Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[Sunstone]

From the little I have seen/read by them they simply don't understand correctly.

With the exception of Sam Harris, I don't think any of the Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Movement is concerned with understanding much about Eastern traditions, do you? On the other hand, would you agree they understand quite a bit about, say, fundamentalist Christianity, among other things.

 

[Onkara]

With the exception of Sam Harris, I don't think any of the Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Movement is concerned with understanding much about Eastern traditions, do you? On the other hand, would you agree they understand quite a bit about, say, fundamentalist Christianity, among other things.

I agree, from the little I know, they do not consider God to be different to the Abrahamic concept of God taken at face value. As you say they stop at "fundamentalist christiantiy etc.". This is the premise on which they build their argument and why their arguments are not sound, in my opinion.

I, personally, struggled to understand Abrahamic religions, I considered myself as an atheist for many years, until I began to better understand Eastern traditions e.g. Hindu/Sikh/Tao Scriptures etc. What I found interesting was that this opened a way to understand Abrahamic religions/scriptures and to see the same 'truth' in them also. This is why I say I personally don't think they fully understand what they are attempting to refute.

 

[Thief]

Oh please, I could put forth the same psychoanalysis stuff about creating the concept of an afterlife and gods and all that and flip the same issue back on you.

And this life is something other than a head game?

You actually thought so?

 

[Thief]

If atheism is merely denial of a negative afterlife with no real intellectual process behind it, wouldn't it make more sense to pick the outcome that's the most positive?

I mean, if you're just interested in picking a belief because it's comforting, why wouldn't someone pick the alternative of a pleasant afterlife in some sort of Heaven rather than no afterlife at all?

Qualifications.

That you walk in heaven...with angels and saints...

Won't they look you over?

Will they not do unto you as you did unto others?

Going to heaven is a walk in the park?
Yeah...that would be nice.

 

[Thief]

I agree.
That is most likely the most common reason for people to embrace religion.


It is rather interesting how you make the claim of denial as if religion has offered something other than speculation and bold unsubstantiated claims about this alleged "afterlife'.


Really?
You seriously think that believing there is nothing after this life is easier than the pie in sky offerings of religion?
Perhaps you should really think this thing through a bit further...


No need for me to prove there is no god.
My world view does not require a god, real or imaginary.

Then you are your own God....temporary as that may be.

Good luck with that.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree, from the little I know, they do not consider God to be different to the Abrahamic concept of God taken at face value. As you say they stop at "fundamentalist christiantiy etc.". This is the premise on which they build their argument and why their arguments are not sound, in my opinion.

I, personally, struggled to understand Abrahamic religions, I considered myself as an atheist for many years, until I began to better understand Eastern traditions e.g. Hindu/Sikh/Tao Scriptures etc. What I found interesting was that this opened a way to understand Abrahamic religions/scriptures and to see the same 'truth' in them also. This is why I say I personally don't think they fully understand what they are attempting to refute.

I agree with you to at least some extent, and would probably find myself in even greater agreement if we got into some of the details.

In judging any work fairly, I think we need to take into account it's purpose. Otherwise, we get into such absurdities as condemning the Bhagavad Gita for not revealing to us the perfect plumbing and sanitation code.

Keeping that in mind, Richard Dawkins has more or less stated he wrote The God Delusion primarily to encourage people who were already thinking about the most popular Abrahamic concepts of deity (e.g. there exists apart from nature a supreme supernatural creator who is intimately concerned with such things as whether you masturbate) -- to encourage such people to reject those popular views in favor of atheism.

Sam Harris has more or less stated he wrote The End of Faith as an attack on the sort of faith-based thinking that he believes led to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

So there you have the purposes of two of the better read books in the New Atheist Movement. I think it's important to recognize that Dawkins and Harris are not trying to discuss each and every religion on the planet, nor, really, religion in general, nor even all the specifics of even just one of the world's religions.

 

[McBell]

Then you are your own God..

Stop projecting your need for a god onto me.
I have already flat out stated that my world view does not require any god.
Your inability to understand the nuances of that fact is an issue only you can deal with.

..temporary as that may be.

It is not temporary.
It is completely nonexistent.
I understand that you are unable to understand such a worldview.
But your inability to understand is not any fault of mine.

Good luck with that.

I need no luck from you or your stawman.
Thanks anyway.

 

[Onkara]

In judging any work fairly, I think we need to take into account it's purpose. Otherwise, we get into such absurdities as condemning the Bhagavad Gita for not revealing to us the perfect plumbing and sanitation code.

Keeping that in mind, Richard Dawkins has more or less stated he wrote The God Delusion primarily to encourage people who were already thinking about the most popular Abrahamic concepts of deity (e.g. there exists apart from nature a supreme supernatural creator who is intimately concerned with such things as whether you masturbate) -- to encourage such people to reject those popular views in favor of atheism.

