Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[LuisDantas]

Hi, Shadow Wolf. For ease of reference, allow me to quote from the OP:

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.

Things like the Invisible Pink Unicorn and especially Pastafarianism make me agree with #1. And it does beg to be asked why care about god and religion so much when you don't believe in it? Why wear silly hats when you know it's nothing serious?

Why, obviously many of us care quite a lot about gods and religion. Particularly when we fell pressured into pretending to believe in the first or to follow some form of the second.

Caring about that pressure is quite legitimate and natural, whatever one might think or believe about the existence of deities or the validity of any or all religions. #1 is just nonsensical.


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.

I also agree with #2 because science if fundamentally a human creation, and thus it will always suffer and fall short because it is limited to a human perspective. And it is not logical to base your believes on things you know very well may be disproven tomorrow.

It would not be logical to assume them to be eternal and immutable. It is however quite logical to make use of the best available information at any given time. #2 is a caricature, hardly ever found among informed atheists or scientists.


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.

We claim to know the Big Bang created the universe, but we don't even know how big the universe is, what it looks like, or even if anything lies beyond.

Who did ever claim to know that the Big Bang happened? That is surely a misconception.

We are trying to figure the world outside of Plato's cave out when we are still chained the lower level.

Three is a very excellent point. Secular humanism is a fundamental principle of a liberal democracy, yet it is too often equated with atheism. This claim invalid, as many theists support a secular humanist state, sometimes even because they know it is in their best interests that the state be free of religion show that they may have the freedom of religion. Humanism is also a tenant of a liberal democracy, even if we're not yet very good at it, and it too is widely fundamental to many religions. You just don't hear about them because it isn't news, and some of them would rather have their rewards in Heaven.

#3 is just weird. It amounts to blaming the victim.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Dude, there are no 'New Atheists' it was just a magazine article. None of the men identified in that article by the way are obsessed with religion.

I admit to not reading the OP, but I'm guessing they were talking about this:

New Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why, obviously many of us care quite a lot about gods and religion. Particularly when we fell pressured into pretending to believe in the first or to follow some form of the second.

Caring about that pressure is quite legitimate and natural, whatever one might think or believe about the existence of deities or the validity of any or all religions. #1 is just nonsensical.

That is not at all what I was talking about. I was talking about atheist who "do religion."

It would not be logical to assume them to be eternal and immutable. It is however quite logical to make use of the best available information at any given time. #2 is a caricature, hardly ever found among informed atheists or scientists.

Lots of atheists, and even scientists, base their understanding of the universe based on what science tells them, even if what science as of now is very limited. Our deeper glances into the universe are still very much in their infancy. As of now, we know so very little that there is just no point in even trying to mathematically work out how other universes are effecting things like dark matter because what we can see is very limited, and we literally do not know even really know anything about what we have seen. We are chained in the cave still, and trying to turn our heads to look around. I have no doubt well be unchained one day, but we've had satellites in orbit and telescopes venturing past out solar system for less than a century.

#3 is just weird. It amounts to blaming the victim.

Who's blaming what victim? I have seen some of the New Atheist lump secular humanism together with atheism.

Who did ever claim to know that the Big Bang happened? That is surely a misconception.

The Big Bang is one of the leading ideas as to how the universe began. And, it may not be accurate at all.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Things like the Invisible Pink Unicorn and especially Pastafarianism make me agree with #1. And it does beg to be asked why care about god and religion so much when you don't believe in it? Why wear silly hats when you know it's nothing serious?

This one comes up a lot, although I don't get why. But since you're you, and you've always struck me as a pretty reasonable sort of person, I thought I might pick this out and offer my perspective...

Religion impacts the world. Massively. Whether you believe in God or not, religion is factual. Atheists tend to be less bothered by God (apart from when trying to explain/defend/argue a position with a theist) and more interested in religion. Put 3 atheists in a room, they won't argue about the nature of God. They may very well argue about the impact of a religious belief or group. Hence my belief that atheists should, collectively, be more unified and focused on secularism than belief.

Apart from that practical consideration, and on a more personal level, psychology has always interested me. I'm a psych major. Any sort of mass belief system, be it political or religious, is of interest to me.

 

[Deidre]

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.

For me, why I left Christianity...was I no longer believed that I could reconcile Genesis with science. That was a big problem for me. My interest in Islam poses the same problem. But, also...I read Charles Darwin's story of how he went from being a rather devout Christian to a non-believer, but it's rumored that he died an agnostic. He had a hard time letting go of his faith, he is someone I admire very much.

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

I have Christian friends, and when I left Christianity...the debates became more frequent, and two of those friends, abandoned our friendship. Not friends at all, really. I've always had more atheist friends than religious, all of my life. Interestingly, I've heard some nasty remarks about my looking into Islam. In stride with the OP here, their behavior is no different than my Christian friends who couldn't 'handle' me leaving the faith. I have had heated debates with theists online when I was an atheist, and looking back, I regret it because I don't want to be that kind of a person...who I'll convey a point at the expense of another's feelings. If that makes sense.

 

[Bunyip]

I admit to not reading the OP, but I'm guessing they were talking about this:

New Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, that raises the same points I did. As I said, it is an imaginary movement, an invention for the purposes of anti-atheist propoganda.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, that raises the same points I did. As I said, it is an imaginary movement, an invention for the purposes of anti-atheist propoganda.

I fully agree.

 

[Bunyip]

For me, why I left Christianity...was I no longer believed that I could reconcile Genesis with science. That was a big problem for me. My interest in Islam poses the same problem. But, also...I read Charles Darwin's story of how he went from being a rather devout Christian to a non-believer, but it's rumored that he died an agnostic.

Sure, most Christians and most atheists are agnostic.

