Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Bunyip]

"Perhaps unsurprisingly, most mainline atheists have distanced themselves from the “New Atheism,” disliking both the shrill tone of its rhetoric, and its failure to take the intellectual and social aspects of religion seriously. It is therefore important not to extrapolate judgments made about the “New Atheism” to the wider atheism intellectual community.The“New Atheism” is best seen as a populist splinter movement within atheism as a whole, characterized by methods and attitudes that are not representative of the wider movement.To some, it will seem to be of questionable value to consider their philosophical arguments, precisely because these are stated in such rhetorically exaggerated and intellectually simplified forms"
McGrath, A. E. (2013). Evidence, Theory, and Interpretation: The “New Atheism” and the Philosophy of Science. Midwest Studies In Philosophy, 37(1), 178-188.

"CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS AND DANIEL Dennett must be used to having their atheism called a pseudo-religion. Usually, however, such accusations are made by religious figures who nonetheless do not seem to be willing to follow up with offers of inter-religious ecumenical exchange. It must have been something of a surprise for the so-called New Atheists to have their views called a stealth religion by a self-declared atheist who is one of the world's scientific authorities on religion. David Sloan Wilson - an evolutionary biologist at Binghamton University (SUNY), NY whose critical review of Dawkins' The God Delusion appeared in Skeptic Vol.13, No.4 - has proposed an evolutionary account of religion as a group-level evolutionary adaptation"
Talmont-Kaminski, K. (2009, The new atheism and the new anti-atheism. Skeptic, 15, 68-71.

"many commentators (including some well-known atheists) have baulked at what they considered to be new atheism’s excessive rhetoric (e.g. Armstrong 2009, McGrath & McGrath 2007, Eagleton 2009). Unsurprisingly, theologians and philosophers of religion tend to take a disdainful attitude to what they often consider to be crass, and at times ignorant, arguments(e.g. Hart 2009, Haught 2007, Cottingham
2009)."
McAnulla, S. (2012). Radical atheism and religious power: The politics of new atheism. Approaching Religion, 2(1), 87-99.

"There has been much discussion about exactly what is “new” in the New Atheism.The novelty is not to be found in public advocacy of atheism, which at the very least dates to some of the figures of the Enlightenment, such as the Baron d’Holbach and Denis Diderot. Nor does there there appear to be anything particularly new from a philosophical standpoint, as the standard arguments advanced by the New Atheists against religion are just about the same that have been put forth by well-known atheist or agnostic philosophers from David Hume to Bertrand Russell.5 Indeed, not even the noticeably more aggressive than usual tone
often adopted by the New Atheists, and for which they are often criticized even by other secularists, is actually new. Just think of the legendary abrasiveness of American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O’Hair...
Dawkins says that the “God hypothesis” should be treated as a falsifiable scientific hypothesis; Stenger explicitly—in the very subtitle of his book—states that “Science shows that God does not exist” (my emphasis); and Harris later on writes a whole book in which he pointedly ignores two and a half millennia of moral philosophy in an attempt to convince his readers that moral questions are best answered by science"
For starters.

Erecting a wall of text is not very helpful. Tell you what - what is the very, very best bit of ammunition you think apologists have?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Erecting a wall of text is not very helpful. Tell you what - what is the very, very best bit of ammunition you think apologists have?

You consider that I text wall? Would it help if I made each quote separate (as I already worked fairly hard to find concise responses in the literature that are representative of it and to narrow these down to less than a handful)?

 

[Bunyip]

"Perhaps unsurprisingly, most mainline atheists have distanced themselves from the “New Atheism,”

Clearly not. Most of us just think it was a magazine article, followed by the usual gripes.

disliking both the shrill tone of its rhetoric, and its failure to take the intellectual and social aspects of religion seriously. It is therefore important not to extrapolate judgments made about the “New Atheism” to the wider atheism intellectual community.The“New Atheism” is best seen as a populist splinter movement within atheism as a whole, characterized by methods and attitudes that are not representative of the wider movement.To some, it will seem to be of questionable value to consider their philosophical arguments, precisely because these are stated in such rhetorically exaggerated and intellectually simplified forms"
McGrath, A. E. (2013). Evidence, Theory, and Interpretation: The “New Atheism” and the Philosophy of Science. Midwest Studies In Philosophy, 37(1), 178-188.

"CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS AND DANIEL Dennett must be used to having their atheism called a pseudo-religion. Usually, however, such accusations are made by religious figures who nonetheless do not seem to be willing to follow up with offers of inter-religious ecumenical exchange. It must have been something of a surprise for the so-called New Atheists to have their views called a stealth religion by a self-declared atheist who is one of the world's scientific authorities on religion. David Sloan Wilson - an evolutionary biologist at Binghamton University (SUNY), NY whose critical review of Dawkins' The God Delusion appeared in Skeptic Vol.13, No.4 - has proposed an evolutionary account of religion as a group-level evolutionary adaptation"
Talmont-Kaminski, K. (2009, The new atheism and the new anti-atheism. Skeptic, 15, 68-71.

