to find any two people who really have similar understandings about deities. It just turns out that, mostly for social control purposes, it has become good etiquette to pretend that it is not true, or perhaps not necessarily true. Yet that is just a plain lie, at the very best desperate wishful thinking. The facts are plain to see and ask.

As for religion, you and I sure seem to have sharply different understandings of what it is. It may be in part because I take to heart the Theravada teaching that everyone should attempt to be be his or her own torch. Religion is a natural and arguably necessary part of human existence. It must be kept honest and healthy, of course, but it is not necessarily a good idea to attempt to be rid of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

1) Most racists don't identify themselves as such, and many an agnostic doesn't either. If sociology has taught us anything, certainly it is that what groups one claims to be a member of is a fraction of the total.

Yes, but racism and agnosticism do have an existence of their own, in that they are not fully arbitrary labels and clear inherent meanings.

Such is not the case with New Atheism.

2) I found several hundreds of examples of people actually claiming to be new atheists using corpora.

Really? That does surprise me. I wonder how many of those even bothered to distinguish between "new" and "vanilla" or "old" atheism.

3) The statement you responded to is something of a definition of a movement (as opposed to a sect, denomination, cult, etc.) Movements have founders and leaders. They are defined (in the literature) by such characteristics.

How often are they defined by those who oppose them? By those who invented their existence?

4) I already quoted explicit references in the scholarly literature describing the "new atheism" as a movement and have given reasons why it should be regarded as such. If you wish to dispute these, then you should respond to them, not to what I have asserted having already given reasons for describing the "new atheism" as a movement.

You may have a point there. I just find the notion difficult to take seriously.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, but racism and agnosticism do have an existence of their own, in that they are not fully arbitrary labels and clear inherent meanings.

No label is either fully arbitrary nor possesses a "clear inherent meaning[]". For example, I define agnosticism and atheism as mutually exclusive (one cannot be both). So do many others. Many others, though, do not. The "new atheism" has received extensive study and, unlike so many labels, was defined into existence (sort of like "agnostic", only we don't find 100+ years of usage that can change said usage with "new atheism" vs. agnostic).

Really? That does surprise me. I wonder how many of those even bothered to distinguish between "new" and "vanilla" or "old" atheism.

If you are interested, many of these are (to a limited extent) available to you for free. In particular, COCA, the BNC, GloWbE, and the BYU's use of Google's N-gram data are all accessible through a single site: BYU's corpora.You can search for yourself to see some of the usage in carefully constructed corpora simply by signing up for a free (albeit limited) access to these.

How often are they defined by those who oppose them? By those who invented their existence?

I'm not sure I understand the question

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But yes, since you ask, I can think of several examples where proof exists outside of math.

Such as?

 

[Looncall]

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.

This is silly drivel. Nuclear structure (the periodic table) is very well understood indeed. You need to get yourself an education.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is silly drivel. Nuclear structure (the periodic table) is very well understood indeed. You need to get yourself an education.

Understood, as we know it here (and of course until we further enhance our understanding of it). It seems very unlikely that the things we know about Earth equally and evenly apply throughout the universe. Different suns, different minerals, why should we not also expect to find different elements?
And I am not talking about nuclear structure but elements that are undiscovered. Why should we assume everything, throughout the universe, has more-or-less the same when we can look at our own planet and know that many things are only found in a certain area, and looking up and given the vast differences in appearances of different things (such as suns), why should it be assumed that we have will be found everywhere and that there is hardly anything out there to be discovered?

 

[Looncall]

Understood, as we know it here (and of course until we further enhance our understanding of it). It seems very unlikely that the things we know about Earth equally and evenly apply throughout the universe. Different suns, different minerals, why should we not also expect to find different elements?
And I am not talking about nuclear structure but elements that are undiscovered. Why should we assume everything, throughout the universe, has more-or-less the same when we can look at our own planet and know that many things are only found in a certain area, and looking up and given the vast differences in appearances of different things (such as suns), why should it be assumed that we have will be found everywhere and that there is hardly anything out there to be discovered?

What element an atom is is determined soley by the number of protons in its nucleus, ie by its nuclear structure. While atoms that must be synthesized on earth may occur in, eg supernovae,, that too is well understood.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Luis,

I suspect that we're agreeing, but just struggling with word definitions?

When I say "religion" I'm NOT talking about the personal experience. I'm talking about the institution, with clergy and dogma and so on. But I'm happy to use a different set of labels.

To me, "spiritual" implies the personal experience. Again, if you want to suggest different terms, I'm open.

==

Using those definitions for now, it's the institution of religion, intruding into the public sphere, that I see as one of the many threats to society. Examples like encroachments into personal freedoms and redefining science are well known.

So, do you want to propose different labels?

==

As to your question, "who identifies themselves as "new atheists"? I'm not sure, but I know I'm not the only person who claims to be an anti-theist.

 

[icehorse]

on being "intellectually sterile"...

First, I'd like a definition. But even without a precise definition, even if the arguments are nothing more than a modernized restatement of old ideas they're timely and necessary. Abrahamic fundamentalism is on the rise, and it's having serious negative impacts on society.