Sam Harris has more or less stated he wrote The End of Faith as an attack on the sort of faith-based thinking that he believes led to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

So there you have the purposes of two of the better read books in the New Atheist Movement. I think it's important to recognize that Dawkins and Harris are not trying to discuss each and every religion on the planet, or really, religion in general.

I would first argue that both Dawkins and Harris present far more sound arguments for their views than many of us are willing to credit them with. But apart from the soundness of their views, when we go about judging the value of their works, I think we should avoid the absurdity of, in effect, criticizing the plumbing code of the Bhagavad Gita, by judging their works in light of their work's purpose.

Thanks, Sunstone
I agree. The point which fuels so much unnecessary debate is when others promote their augments either without clearly establishing the foundation/premises or loose sight of their premises in their argument. In fairness, I am limited to addressing about 30 minutes of Dawkins arguing on TV, so I make my statements based only on that.

Even if I exclude the Bhagavad Gita etc, I am not confident that they have understood the Quran. At what point can we be certain of the strength of premises themselves?

It seems they have a limited definition on which they make their premises (as you point out with Dawkin's deity against masturbation) on which they refute a whole religion. Or it is politically motivated (9th September attacks of Harris). Both of which seems to lack thorough understanding (or complete investigation) of that which they set out to refute.

 

[Wombat]

I agree there are many atheists out there who are not doing this. But it seems to me that the new atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens, are really going out of their way to negate the value, contribution, of religion -- positing a world without religion, in an almost militant and aggressive style.

They wear Scarlet A's on their jackets, and blame most of society's ills on religion.

My question is this: why do some atheists (mostly new atheists), feel a need to do this.

I believe it is in part a consequence of the need for certainty...and the new Atheists can be as 'certain' of the non existence of God as the theist/fundamentalist is certain of existence.

It was from/in response to these ‘apparent’ certainties that the term 'Agnostic' was born-

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869.

Agnostic views are as old as philosophical skepticism, but the terms agnostic and agnosticism were created by Huxley to sum up his thoughts on contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned" (Hamilton) and the "unknowable" (Herbert Spencer). It is important, therefore, to discover Huxley's own views on the matter. Though Huxley began to use the term "agnostic" in 1869, his opinions had taken shape some time before that date. In a letter of September 23, 1860, to Charles Kingsley, Huxley discussed his views extensively:
(snip)

I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.
​

Of the origin of the name agnostic to describe this attitude, Huxley gave the following account:[22]

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.
................................................

In this "agnostic" uncerainty I stand with Huxley opposed to the "gnostic" certainty of both new fundamentalist atheist and old fundamentalist theist.

​

 

[dj808]

I agree there are many atheists out there who are not doing this. But it seems to me that the new atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens, are really going out of their way to negate the value, contribution, of religion -- positing a world without religion, in an almost militant and aggressive style.

They wear Scarlet A's on their jackets, and blame most of society's ills on religion.

My question is this: why do some atheists (mostly new atheists), feel a need to do this. Is it a general want to help mankind awaken from their foolish belief in deities? Do they really think that people will not be faithful after they read their works?

Also it seems to me from reading their books - which are all titled like God is not Great and the God Delusion, etc. -- that their attacks are not necesarrily on God, but on organized religion -- and a specific Judeo-Christian "white bearded man in the sky" version of God; they focus on the ill deeds of man and rather ignore the foundations of Christianity's messages. Doesn't this kind of look biased, because God is such a vague term -- that the titles of their books be more centered on organized religion and the wrongs done in the names of faith, rather than faith itself?

Thoughts?

Brian Davies says that Thomas Aquinas never thought of God as an entity seriously comparable to what we find in the Universe: "He took God to be the cause of everything real and imaginable to us, the cause of all natural kinds and their members, the reason why there is something rather than nothing. Aquinas, of course, realized that when we talk of God we are forced to make use of words we have come up with to name and describe what we find in the world in which we live.

And since he took people to be higher forms of being than anything else around us, he naturally ascribed to God what we most value in ourselves — such as intelligence. But Aquinas was equally keen to emphasize that God is not a creature, not a member of the world, not a being among beings, not, in this sense, an existing thing. God, he says, 'is to be thought of as existing outside the realm of existents, as a cause from which pours forth everything that exists in all its variant forms'. For Aquinas, there is a serious sense in which it is true to assert that God does not exist. He would readily have agreed with Kierkegaard’s statement: 'God does not exist, he is eternal.'"

Davies ends with this: "The first of the Ten Commandments tells us to have no gods. It effectively tells us to be atheists, to stop being interested in extremely powerful creatures and to focus instead on the unfathomable mystery behind and within the world that we can, to some extent, fathom. God the maker of all things cannot be a part of what He brings forth. He belongs to no category. He is not a god. There are no gods."


dj

 

[Sunstone]

It seems they have a limited definition (as you point out with Dawkin's deity against masturbation) on which they refute a whole religion.