"many commentators (including some well-known atheists) have baulked at what they considered to be new atheism’s excessive rhetoric (e.g. Armstrong 2009, McGrath & McGrath 2007, Eagleton 2009). Unsurprisingly, theologians and philosophers of religion tend to take a disdainful attitude to what they often consider to be crass, and at times ignorant, arguments(e.g. Hart 2009, Haught 2007, Cottingham 2009)."
McAnulla, S. (2012). Radical atheism and religious power: The politics of new atheism. Approaching Religion, 2(1), 87-99.

"There has been much discussion about exactly what is “new” in the New Atheism.The novelty is not to be found in public advocacy of atheism, which at the very least dates to some of the figures of the Enlightenment, such as the Baron d’Holbach and Denis Diderot. Nor does there there appear to be anything particularly new from a philosophical standpoint, as the standard arguments advanced by the New Atheists against religion are just about the same that have been put forth by well-known atheist or agnostic philosophers from David Hume to Bertrand Russell.5 Indeed, not even the noticeably more aggressive than usual tone often adopted by the New Atheists, and for which they are often criticized even by other secularists, is actually new. Just think of the legendary abrasiveness of American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O’Hair...
Dawkins says that the “God hypothesis” should be treated as a falsifiable scientific hypothesis; Stenger explicitly—in the very subtitle of his book—states that “Science shows that God does not exist” (my emphasis); and Harris later on writes a whole book in which he pointedly ignores two and a half millennia of moral philosophy in an attempt to convince his readers that moral questions are best answered by science"
For starters.

Dude, those are all just subjective digs by people hating on atheists.

 

[Bunyip]

You consider that I text wall? Would it help if I made each quote separate (as I already worked fairly hard to find concise responses in the literature that are representative of it and to narrow these down to less than a handful)?

You keep deflecting.

Where is a single good example of this 'ammunition' to target at atheists? Name any modern apologetic argument worth anything? Name one that you think is going to challenge any of the NA?

If they are targets, identify the bullet? Other than a few old farts whining about atheists, what apologetic arguments have emerged in the last 50 years that you think will impress them?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Apologetics has been all but destroyed by the internet.

Certainly for those who base their understanding of philosophy, theology, religious apology, and apologetics to what they read online.

So by all means, if they are easy targets - maybe one day an apologist will finally hit them with something tangible

How many apologists have you read and what works? After all, many I know you can't have read as you do not know formal (symbolic/mathematical) logic, which these require.

I'd love to see any of them stumped by a apologist argument that hasn't been long ago demolished.

I'm sure Gödel would quail at the prospect of having to address the logic underlying the new atheist discourse. He was only the greatest logician of all time.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I'm neither a new atheist, nor an old commie. Nor do I agree that they are the same. Are all theists the same? Are they even close to subscribing to a single dogma? You're wielding a wide brush..

Lots of people in these forums announce what they are and what they are not but from my seat most calling themselves atheists follow a cookie cutter ideology that gets re-labeled over the centuries but is ultimately neither inspired nor inspiring. This is what binds the old commies to the new atheists in the belief that once people 'think right' they can be led to believe anything along with the notion that once people leave school and college they don't want to be bothered with things that were uninteresting while they were in school.

The so-called 'scientific method' or a byword for the empirical agenda does get special attention as the point of entry is through the education system where students are exposed to meaningless and fictional narratives with its own cast of characters going all the way back to Newton and his followers.

The Scientific Method

Far from using wide brush strokes, the issue is incredibly focused at several major points but especially where predictive astronomy was redirected towards experimental sciences and then turned back at the celestial arena with a vengeance where it became a theoretical junkyard. When students hear 'the theory of gravity' they are basically seeing a vicious strain of empiricism which allowed speculative /predictive agendas replace interpretative hypothesis which once were the mainstay of astronomy. I don't expect you to understand or are familiar with these points but most of the damage was done at the time of the Galileo affair and although I don't entirely agree with the following comments it shows a more accurate version of events -

"Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini, while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But 'hypothesis' meant two very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view that is often called 'instrumentalism'. On the other hand, a hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a 'realist' position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They thought that Copernicus' system was a purely instrumental device, and Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Clearly not. Most of us just think it was a magazine article

Only this is demonstrably false, were it not for your singular ability to decide how the English language is to be used and determine the meaning of its lexemes & constructions.

Dude, those are all just subjective digs by people hating on atheists.

Except some are atheists, and self-proclaimed, active atheists (and they mention atheist responses).

 

[Bunyip]

Certainly for those who base their understanding of philosophy, theology, religious apology, and apologetics to what they read online.


