Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Bunyip]

Classical logic is divided into two components, propositional calculus and predicate calculus. The second is an extension of the first and is more powerful, as it allows us to define statements such as Gx to be "x is a god" (the uppercase letter is the predicate), and introduces the existential and universal quantifiers.

However, belief statements are not of the form allowed in classical logic, because they are not "ordinary" predicates, but mental state predicates. If treated as such, they lead to contradictions. Let Bxyz= "x believes y is z", s= "superman", c= "Clark Kent", l= "Lois Lane", Wxy= "x works with y"
(1) Wlc | Given (Translation: "Lois Lane works with Clark Kent."
(2) ~Blcs | Given (translation: "Lois Lane doesn't believe Clark Kent is Superman")
(3) ∀x(c=x→c=s) |Given (translation: for all x, if x is Clark Kent, then x is Superman)
(4)Wls | from 1 & 3, substitution (translation: "Lois Lane works with Superman")
(5) ∀x(Wlx &∀y{y=s →~Blyx})| from 1 & 2 (translation: "for all x, if Lois Lane works with x AND for all y, if y is Superman then Lois Lane doesn't believe x is superman")
(6) ∃x(Wlx & ∀y{y=c →Blyc}) | from 1, 3, & 5 and substitution (translation: there exists an x such Lois Lane works with x and for all y, if y is Clark Kent then Lois Lane believes y is Clark Kent")
(7) ∃x(Wlx & ∀y{y=s →Blys}) | from 1, 3, 5 & 6 and substitution (translation: there exists an x such Lois Lane works with x and for all y, if y is Superman then Lois Lane believes y is Clark Kent")
(8) ∀x({Wlx & x=c} →Blxs)| from 7 (translation: "for all x, if Lois Lane works with x AND x is Clark Kent, then Lois Lane Believes x is superman")
***(9) Blcs | from 8

Here we have a straightforward contradiction. Because we treated belief like any other predicate, we proved a contradiction. Many like this could be offered (and in fact the above could be simplified but I used a somewhat extended version as a teaching tool), but the point is that predicate calculus ("classical logic") requires the identity operator to actually identify something as being itself (Superman IS Clark Kent, they're just two different names for the same person), while beliefs do not. It is possible for Lois Lane to work with Clark Kent and not believe she works with Superman.

Hence, other logics exist which allow epistemic predicates.

LOL Classic!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LOL Classic!

No, non-classic. That's the point. Classical logics do not admit as predicates mental state predicates like "belief". For it is possible for two things to be the same thing, but for someone not to believe that they are.
Before giving up on logic, you may wish to study. I provided you with some free intro sources (including e-textbooks).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So you don't believe in any gods, but at the same time don't believe in no gods? LOL So much for logic.

The end result both of the derivation and the summarizing of my point is that epistemic claims are not binary truth-bearing statements as in classical logic. In particular, logics which admit statements of belief require that the excluded middle (non tertium datur) be violated. In other words, we require a many-valued logic (of which many exist).

For example, imagine I"m waiting for the train scheduled to arrive in 20 minutes. Assume I do not know whether or not the train is on-time, early, or late. It is true to say that I do not believe the train will be on-time, because I don't believe that. But it is also true to say that I do not believe the train will be early or late, for I don't believe either of those statements. I simply do not know.

Much as I would love to explore whatever the distinction is I fear it will reduce to quibbling about semantics.

A central point behind formal systems/languages is the removal of semantics. With formal logic, I can reduce everything to symbols, and examine the structure of the argument.

But you don't know logic, and thus can't evaluate such a structure nor derive one from a proof like the one Strenger quotes nor determine the validity of any logical argument whatsoever.

 

[Bunyip]

The end result both of the derivation and the summarizing of my point is that epistemic claims are not binary truth-bearing statements as in classical logic. In particular, logics which admit statements of belief require that the excluded middle (non tertium datur) be violated. In other words, we require a many-valued logic (of which many exist).

For example, imagine I"m waiting for the train scheduled to arrive in 20 minutes. Assume I do not know whether or not the train is on-time, early, or late. It is true to say that I do not believe the train will be on-time, because I don't believe that. But it is also true to say that I do not believe the train will be early or late, for I don't believe either of those statements. I simply do not know.


A central point behind formal systems/languages is the removal of semantics. With formal logic, I can reduce everything to symbols, and examine the structure of the argument.

But you don't know logic, and thus can't evaluate such a structure nor derive one from a proof like the one Strenger quotes nor determine the validity of any logical argument whatsoever.

