Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Laika]

You mean you are not sure if you can be any more mediocre hence the issue is never about who is right and who is wrong but the atheistic tendency to be neither inspired nor inspiring. I always like Allan Poe's comments -

"thus transferred from the sculleries into the parlors of Science -- from its pantries into its pulpits -- than these individuals a more intolerant -- a more intolerable set of bigots and tyrants never existed on the face of the earth. Their creed, their text and their sermon were, alike, the one word 'fact' -- but, for the most part, even of this one word, they knew not even the meaning. On those who ventured to disturb their facts with the view of putting them in order and to use, the disciples of Hog had no mercy whatever. All attempts at generalization were met at once by the words 'theoretical,' 'theory,' 'theorist' -- all thought, to be brief, was very properly resented as a personal affront to themselves. Cultivating the natural sciences to the exclusion of Metaphysics, the Mathematics, and Logic, many of these Bacon-engendered philosophers -- one-idead, one-sided and lame of a leg -- were more wretchedly helpless -- more miserably ignorant, in view of all the comprehensible objects of knowledge, than the veriest unlettered hind who proves that he knows something at least, in admitting that he knows absolutely nothing." Poe

New atheist - old commies.

Would you say the issue is not therefore proof, but the moral character of the theory that results from the scientific method, especially it's tendency towards Atheism by naturalistic explanations, (moral here being defined as morality derived from god)?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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!

I have already given them, cited them, and quoted them. And as Bunyip has himself demonstrated, one apologetic argument he apparently finds extremely intellectually sterile is the notion (promoted by the new atheists) that one can prove god's non-existence. Myself I don't even find this apologetics. However, the fact that you ridiculed another concerning your own ignorance of nuclear physics should hardly warrant treating a single post of mine as if I had made none others that would have already answered your challenge in more ways than one.

 

[Cephus]

Actually, quite critically. I read the entire Christian Scriptures all in one day and in one sitting. I read the rest of the Bible within 6 or so months: I was 18 at the time, which was 31 years ago. I've studied it even more since then . I read very fast and I had a college age reading level in High School.

By "critically", I mean questioning the very axioms upon which the Bible relies and accepting only those parts which can be demonstrated to be true using objective evidence. You didn't do that because you came to a conclusion which is rationally unjustifiable.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Would you say the issue is not therefore proof, but the moral character of the theory that results from the scientific method, especially it's tendency towards Atheism by naturalistic explanations, (moral here being defined as morality derived from god)?

That is the most intelligent comment I have seen however it doesn't go far enough by virtue that there are several major issues involved and running parallel with each other ,yours being one and Legion's being another.

Darwinism was expressed in terms of a 'law of nature' as an extension of the popular success of 'laws of motion' or the 'Law of Universal gravitation' as it became known. Just as astronomy existed before Newton attempted to scale up experimental sciences to a celestial scale so too did biological and geological evolution go hand in hand before a 'cause' was inserted by Darwin using social/political discrimination as an anchor. A century and a half later it is a question of integrity rather than morality as the original reasoning based on civilized/savage races is airbrushed out as 'social Darwinism' even though the originator was forthright that national supremacy (which has nothing whatsoever to do with biological make-up) could be extended to all life on the planet as a working principle for the emergence of more complex lifeforms

The misery of World War II could be seen as the doctrine of the scientific method in action connecting the laws of motion with the laws of nature regarding biological evolution -

"Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler

People who are convinced they have these type of rights because they form 'laws of motion/nature' invariably develop strong convictions - National Socialism did and so are the new brand of atheists for they wake up knowing what they hate without actually professing anything inspired or inspiring.

 

[Jumi]

New atheist - old commies.

Straw men for you to throw around.

 

[icehorse]

Barren. Devoid of any metaphorical "offspring" or intellectual content as
1) The only thing "new" about the new atheists is the social aspects
&
2) There is a great deal more to the atheist tradition that is not new but also not addressed in discussions, lectures, literature, etc., by the new atheists.

It's never been lower. Time was the RCC ruled much of the world, universities were mostly for training priests, and countries and states had "state religions" (this is true even of the US, which only forbade, at least originally, federal religions but allowed and had official state religions). The number of Jewish people drastically decreased due in part because of the "science" of eugenics but in particular its most perfect realization by a secular movement in Germany and its political party (the German Worker's Party). There are about a billion muslims. They run the gamut from radical feminists to extremist terrorists. Also, most of the effects from religious extremism or fundamentalism are tied to or even inexorably bound to political ideology. It's the political ideology I tend to worry about more than I do the religious, as e.g., most of Europe is secular yet suffers from various problems while the main countries we see increases in Christianity are 1) in places like Africa and 2) tend to effect the population by building schools and bringing aid. Also, the new atheism has had no real impact on the fundamentalists or extremists other than to give them a target to help justify their fundamentalism.

I'd say it depends on how you're measuring. It's been only for the last few decades that we've faced the possibility of an armageddon-seeking, Abrahamic fundamentalist getting a hold of nukes.