How many apologists have you read and what works? After all, many I know you can't have read as you do not know formal (symbolic/mathematical) logic, which these require.

I have read most of the popular apologists work, and many others beside. Rather than repeat your insulting digs at my education - whynnot identify one?

I'm sure Gödel would quail at the prospect of having to address the logic underlying the new atheist discourse. He was only the greatest logician of all time.

Godel has no evidence or ammunition to fire at the NA either.

 

[Bunyip]

Only this is demonstrably false, were it not for your singular ability to decide how the English language is to be used and determine the meaning of its lexemes & constructions.


Except some are atheists, and self-proclaimed, active atheists.

LOL I could find 50 such gripes from atheist and theist alike, it is not an argument. Where is the evidence?

 

[Bunyip]

LegionOnaMoi

Come on - out with it. Identify the very best argument apologists have to stump those nasty NA?

Have at it! I'm holding my breath......

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Name any modern apologetic argument worth anything?

You realize you just asked me to name any defense of any position worth anything, correct?

Name one that you think is going to challenge any of the NA?

I already have. And despite being agnostic, I've offered one myself (albeit extremely brief and only of Stenger). I've described more general arguments apologists can readily use (and have), such as the distortion of religious topic (some of which I listed). You do know that even Christian apology isn't limited to a defense of Christian belief, but Christianity (and therefore includes, for example, its contributions to the Western intellectual tradition)? Or were you looking for religious apologetic arguments specific to religious beliefs? Because a central problem with the new atheists is an ignorance of theology, religious thought & history, and apologetics (Dennett is perhaps an exception here). Namely, as they don't deal with any real apology but mostly straw-men and the assumption of a simplistic reductively scientific epistemology as the only basis for "reason" (on this see Brown, N. (2013). The Appeal to Reason. Compass, 47(4), 36-40.) or epistemic justification (even morality!).

If they are targets, identify the bullet?

I have. Repeatedly. I have described the ways in which the new atheists fail to deliver on the subjects the claim to. I have not given any analysis of the ways they do this, first because it is so easy to find far more exhaustive criticisms (including those by atheists) than can be offered in a post, second because quoting from less than a handful of papers was enough for you to write the post off as a text wall, and third because you don't actually read my posts, you just dismiss certain components that may or may not exist via skimming (hence missing the entire post on Stenger and the numerous posts regarding the fact that I never stated an argument by the new atheists was that god can't be disproved; Stenger not only says God can be disproved, but refers to proofs of god's non-existence).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I have read most of the popular apologists work

Then you've read several books by apologists that criticize the new atheists, no?

Godel has no evidence or ammunition to fire at the NA either.

How do you know? Are you familiar with his proof?

 

[Bunyip]

You realize you just asked me to name any defense of any position worth anything, correct?

No, it was a specific request. I'm not interested in criticisms of NA, but in whatever arguments you think it is that they could be challenged by.

I already have. And despite being agnostic, I've offered one myself (albeit extremely brief and only of Stenger). I've described more general arguments apologists can readily use (and have), such as the distortion of religious topic (some of which I listed). You do know that even Christian apology isn't limited to a defense of Christian belief, but Christianity (and therefore includes, for example, its contributions to the Western intellectual tradition)? Or were you looking for religious apologetic arguments specific to religious beliefs? Because a central problem with the new atheists is an ignorance of theology, religious thought & history, and apologetics (Dennett is perhaps an exception here). Namely, as they don't deal with any real apology but mostly straw-men and the assumption of a simplistic reductively scientific epistemology as the only basis for "reason" (on this see Brown, N. (2013). The Appeal to Reason. Compass, 47(4), 36-40.) or epistemic justification (even morality!).



I have. Repeatedly. I have described the ways in which the new atheists fail to deliver on the subjects the claim to. I have not given any analysis of the ways they do this, first because it is so easy to find far more exhaustive criticisms (including those by atheists) than can be offered in a post, second because quoting from less than a handful of papers was enough for you to write the post off as a text wall, and third because you don't actually read my posts, you just dismiss certain components that may or may not exist via skimming (hence missing the entire post on Stenger and the numerous posts regarding the fact that I never stated an argument by the new atheists was that god can't be disproved; Stenger not only says God can be disproved, but refers to proofs of god's non-existence).

LOL. None of that is an example of the sort of ammunition you need to target NA. What is the best apologetic argument?

 

[Bunyip]

Then you've read several books by apologists that criticize the new atheists, no?

Yes.

How do you know? Are you familiar with his proof?