He had a hard time letting go of his faith, he is someone I admire very much.

That's interesting, but I'm surprised you found Genesis to be the problem - conflicts with science come very low down the list of reasons why people lose faith. It is much more the stunning barbarity, brutality and cruelty of the God depicted that turns people off. Conflicts with science barely register as reasons for losing faith.

I have Christian friends, and when I left Christianity...the debates became more frequent, and two of those friends, abandoned our friendship. Not friends at all, really. I've always had more atheist friends than religious, all of my life. Interestingly, I've heard some nasty remarks about my looking into Islam. In stride with the OP here, their behavior is no different than my Christian friends who couldn't 'handle' me leaving the faith. I have had heated debates with theists online when I was an atheist, and looking back, I regret it because I don't want to be that kind of a person...who I'll convey a point at the expense of another's feelings. If that makes sense.

Well, no offence - but no. How can that be unsolicited? Nobody made any of the participants in those debates participate did they? Surely both parties chose to participate?

 

[Bunyip]

I fully agree.

The notion of some kind old gentleman like Dawkins being depicted as some sort of raving, hate filled zealot is evil propoganda of the worst kind.

 

[LuisDantas]

The irony of it all is that the reason why there is so much fear and malice towards such harmless, mild questioning is because there is such a bad need for renewal in so many fields of religions. It has become just too questionable, too vulnerable.

 

[Bunyip]

On a similar point, I studied Counter Terrorism focussing on religious violence for several years - whenever I hear someone attacking 'militant' atheism it makes me want to throw up.
Osama Bin Ladin was a militant, saying that Dawkins is a militant is an offensively stupid and deliberately deceptive misuse of the term. If Dawkins is a militant, my mum was a ham sandwich.

The common tactic of demonising, insulting, demeaning and belittling Dawkins rather than challenging the facts and arguments he presents is far and away the most damning indictment of religion I can imagine. Says it all.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can only guess that some people do have a reasonably strong emotional attachment to the idea that certain religious ideas are invulnerable, inquestionable, supremely trustworthy, and therefore only some kind of monster would ever consider questioning them.

Trouble is, such a situation is not really sustainable, and it may never have been advisable.

 

[Deidre]

Sure, most Christians and most atheists are agnostic. That's interesting, but I'm surprised you found Genesis to be the problem - conflicts with science come very low down the list of reasons why people lose faith. It is much more the stunning barbarity, brutality and cruelty of the God depicted that turns people off. Conflicts with science barely register as reasons for losing faith. Well, no offence - but no. How can that be unsolicited? Nobody made any of the participants in those debates participate did they? Surely both parties chose to participate?

I know former Christians/now atheists who have a variety of reasons as to how why they left religion. Don't presume to know everyone's reasons. And don't presume to know me.

Further, I'm just sharing my experiences. Not sure why you are trying to spar with me, but I'm not interested.

 

[Bunyip]

I know former Christians/now atheists who have a variety of reasons as to how why they left religion. Don't presume to know everyone's reasons. And don't presume to know me.

I presumed nothing Dierdre, I only referred to what you said and to published research. What assumption are you attributing to me?

Further, I'm just sharing my experiences. Not sure why you are trying to spar with me, but I'm not interested.

I'm not sparring with you, I have always been very polite and supportive in previous posts to you - why are you acting like I have attacked you? This is just a discussion. Why take offence on a debate forum just because I asked you a question politely?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This one comes up a lot, although I don't get why. But since you're you, and you've always struck me as a pretty reasonable sort of person, I thought I might pick this out and offer my perspective...

Again, these are not the ones I was refering to, and the blog even states that what you and Luis are referring to is understandable.
I am talking about those, who even though they declare themselves to have no believe in god, act like they have one. Some of them spend inordinate amounts of time discussing it, some of them are just as sure of their believes as theists, and some even go out of their way to put on a colander on their head for their drivers license picture. I am not, repeating, I AM NOT talking about atheists who debate religion because of where they live (such as an atheist in Texas, who, by the very nature of location, will probably spend a lot of time discuss/debating/defending his position), but, rather, those atheists who approach atheism like it is a religion.

 

[Mycroft]

I think that the gradual easing away of Humanity from Religion will be the single most important thing we can do to secure a better future.

 

[LuisDantas]

Again, these are not the ones I was refering to, and the blog even states that what you and Luis are referring to is understandable.
I am talking about those, who even though they declare themselves to have no believe in god, act like they have one. Some of them spend inordinate amounts of time discussing it, some of them are just as sure of their believes as theists, and some even go out of their way to put on a colander on their head for their drivers license picture. I am not, repeating, I AM NOT talking about atheists who debate religion because of where they live (such as an atheist in Texas, who, by the very nature of location, will probably spend a lot of time discuss/debating/defending his position), but, rather, those atheists who approach atheism like it is a religion.

You are not being at all reasonable, Shadow Wolf. I don't even know where to begin.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are not being at all reasonable, Shadow Wolf. I don't even know where to begin.

You are the one who is ignoring the fact that there are many atheists who get very religiously involved with atheism.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

For me, why I left Christianity...was I no longer believed that I could reconcile Genesis with science.

You kind of have to develop a taste for these things in putting the structure of Genesis in context of a more encompassing story and then let the human element appear, not how creation evolved but rather the human journey back to a condition beyond all the accidents of birth,country,wealth and so on.

The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: Metaphor as Myth and as Religion - Joseph Campbell - Google Books

The great authors of these works were poets and you can't but love their creative expressions, sadly few ever discover them and less so today with an aggressive form of empiricism out there. In short, you either get these things or you don't.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

I wonder if this reflects the frustration that theists have with the way science keeps making discoveries and shrinking the gaps for God?