Also, please... it should be well known to you that the common theist arguments that Nazis and communists represent manifestations of atheist and secular societies are rubbish. These examples are all long on dogma and totalitarian thinking, and short on the ideas put forth during the Enlightenment.

Whether Hitler's vegetarian tendencies a myth or not, this argument carries the same weight as saying that "Because Hitler was a vegetarian, vegetarians are genocidal." Obviously nonsense.

 

[icehorse]

I have already given them, cited them, and quoted them. And as Bunyip has himself demonstrated, one apologetic argument he apparently finds extremely intellectually sterile is the notion (promoted by the new atheists) that one can prove god's non-existence. Myself I don't even find this apologetics. However, the fact that you ridiculed another concerning your own ignorance of nuclear physics should hardly warrant treating a single post of mine as if I had made none others that would have already answered your challenge in more ways than one.

Why on earth would I (or anyone), have to prove the non-existence of anything? What does that have to do with this discussion? Reputable "new atheists" or, more correctly anti-theists allow for the small, small chance that one of the 10,000 gods described over the course of history actually exists. As has been said many times: "If Jesus shows up tomorrow with good evidence, I'll change what I believe."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

: "If Jesus shows up tomorrow with good evidence, I'll change what I believe."

He did that a couple of millennia ago.. there's a fairly popular book about it

 

[outhouse]

He did that a couple of millennia ago..

Many men did that a couple of millennia ago

there's a fairly popular book about it

Yes, on that contains mythology and is very rhetorical.

 

[Looncall]

I have already given them, cited them, and quoted them. And as Bunyip has himself demonstrated, one apologetic argument he apparently finds extremely intellectually sterile is the notion (promoted by the new atheists) that one can prove god's non-existence. Myself I don't even find this apologetics. However, the fact that you ridiculed another concerning your own ignorance of nuclear physics should hardly warrant treating a single post of mine as if I had made none others that would have already answered your challenge in more ways than one.

Just an item of information: I have been making a living doing nuclear science for more then 30 years. What are your credentials?

 

[outhouse]

What are your credentials?

He teaches some of it.

I earn a small portion of my living from marine biology, but I could not teach it, and still have many areas im quite ignorant in even though I love it.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Last Spring, a blogger posted an interesting and thoughtful piece about why he does not identify himself as an atheist. Writing as a British national from the Netherlands, he identified several problems with the "new atheism" of Dawkins et al:

1. Too much God. It makes no sense, he says, to be "defined" by one's lack of a belief in God or gods. Presumably, acting too much like they have found the "Good News" of atheism and are trying to spread it.

2. Too much science. Or rather, scientism: The universal application of the scientific method to truth claims, thereby excluding human endeavors that give the world and life meaning.

3. Political misdirection. The "New Atheists," baptized in the American culture wars over religion in politics, mistake atheism for secularism and mistake the promotion of atheism for the promotion of secularism.

So what do you think about the article? I think that there are some valid points being made here, but I also think the case is overstated. Which I will share as the discussion is generated.

The problem is that this "new atheist" is a construct given to name many of the popularized ideologies and sterotypes given to atheists in the modern age that would have been very different than the defanged atheists of long past that simply held their disbelief in silence.

There is very little that actually ties atheists together in this kind of demographic view. The fact that they may or may not be more obsessed with god actually is an unfair question as we are able to socially question the mainstream religious views of the public without being ostracised as badly as we were just a few decades ago. I include myself in this as I am a pagan and we have only very very VERY recently (probably early to mid 2000's) did I see there be a decent amount of public acceptance of the pagan faiths. IT seems to have coincided with the rise of atheism as well.

But back onto what I was saying is that there seems to be no real difference between old and new atheists as there are not uniting ideological differences. If you mean to say "anti-theists" rather than "new atheists" or if in some way shape or form you mean that new atheists can be used as a substitution for anti-theists, then I can at least somewhat understand. But realize that not all new atheists are anti-theists and I would wager the vast majority are still apatheists unless it involves the government and laws that dictate them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Math works the same, but it doesn't mean all life throughout the universe is necessarily carbon based. It doesn't necessarily mean that what we know about physics and chemistry, as we have observed them function on Earth and under Earth conditions, is equally applicable throughout the universe, under all circumstances. Even if what we currently know today is the bulk majority of them, it would still be like expecting everyone on earth to be fluent in English because it's the most predominate language. And just saying English isn't entirely clear, as there is more than one type of English.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Also, please... it should be well known to you that the common theist arguments that Nazis and communists represent manifestations of atheist and secular societies are rubbish. These examples are all long on dogma and totalitarian thinking, and short on the ideas put forth during the Enlightenment.

Naughty !, the empirical agenda or scientific method posited the laws of motion in terms of experimental sciences and orbital dynamics but how should you test out the law of nature that national supremacy is a working principle leading to more complex lifeforms and the advancement of more 'civilized' people as opposed to savage races. Is the misery of World War II an example of these convictions writ large ! -

“Truly, this earth is a trophy cup for the industrious man. And this rightly so, in the service of natural selection. He who does not possess the force to secure his Lebensraum in this world, and, if necessary, to enlarge it, does not deserve to possess the necessities of life. He must step aside and allow stronger peoples to pass him by.” Hitler

"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

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

There is no such thing as 'Social Darwinism', however unpalatable there is only the attempt to pass off a social/political ideology based on relative conceptions of civilized/ savage and convert them into 'laws of nature'.

