Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[LuisDantas]

haha that's funny Hmmm...
It's one of those things I guess, that when one doesn't have a burning desire to debate anymore, is when he/she has nothing more to prove. (theist or atheist)

I have rarely been accused of not being willing to debate. But I do take religion seriously, and I think I have a measure of appreciation of the sacred. I just don't think it is a good idea to dress it as a deity of any kind.

 

[Deidre]

I have rarely been accused of not being willing to debate. But I do take religion seriously, and I think I have a measure of appreciation of the sacred. I just don't think it is a good idea to dress it as a deity of any kind.

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.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is rather wise to say.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

True, I think for some (like me and people who were indoctrinated from a young age)...one's beliefs are chosen for them. :/

One person's education is another person's indoctrination and the empirical cult has at least understood that once you own the education system,adults can 'debate' issues to their hearts content, the damage will be done through the classrooms of the world.

"Those who doubt climate change could soon be forced to change their minds – if they want to succeed in school, that is. To prepare kids for adulthood, the American school system is incorporating climate change into its science curriculum.

Middle and high school students enrolled in the public American school system will soon be obliged to study climate change as a scientific phenomenon. In about 40 US states, students will receive extensive lessons on global warming as a man-made problem."

Climate change now included in US curriculum — RT USA

Point taken or no ?

 

[Bunyip]

One person's education is another person's indoctrination and the empirical cult has at least understood that once you own the education system,adults can 'debate' issues to their hearts content, the damage will be done through the classrooms of the world.

"Those who doubt climate change could soon be forced to change their minds – if they want to succeed in school, that is. To prepare kids for adulthood, the American school system is incorporating climate change into its science curriculum.

Middle and high school students enrolled in the public American school system will soon be obliged to study climate change as a scientific phenomenon. In about 40 US states, students will receive extensive lessons on global warming as a man-made problem."

Climate change now included in US curriculum — RT USA

Point taken or no ?

What point? Of course they must study climate change. Human activity affects the climate, and that is worth studying.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

identified several problems with the "new atheism" of Dawkins et al

There is really only one problem: it's an intellectually sterile movement that is an insult to the atheist intellectual tradition. The rest are details as to why, but matter only if one is either interested in the history of philosophy and epistemology. For those who subscribe to "New Atheism", it's lack of any putative value and its sterility may be demonstrated quite easily by study of "old atheism" (maybe "classic atheism"?).

 

[Bunyip]

There is really only one problem: it's an intellectually sterile movement that is an insult to the atheist intellectual tradition. The rest are details as to why, but matter only if one is either interested in the history of philosophy and epistemology. For those who subscribe to "New Atheism", it's lack of any putative value and its sterility may be demonstrated quite easily by study of "old atheism" (maybe "classic atheism"?).

Except that it isn't a movement. It was just a magazine article, there is no 'New Atheist' movement. And to infer that Dawkins, Harris, Dennet and so on are intellectually sterile is laughable. You may really be a scientist, I doubt you have made a contribution as vast as that of Dawkins.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Except that it isn't a movement. It was just a magazine article

"The so-called “New Atheism” is a relatively well-defined, very recent, still unfolding cultural phenomenon with import for public understanding of both science and philosophy. Arguably, the opening salvo of the New Atheists was The End of Faith by Sam Harris, published in 2004, followed in rapid succession by a number of other titles penned by Harris himself, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Victor Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens"
Pigliucci, M. (2013). New Atheism and the scientistic turn in the atheism movement. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 37(1), 142-153.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

What point? Of course they must study climate change. Human activity affects the climate, and that is worth studying.

Hello sailor - the guy indoctrinated into the belief that there are more rotations than 24 hour days within the Earth's orbital circumference.

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar temperature variation.jpg

Tell me, the most immediate experience humans have of temperature are the massive daily fluctuations in temperature as the Earth turns towards and away from the Sun within each 24 hours yet you poor fools have forced yourselves to believe that 24 hour days fall out of step with rotations -

” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard

Give something the gloss of authority via schools and colleges and pretty soon you can't understand how you and your location responds to a single rotation as the temperature rises and falls. Now ,that's indoctrination !.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Everyone is entitled to basic respect, until they demonstrate otherwise.

But a person is not their beliefs, and it's beliefs which are being challenged. In every other sphere of human activity it's fine to vigorously challenge beliefs, so why should religion be an exception? Why are theists so sensitive to criticism of their beliefs? It suggests an underlying insecurity, a fragile sort of faith.

 

[LuisDantas]

"The so-called “New Atheism” is a relatively well-defined, very recent, still unfolding cultural phenomenon with import for public understanding of both science and philosophy. Arguably, the opening salvo of the New Atheists was The End of Faith by Sam Harris, published in 2004, followed in rapid succession by a number of other titles penned by Harris himself, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Victor Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens"
Pigliucci, M. (2013). New Atheism and the scientistic turn in the atheism movement. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 37(1), 142-153.

I don't know what you get from that, but that sure hints that there is no New Atheism as such. It just happened that a few openly atheist writers found market acceptance at roughly the same time - as is to be expected.

If there is something truly new there, it is the sociological situation that was becoming increasingly aware and accepting of diversity of thought. The spread of the use of the "New Atheism" label is just an attempt at seeing a "conspiracy" or coordinated attempt at creating a fad of sorts.

I figure many people wanted to believe so, because if there were a purposeful attempt at creating an Atheist movement, it could be discredited or discouraged.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hello sailor - the guy indoctrinated into the belief that there are more rotations than 24 hour days within the Earth's orbital circumference.

