Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

What scientists do. "“There is no Scientific Method,” argues the author of the Research Reviews blog." ("Weekend reads: Savage peer reviews, cosmology claim bites dust, $50 million diet pill hoax").

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

on being "intellectually sterile"...

First, I'd like a definition.

A pathetic shadow of arguments offered centuries ago.

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

.
Because? Are readers of these works that bereft of analytic capacity that they require dumbed-down versions of lesser arguments?

Abrahamic fundamentalism is on the rise, and it's having serious negative impacts on society.

So is atheistic idiocy. Time was religious fundamentalism was both so intellectually sterile and influential that we couldn't find the kind of atheist opinions expressed in thousands of works via dozens of media. Thankfully, this isn't true anymore. That doesn't justify reducing atheism to the sterile arguments proffered by the "new atheists".

 

[icehorse]

Red -

Ultimately, would you not agree that saying that communists and Sam Harris are both atheists is irrelevant and misleading?

 

[icehorse]

A pathetic shadow of arguments offered centuries ago.

Because? Are readers of these works that bereft of analytic capacity that they require dumbed-down versions of lesser arguments?

So is atheistic idiocy. Time was religious fundamentalism was both so intellectually sterile and influential that we couldn't find the kind of atheist opinions expressed in thousands of works via dozens of media. Thankfully, this isn't true anymore. That doesn't justify reducing atheism to the sterile arguments proffered by the "new atheists".

"A pathetic shadow", is of course just your view, and it's a critique of style not content.

On "dumbed-down". If I had a nickle for every time I've heard an academic hide behind this excuse... Clarity and accessibility in writing and speaking are not dumbing-down. Instead, they are indications that the writer respects the reader's time. As a well known example, I'll cite Einstein's book "Relativity", as an example of an author taking the time to make a complex topic accessible.

I didn't understand your last paragraph...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"A pathetic shadow", is of course just your view, and it's a critique of style not content.

'Tis true. This is, though, because I can hardly review in a post the failings of the "new atheists", let alone compare their works to the vastly superior atheist tradition whence many of their arguments come and which is so vastly superior in all possible ways.

On "dumbed-down". If I had a nickle for every time I've heard an academic hide behind this excuse

Then by all means offer up the times you've "heard" an academic say so, and more importantly address both the scholarship of atheists and theists which has characterized the "new atheism" as consisting of at best dumbed-down versions of long known and oft repeated arguments.

... Clarity and accessibility in writing and speaking are not dumbing-down.

I already addressed this. There is no equivalent in modern atheist literature to Lewis or Kreeft. In fact, the most known authors are scientists or non-academics whose knowledge of atheist literature is pathetic.

I'll cite Einstein's book "Relativity", as an example of an author taking the time to make a complex topic accessible.

And I can refer to Kreeft, Lewis, Craig, Moreland, Swinburne, Plantiga, McGrath, Polkinghorne, Ward, etc. Meanwhile, Einstein isn't an atheist, is out-dated (recent literature on his contributions have concerned whether his famous equation was actually derived by him), and irrelevant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Yes. but what are the chances there aren't many undiscovered ones, or even circumstances that can cause an atom to become an element that shares the same basic qualities of a similar element that we know of, but yet still be a different element because of this process?

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

What scientists do. "“There is no Scientific Method,” argues the author of the Research Reviews blog." ("Weekend reads: Savage peer reviews, cosmology claim bites dust, $50 million diet pill hoax").

You are partly right, the empirical agenda is passed off as the 'scientific method' with a central component of predictions,hypothesis or something of that nature. Most people in your position like to muddy the waters as the reader is looking for sincerity and clarity from you but they ain't going to find it so they shouldn't even bother.

Physics is not the oldest discipline - astronomy is and in astronomical terms, a hypothesis was an attempt to interpret observations of objects in motion and put their motion in context of solar system structure,planetary motions and so on or 'saving appearances' as it was called back then -

"[In contrast with the Ptolemaic models] . . . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified." Copernicus De revolutionibus, 1543

How it got mixed in with the empirical agenda based on 'experiments' and predictions is a long and tangled story,needless to say the 'scientific method' is so narrow it is next to useless despite the present success of its proponents.

 

[Laika]

Red -

Ultimately, would you not agree that saying that communists and Sam Harris are both atheists is irrelevant and misleading?

yeah. I think that would be right. They're two completely different species under the same label. The New Atheists are realists trying to establish what is real through debate and science, Communists are (political) "idealists" trying to make atheism the basis for a socioeconomic order. They are both products of the enlightenment, but there is virtually no common intellectual ancestry that I can recognize for at least two hundred years.

edit: a funny way of putting it would be like if you put god on Trial and you'd have Dawkins as the prosecutor going over every intricate detail of the case representing the liberal commitment to reason and evidence, whereas the Communists don't really care because they've already made up their mind and want to get to the part where they kill god so they can be free from religion entirely. the gulf is huge.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Legion,

Again, a lot of your post is just your subjective critique of style. But I'd say that the proof is in the pudding. If a writer isn't connecting with his readers, he's not a good writer - full stop. Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins are connecting with hundreds of thousands of readers.