 

[outhouse]

The problem is that this "new atheist"

Is a made up term, not by atheist lol

It is meaningless to atheist.


I think it I soften used as a negative term by theist.

 

[Laika]

That is the most intelligent comment I have seen however it doesn't go far enough by virtue that there are several major issues involved and running parallel with each other ,yours being one and Legion's being another.

Darwinism was expressed in terms of a 'law of nature' as an extension of the popular success of 'laws of motion' or the 'Law of Universal gravitation' as it became known. Just as astronomy existed before Newton attempted to scale up experimental sciences to a celestial scale so too did biological and geological evolution go hand in hand before a 'cause' was inserted by Darwin using social/political discrimination as an anchor. A century and a half later it is a question of integrity rather than morality as the original reasoning based on civilized/savage races is airbrushed out as 'social Darwinism' even though the originator was forthright that national supremacy (which has nothing whatsoever to do with biological make-up) could be extended to all life on the planet as a working principle for the emergence of more complex lifeforms.

From what I know of, Social Darwinism is now a deeply unpopular and discredited theory when specifically related to Eugenics, but there remains traces of it in our popular culture and vocabulary ("dog eat dog", IQ tests, the concept of "genius" which is derived from genes, etc). There is a remote possibility of a revival if the study of genetics leads to political conclusions, but I'm guessing you're using the term to refer to a much wider usage as a deterministic ideology of society that is opposed to moral conceptions based on free will? Would I be right in thinking that the way your using "Social Darwinism" to refer "laws of motion" in society would probably be equally applicable to Communism and National Socialism?

The misery of World War II could be seen as the doctrine of the scientific method in action connecting the laws of motion with the laws of nature regarding biological evolution -

"Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler

People who are convinced they have these type of rights because they form 'laws of motion/nature' invariably develop strong convictions - National Socialism did and so are the new brand of atheists for they wake up knowing what they hate without actually professing anything inspired or inspiring.

I think you make two mistakes with this- firstly generalizing about the causes of world war two (Nazi ideology would never have been as popular in Germany if it hadn't been for deep-rooted problems) and secondly, equating National Socialism with the New Atheists as the Nazis were not Atheists (edit: but were often anti-Christian). In my posts on this thread, I also underline how little Communists and New Atheists share in common as the goal and methods of their atheism are world's apart. Regrettably, I also have to disagree with you as many people were inspired by National Socialism and it's mass appeal was what made it so potent and destructive, probably out of a belief in inevitable victory.

However, your criticism appears to be more directed as 'scientism' (the use of science as an ideology, particularly of society, rather than a method) than atheism specifically and in that sense is valid.This does have some fairly substantial moral implications; whilst Nazi Ideology is chaotic to say the least, the belief that Racism was scientific did give them a major moral justification for committing genocide as an inevitable consequence of "scientific" laws of social Darwinism. From this derives the idea that the strong must rule or crush the weak as a necessity of racial purity. I'm not intimately familiar with the ideology, but this does appear to be their line of reasoning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I was speaking of me. I'm not much of a debater anymore...I mean, I will discuss. But, I don't want to prove anything, anymore. It's tiring...and at the end of the day, everyone picks up the same toys they came to the sandbox with...and goes home. lol ^_^ Not sure many minds are ever changed when debates get heated.

I have a hypothesis about that. I mentioned it recently in another thread:

Something else to keep in mind: I think the anonymity of the internet can hide people's changes of opinion.

People don't like to lose face, so they aren't apt to publicly declare "I was wrong". However, a person whose mind is changed can leave one online community, join another with a new username, and behave as if their new beliefs are what they've believed all along. To an outside observer, there's nothing linking hardline theist A on forum X to moderate theist B on forum Y, and then agnostic C on forum Z, even if they're all actually the same person in different stages of belief.

 

[Koldo]

"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.

What is meant by 'mainline atheists' on this quote?

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

From what I know of, Social Darwinism is now a deeply unpopular and discredited theory when specifically related to Eugenic.

Stop right there - what part of 'There is no such thing as Social Darwinism' can you not understand using the language of Darwin himself running backwards to Malthus and forward to a justification for National Socialism expansion ?.

 

[Laika]

Stop right there - what part of 'There is no such thing as Social Darwinism' can you not understand using the language of Darwin himself running backwards to Malthus and forward to a justification for National Socialism expansion ?.

Charles Darwin was not responsible for Social Darwinism; Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin, was responsible for the concept as the most direct delineation from Darwin's work. Social Darwinism is more a product of the intellectual climate rather than anything else- the kind of 'popular science' in terms of the extent to which it distorted scientific views; It's racist variants have more to do with imperialism and colonialism, whereas it's individualist forms are more economically liberal and capitalist (such as the application of Thomas Malthus' theory of over-population to workhouses, often involving gross distortions of his work if I am not mistaken).