The logical proofs and disproofs for God were played out by the ancients. They ran their course before I was even born. It is a dead end.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I do not believe in the existence of any god, deity, or similar religious or spiritual entity. I am not a theist, deist, pantheist, polytheist, anti-theist, or any x-theist. There is no religious or spiritual doctrine in which I believe, nor do I have any religious or spiritual beliefs.

Beliefs are spiritual in that you are either inspired or inspiring so although,of necessity, denominational Christianity may present the story of Christ and Christianity in a narrative form for all to appreciate, generally the Christian experience resonates with people at different levels and in different ways hence it is less a doctrine than an inherent human trait.

Opinions and convictions in themselves produce a lot of heat but no light and that is why you and the other guy can outdo each other in the atheist stakes, for the Christian it is much simpler and positive in that by their fruits you recognize spiritual people in whatever denomination setting they go about enacting their spirited lives.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The logical proofs and disproofs for God were played out by the ancients. They ran their course before I was even born. It is a dead end.

So why do the new atheists use them? After all, the "argument" you wished me to address from Stenger was just such a proof that he quoted and one among many merely in that book alone. Both proofs of god and disproofs are found in many places all over the new atheist literature. Would you like me to quote more examples for you? Once again, you appear to be arguing for positions that are not only utterly absent from the new atheist literature you seek to defend, but for the opposite of what you state is in fact the truth (the new atheists take seriously some of the the proofs of gods, more of the proofs of god's non-existence, and most of all the belief that these arguments aren't "played out").

Also, "the ancients" had no disproofs for god. Such proofs are quite recent (most within the last century, and arguably all). It wasn't until a few hundred years ago that "atheism" as an epistemic position even existed. Virtually none of these proofs are ancient, and certainly not disproofs. However, as the only argument you've managed to (eventually) present from the new atheist literature is one I spoon-fed you, again I am not surprised by such an obviously wrong assertion.

 

[Bunyip]

So why do the new atheists use them?

Because after all these years - that is all there is left.

After all, the "argument" you wished me to address from Stenger was just such a proof that he quoted and one among many merely in that book alone. Both proofs of god and disproofs are found in many places all over the new atheist literature. Would you like me to quote more examples for you? Once again, you appear to be arguing for positions that are not only utterly absent from the new atheist literature you seek to defend, but for the opposite of what you state is in fact the truth (the new atheists take seriously some of the the proofs of gods, more of the proofs of god's non-existence, and most of all the belief that these arguments aren't "played out").

Also, "the ancients" had no disproofs for god. Such proofs are quite recent (most within the last century, and arguably all). It wasn't until a few hundred years ago that "atheism" as an epistemic position even existed. Virtually none of these proofs are ancient, and certainly not disproofs. However, as the only argument you've managed to (eventually) present from the new atheist literature is one I spoon-fed you, again I am not surprised by such an obviously wrong assertion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Because after all these years - that is all there is left.

Were that true, that would be all they addressed. It isn't, by any means.

Nor are other arguments all old and already addressed. As noted already, the fine-tuning argument is both new and is viewed as a problem by physicists regardless of "designer" arguments. I even supplied a very basic intro by a non-believer:
"Leonard Susskind (a physicist who supports the multiverse theory and is not a believer) on fine-tuning: "

 

[Bunyip]

Were that true, that would be all they addressed. It isn't, by any means.

Nor are other arguments all old and already addressed. As noted already, the fine-tuning argument is both new and is viewed as a problem by physicists regardless of "designer" arguments. I even supplied a very basic intro by a non-believer:
"Leonard Susskind (a physicist who supports the multiverse theory and is not a believer) on fine-tuning: "

Fine tuning is just a misconception - it is not a challenge to NA, to logic, to science or to me. The idea that the universe was made for us is hardly new by the way.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Fine tuning is just a misconception

I have no doubt that your understanding of it is ill-conceived, largely spurious, and entirely founded in physics you are not familiar with. That's why I supplied you a clip from a non-believer for those whose capacity to understand fine-tuning is limited in the ways your's is.

it is not a challenge to NA, to logic, to science or to me.

1) The new atheists address it, and as it is new this contradicts your previous statement:

Because after all these years - that is all there is left.

2) It is a scientific position. A clearly scientific position within modern physics regardless of one's religious position.
3) It is based upon logic among many other tools of the sciences.
4) It is not a challenge to you because you are unable to evaluate the bases for the notion within mainstream physics of "fine-tuning" enough to argue what it entails or implies. Susskind is, hence his belief that fine-tuning can be explained by multiverse theory. I can give lists of names and citations if you wish so that you can investigate on your own how wrong you are.