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar temperature variation.jpg

Tell me, the most immediate experience humans have of temperature are the massive daily fluctuations in temperature as the Earth turns towards and away from the Sun within each 24 hours yet you poor fools have forced yourselves to believe that 24 hour days fall out of step with rotations -

” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard

Give something the gloss of authority via schools and colleges and pretty soon you can't understand how you and your location responds to a single rotation as the temperature rises and falls. Now ,that's indoctrination !.

Wait, you are using a nit-picked, aberrant example as evidence that teaching about climate change is indoctrination?

Maybe you want to rethink your strategy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't know what you get from that, but that sure hints that there is no New Atheism as such.

A response concerning the origins of the new atheism. As for whether there is a "new atheism", one needs only check corpora to see how greatly this worldview influences many:

These are but a few of the many thousands of examples of English usage of "new atheism" or "new atheists" in common discourse. Balanced corpora reveal clearly how great the influence of this worldview is, and how greatly held.

 

[LuisDantas]

But a person is not their beliefs, and it's beliefs which are being challenged. In every other sphere of human activity it's fine to vigorously challenge beliefs, so why should religion be an exception? Why are theists so sensitive to criticism of their beliefs? It suggests an underlying insecurity, a fragile sort of faith.

Have you ever imagined how different and disorienting it would be to live in a society which found it necessary not to seriously question, say, economic policies? Or fashion trends? Methods for studying?

Heck, imagine how weird it would be to live in a world that did not accept questioning current medical knowledge.

The scientific method is well-accepted most everywhere, for the good reason that it is the only practical and reliable way of improving knowledge. Except when we deal with religious traditions. Those, many people seem to strongly feel, are just not to question in any serious way. Apparently the reason is a combination of attachment to the idea that some answers are unchanging and therefore reliable with the greed of those who see an opportunity to become influential and admired.

 

[LuisDantas]

A response concerning the origins of the new atheism. As for whether there is a "new atheism", one needs only check corpora to see how greatly this worldview influences many:

You are not attempting to address my objection. I did not ask whether the concept of New Atheism is raised with any frequency. It obviously is, or this thread would be rather shorter. I am asking whether there is anything to justify the perception that it is at all "new", and saying that there is nothing really.

These are but a few of the many thousands of examples of English usage of "new atheism" or "new atheists" in common discourse. Balanced corpora reveal clearly how great the influence of this worldview is, and how greatly held.

And that would address my question why?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am asking whether there is anything to justify the perception that it is at all "new", and saying that there is nothing really.

The study I cited noted that what is "new" is the reliance on the findings of scientific research (which can at best challenge particular theological or religious claims, such as YEC), and not just lacking in treatment with respect to philosophy, epistemology, theology, etc., but incapable of dealing with such topics. What is "new" is the attempt to rely on scientific findings and an ignorance of both atheistic arguments from "classic atheism" and those of religious apologists.

 

[LuisDantas]

So it is a niche created by marketing, is that what you are saying?

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Wait, you are using a nit-picked, aberrant example as evidence that teaching about climate change is indoctrination?

Maybe you want to rethink your strategy.

To not know why the temperatures go up and down daily is tantamount to denial of a round and rotating Earth so before these bozos dump their speculative doom laden nonsense on the world they had better start with the most basic experience of temperature fluctuations and the rotational cause behind it, once each 24 hours without fail -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar temperature variation.jpg

There is no strategy and it isn't rocket science - whatever 'debates' that seem to favor a balanced view are wiped out via indoctrination through the schools and colleges and that includes an assault against Christianity as much as terrestrial sciences.

I assure you that just as Saturday follows Friday , Sunday follows Saturday and so on without fail so each rotation follows the next but students are subject to an idiotic indoctrination by way of a stupid mistake made centuries ago that this most basic fact is wrong . If you can't account for why the temperatures go up and down daily in that graph as a response to a single rotation then your statement should be directed towards the other guy

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Only with the "new atheist", led by those who have in general done nothing but produce inferior works that are travesties compared to those of their forebears, have we found the rhetorical strategy largely bereft of logic or meaning that seeks to define atheism as a kind of default position, thereby side-stepping the need to produce the great intellectual works such as those by Nietzsche, Sartre, Freud, Marx, Feuerbach, etc.:
"Georgetown theologian John Haught (2008, xi) has commented that “the new atheism is so theologically unchallenging. Its engagement with theology lies at about the same level of reflection on faith that one can find in contemporary creationist and fundamentalist literature.” He states also that “Their understanding of religious faith remains consistently at the same unscholarly level as the unreflective, superstitious, and literalist religiosity of those they criticize” (2008, xiii). Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga (2007), in his critique of The God Delusion opined, “You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.” To summarize, critics have pointed out the lack of philosophical and theological sophistication of the New Atheists, who they accuse of holding to an ill-informed conception of what religious beliefs really are. Furthermore, they accuse the new atheists of a self-serving, predatory selectiveness in choosing their battle partners."
Falcioni, R. C. (2010). "Is God a Hypothesis? The New Atheism, Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, and Philosophical Confusion" in A. Amarasingam (Ed.) Religion and the New Atheism: A Critical Appraisal (Studies in Critical Social Sciences, Vol. 25). Brill.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So it is a niche created by marketing, is that what you are saying?

It began as such. Now it has come to be equated with atheism, and many atheists (whether they know of the term "new atheism" or not) rely on such arguments, rather than those arguments that were truly challenges to theism and religious belief systems.