As far as hearing academics complain about dumbing-down, one of my part-time jobs is editing computer books, and over and over again I hear from computer scientists that I'm asking them to "dumb-down" their writing. The truth is that clear, accessible writing is hard.

And, doh!, I wasn't citing Einstein as an example of an atheist - I was using him as an example of an author who took the time to make his complex ideas clear and accessible.

 

[Willamena]

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.

It just means that the ideas contribute nothing towards the birth and growth of understanding.

 

[icehorse]

It just means that the ideas contribute nothing towards the birth and growth of understanding.

That seems like a nice tight definition. If that's what intended, then I'd disagree with the conclusion that the writings of Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins are intellectually sterile.

For the sake of discussion, let's grant Legion's claim that all these new authors have done is restate old ideas. The point is that virtually no one was reading the older authors that Legion prefers, while hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people are reading the books of these new authors. It seems implicit in Legion's posts that he thinks the older authors had good points to make, correct? So if these new authors are making these good, old ideas accessible, that increases growth and understanding.

I will say though that it's hard for me to buy the claim that these new authors have added nothing. It seems much more likely that some of the writing is restatement, and some is new.

 

[outhouse]

I will say though that it's hard for me to buy the claim that these new authors have added nothing.

The problem is.

No matter how you slice this. All roads lead to a singularity. Which also means we don't know.

 

[Looncall]

Yes. but what are the chances there aren't many undiscovered ones, or even circumstances that can cause an atom to become an element that shares the same basic qualities of a similar element that we know of, but yet still be a different element because of this process?

None of this makes any sense. It is as well known as anything is, that the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom determines what element it is. This is built right into the fundamental properties of the universe.

 

[ChristineES]

In terms of the best way to discourage someone from following religion, the research shows that there is no more effective path to losing faith than reading the bible. I would say to Christians I wanted to discourage from religion (not that I would want to) that they should read the bible. It is the most common reason given for losing faith.

May I ask how many of these debates you had that were unsolicited, and how you forced a theist to debate you?

I became a Christian by reading the Bible.

 

[Willamena]

It seems implicit in Legion's posts that he thinks the older authors had good points to make, correct?

I don't think that's significant to what he said. The point was that the so-called "new atheists" have nothing new to offer other than to try to win converts of the fence-sitters.

I will say though that it's hard for me to buy the claim that these new authors have added nothing. It seems much more likely that some of the writing is restatement, and some is new.

Perhaps technically so, but not in essence.

 

[Bunyip]

I became a Christian by reading the Bible.

I'm sure that is true. I was referring to formal research (as I said) asking why people had lost faith. Reading the bible came up as the most common factor.
My interest at the time was in establishing how common issues with science and evolution particularly were identified as critical to loss of faith. I was surprised to find that such concerns did not register very highly.
I can say that for my brother, sister and myself it was reading the bible that drew us away from the Church we grew up in. I was raised in a wonderful and very liberal Catholic congregation - in the 1970's when I was a teenager it was a fun, progressive and entertaining community. We even had a sort of rock band playing songs from Godspell, Jesus Christ Superstar and so on - it rocked.
The depiction of Christianity we were shown was entirely focussed on love, community, tolerance, inclusiveness, forgiveness and hope. For many of my generation when we got old enough to read the bible it was difficult to harmonise it with the very 70's all lovin' Jesus we so admired.

 

[Bunyip]

A pathetic shadow of arguments offered centuries ago.

You are being absurd - atheist need no arguments for atheism, we never have. We are not countering an evidence based position.

.
Because? Are readers of these works that bereft of analytic capacity that they require dumbed-down versions of lesser arguments?


So is atheistic idiocy. Time was religious fundamentalism was both so intellectually sterile and influential that we couldn't find the kind of atheist opinions expressed in thousands of works via dozens of media. Thankfully, this isn't true anymore. That doesn't justify reducing atheism to the sterile arguments proffered by the "new atheists".

Sounds like sour grapes. The 'New Atheist' authors have sold well and proven very popular, they also tend not to rely on arguments for atheism, so these 'sterile arguments' you can not identify or critique do not really exist.

 

[Bunyip]

What scientists do. "“There is no Scientific Method,” argues the author of the Research Reviews blog." ("Weekend reads: Savage peer reviews, cosmology claim bites dust, $50 million diet pill hoax").

How is your response connected to the comment of mine you quoted?

 

[Bunyip]

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

Wrong! The 'New Atheist' movement IS that small handful of authors - they are the New Atheists.

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?


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.

Just one example of an 'intellectually sterile' argument from one of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al). Just one example of the sort of sterile argument from any of the New Atheist authors.

 

[Bunyip]

Such as?

Brewing, baking and the law are the first three to pop to mind.