 

[Bunyip]

I have no doubt that your understanding of it is ill-conceived, largely spurious, and entirely founded in physics you are not familiar with. That's why I supplied you a clip from a non-believer for those whose capacity to understand fine-tuning is limited in the ways your's is.


1) The new atheists address it, and as it is new this contradicts your previous statement:

2) It is a scientific position. A clearly scientific position within modern physics regardless of one's religious position.
3) It is based upon logic among many other tools of the sciences.
4) It is not a challenge to you because you are unable to evaluate the bases for the notion within mainstream physics of "fine-tuning" enough to argue what it entails or implies. Susskind is, hence his belief that fine-tuning can be explained by multiverse theory. I can give lists of names and citations if you wish so that you can investigate on your own how wrong you are.

No, it's just the anthropic fallacy. In order to be of interest by the way somebody would need to demonstrate that God was the explanation - I'm not holding my breath. Then they have to demonstrate that their God is a particular God, YHWH for example - which will be fascinating I'm sure.
Until then the NA can only poke at long dead corpses and wait.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Are theists too obsessed with "new atheists"? It certainly seems that way looking at some of the threads here.

I don't even know what a "new atheist" is, I think it's just a case of theists giving the enemy a name. Or rather the perceived enemy.

I guess I'm an "old atheist", but while I enjoy a bit of banter on threads like this it has no relevance for my life whatsoever these days. For me God is just an irrelevancy.

 

[Cephus]

I do not believe in the existence of any god, deity, or similar religious or spiritual entity. I am not a theist, deist, pantheist, polytheist, anti-theist, or any x-theist. There is no religious or spiritual doctrine in which I believe, nor do I have any religious or spiritual beliefs.

Then you're an atheist. You might also be an agnostic. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, it's just the anthropic fallacy.

The anthropic argument is a tautology. It can't be false. If you do not know enough to separate the anthropic principles of those like Weinberg or expressed and referred to as the WAP from whatever websites or similar sources you base your view upon, this still leaves you without reason to address the points made in a popular, simplified clip by a non-believer.

In order to be of interest by the way somebody would need to demonstrate that God was the explanation

It is of interest, period (at least to cosmologists, quantum physicists, theoretical physicists, astrophysicists, etc.). It is of quintessential import for astrobiology.

As for whether it demonstrates anything about god, you would have to be familiar first with the physics and then with how they are used by some physicists (Amoroso, Davies, Rauscher, Polkinghorne, Schroeder, Rees, Tipler, etc.) to argue for a designer. I've provided only a sample of only some popular names. The full list is far more extensive.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For me God is just an irrelevancy.

Which makes your position quite firmly in line with atheism in general so long as it isn't the new atheists, for whom this is not true. Hence the difference between Russell's response and Gould's compared to those of Dawkins of Hitchens (for example).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not believing is a pillar of Athiesm.
Extreme Athiesm leads to Secularism.

No, empathy and an understanding of history lead to secularism... even among the religious.

Even the most devout person can realize that when we give governmental power to a church, we're only a political wind-change away from being victims of religious persecution ourselves.

 

[Prophet]

For it is possible for two things to be the same thing, but for someone not to believe that they are.

Case, in point, Bunyip denying he is a fundamentalist.

 

[Bunyip]

Case, in point, Bunyip denying he is a fundamentalist.

ROLFMAO

A fundamentalist atheist huh? That's hilarious buddy.

 

[Bunyip]

The anthropic argument is a tautology. It can't be false. If you do not know enough to separate the anthropic principles of those like Weinberg or expressed and referred to as the WAP from whatever websites or similar sources you base your view upon, this still leaves you without reason to address the points made in a popular, simplified clip by a non-believer.


It is of interest, period (at least to cosmologists, quantum physicists, theoretical physicists, astrophysicists, etc.). It is of quintessential import for astrobiology.

As for whether it demonstrates anything about god, you would have to be familiar first with the physics and then with how they are used by some physicists (Amoroso, Davies, Rauscher, Polkinghorne, Schroeder, Rees, Tipler, etc.) to argue for a designer. I've provided only a sample of only some popular names. The full list is far more extensive.

Fine tuning is nothing, it is a simple fallacy. I am not interested in it. Start a thread on it if you wish and watch it get laughed out of the room.

It is also a more persuasive argument for atheism, for the absence of god - the universes properties are fine tuned to create a universe where life can evolve naturally without a god. Fine tuned to make god redundant.

 

[ether-ore]

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.

Kind of makes sense to me. I've often wondered why atheists spend so much time in 'religious' forums? One would think they wouldn't have any interest in dealing with people they despise.