Yes I am. Is that your example?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So as not to waste the innumerable posts devoted to a position I never had (that atheists argue you can't disprove god), and given your view that disproving god is impossible (and the fact that you missed my critique of Stenger), I might point to something that apologists and atheists alike have criticized about the new atheist discourse:
"First, unlike many old atheists, the new ones tend to lay stress on science as positively disproving what theists believe. Your typical old atheist (Bertrand Russell, for example) said ‘Arguments in defense of belief in God are just bad ones; so we have no reason to believe in God’. New atheists, by contrast, tend to suggest that those who believe in God can be absolutely refuted by scientific arguments — ones based on the notion of evolution...
When it comes to what makes New Atheism new, the third point I want to note is that its exponents largely seem to write with little reference to the history of theology. They often talk about something called ‘religion’ and (especially in the case of Dawkins and Hitchens), they focus on what they call ‘belief in God’. But, we might ask, ‘Which religion?’ and ‘Whose God?’ My impression is that the fathers of New Atheism have not much studied the fathers of Old Atheism or the fathers of theism in its classical Christian form. "
Davies, B. (2011). The New Atheism: Its Virtues and its Vices. New Blackfriars, 92(1037), 18-34.

The last part is a criticism I have stated myself many times in this thread, and quoted others in the literature as saying so as well. I include it merely for that reason. More interestingly is that (as I already showed in my criticism of Stenger) the position you adamantly defended (god can't be disproved, or that we can't prove the non-existence of god) is one the new atheists have rejected and embraced the opposite (for specifics, see my post in this thread on Stenger). So, either you are wrong and god can be disproven, or a central component of the new atheism has it wrong and your position is that they hold a laughable view you have mocked repeatedly (namely, you can prove god's non-existence or disprove god). What's nice here is that after misreading a post and ranting about it for some time and mocking me for a position I don't hold, you've in fact disagreed with a fundamental component of the new atheists, offering yourself what must clearly be a powerful critique (given how obviously and blatantly true it is that god's non-existence can't be proven, according to you).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes.

So I don't have to summarize in an impossibly small space the ways in which Christian apologists have demolished the new atheists (with few exceptions). However, if you would like to point to specific works by apologists in the works you've claimed to have read which address the new atheists and which you find inaccurate, wrong, fallacious, or otherwise flawed feel free. That way I don't end up writing posts that you ignore anyway, and you can demonstrate that you have an idea of what complaints apologists have with the new atheists (in particular, those you find lacking in their veracity, validity, or relevance).

Alternatively, you could read my posts rather than skimming them to find points of contention (regardless of whether or not the contention is over a point I have made).

Yes I am. Is that your example?

No, it is an example. I personally like your own highly critical, mocking of a central component to the new atheists, because it's yours.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Stenger does not rely on arguments for atheism - you refer to the non-existent. Atheists have never had to face evidence to counter, we tend not to feel the need to disprove the unproveable.

Given how often you disregard my posts without reading them or miss them entirely, I'd just like to nail home once again how wrong you are and to link you to my post on Stenger:

here's a quote from Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis:"...let us make a quick review of those disproofs of God's existence that are based on philosophy."

 

[Looncall]

Given how often you disregard my posts without reading them or miss them entirely, I'd just like to nail home once again how wrong you are and to link you to my post on Stenger:

You have been repeatedly challenged to provide an example of an apologetic argument that would not be laughed off the planet. You have steadfastly failed to do so. The only conclusion one can draw is thst you have none.
Come on, let's see the beef!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Lots of people in these forums announce what they are and what they are not but from my seat most calling themselves atheists follow a cookie cutter ideology that gets re-labeled over the centuries but is ultimately neither inspired nor inspiring. This is what binds the old commies to the new atheists in the belief that once people 'think right' they can be led to believe anything along with the notion that once people leave school and college they don't want to be bothered with things that were uninteresting while they were in school.

The so-called 'scientific method' or a byword for the empirical agenda does get special attention as the point of entry is through the education system where students are exposed to meaningless and fictional narratives with its own cast of characters going all the way back to Newton and his followers.

The Scientific Method

Far from using wide brush strokes, the issue is incredibly focused at several major points but especially where predictive astronomy was redirected towards experimental sciences and then turned back at the celestial arena with a vengeance where it became a theoretical junkyard. When students hear 'the theory of gravity' they are basically seeing a vicious strain of empiricism which allowed speculative /predictive agendas replace interpretative hypothesis which once were the mainstay of astronomy. I don't expect you to understand or are familiar with these points but most of the damage was done at the time of the Galileo affair and although I don't entirely agree with the following comments it shows a more accurate version of events -

"Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini, while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But 'hypothesis' meant two very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view that is often called 'instrumentalism'. On the other hand, a hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a 'realist' position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They thought that Copernicus' system was a purely instrumental device, and Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair."

As previously stated, stay on topic and/or create a new thread. Not sure I can be any clearer. Happy to come post in whatever you start.

 

[Looncall]

No. It doesn't work that way.

It is like numbers, say from 0 to 100, on every planet math will work the same way. There will not be extra numbers between 2 and 3 in other places.

Nicely put.