You raise what I believe to be a valid point. For instance: It's pretty clear that Dawkins mainly directs his criticisms at the most popular philosophical arguments for the existence of deity (e.g. the Watchmaker Argument), the most popular notions of deity (e.g. God is a being who takes political sides in wars), and to what might be thought of as the most popular or commonplace abuses and immoralities (e.g. the Inquisition). Thus he overlooks much that can be considered part of the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim traditions -- let alone whole Eastern traditions. And I agree this becomes a problem when he calls for the rejection of it all -- all of religion on the grounds that he has devastatingly refuted and exposed some of religion.

On the other hand, we cannot logically throw out Dawkins' criticisms just because he has called for the abolition of all religion. We can only throw out those of his criticisms which are poorly supported or unsupported.

Or it is politically motivated (9th September attacks of Harris). Both of which seems to lack thorough understanding of that which they set out to refute.

To be sure, I think someone could argue that Harris is on a bit firmer grounds than Dawkins to the extent that Harris seems to be primarily concerned with destroying the legitimacy of faith based thinking, rather than concerned with destroying the legitimacy of all religion. Again, his motive for doing so might have originated in, as you say, politics, but his method of going about it is anything but political. His arguments are based on rational inquiry. Last, Harris accepts the legitimacy of some religious ideas, practices, and realities (e.g. satori). Richard Dawkins gets the lions share of attention from the critics of the New Atheists these days, but for my money, the New Atheist most likely to be read a hundred years from now is Sam Harris.

 

[Onkara]

You raise what I believe to be a valid point. For instance: It's pretty clear that Dawkins mainly directs his criticisms at the most popular philosophical arguments for the existence of deity (e.g. the Watchmaker Argument), the most popular notions of deity (e.g. God is a being who takes political sides in wars), and to what might be thought of as the most popular or commonplace abuses and immoralities (e.g. the Inquisition). Thus he overlooks much that can be considered part of the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim traditions -- let alone whole Eastern traditions. And I agree this becomes a problem when he calls for the rejection of it all -- all of religion on the grounds that he has devastatingly refuted and exposed some of religion.

On the other hand, we cannot logically throw out Dawkins' criticisms just because he has called for the abolition of all religion. We can only throw out those of his criticisms which are poorly supported or unsupported.



To be sure, I think someone could argue that Harris is on a bit firmer grounds than Dawkins to the extent that Harris seems to be primarily concerned with destroying the legitimacy of faith based thinking, rather than concerned with destroying the legitimacy of all religion. Again, his motive for doing so might have originated in, as you say, politics, but his method of going about it is anything but political. His arguments are based on rational inquiry. Last, Harris accepts the legitimacy of some religious ideas, practices, and realities (e.g. satori). Richard Dawkins gets the lions share of attention from the critics of the New Atheists these days, but for my money, the New Atheist most likely to be read a hundred years from now is Sam Harris.

Hi Sunstone
Can we be sure that any of Dawkins' points are not poorly supported? I think I might have to read a book or call upon a neutral expert to continue further. The 30 minutes I saw where Dawkins argued that Catholic faith in miracles at a certain place was significant that it was wrong for pilgrims to go there themselves, I found to be lacking in logic and investigation. The problem is if we are not satisfied with his logic in any example, can we be satisfied with his logic at all?

Harris, sounds more reasonable. I do not support faith as a requirement, but rather a tool. Again, I do not know him well enough, so feel free to take an example/quote if you think it would help further investigation by us here (not suggesting to give you the burden of that, but just in case their work is something you are familiar enough with to be able to quote easily).

 

[McBell]

The problem is if we are not satisfied with his logic in any example, can we be satisfied with his logic at all?

This sounds parallel to the argument:

Since the rabbit does not chew its cud, the whole Bible must be false.
​

 

[Onkara]

This sounds parallel to the argument:

Since the rabbit does not chew its cud, the whole Bible must be false.
​

Isn't that the reason to find fault in scripture? i.e. As there is a contradiction or something which science has demonstrated to be wrong, then the scripture is wrong?

If not, then why not take the good bits from the scripture? I assume someone cannot because of the word "god" itself is used?

This is the part which I understand they set out to refute e.g. "God as castigator etc".

 

[McBell]

Isn't that the reason to find fault in scripture? i.e. As there is a contradiction or something which science has demonstrated to be wrong, then the scripture is wrong?

So finding even one thing wrong in scripture, it all has to be wrong?

If not, then why not take the good bits from the scripture?

People do just that everyday.
They take what they want and ignore what they dislike, disagree with, do not understand, etc.

I assume someone cannot because of the word "god" itself is used?

Seems to me that the word 'god' has not slowed people down one bit from doing it.

This is the part which I understand they set out to refute e.g. "God as castigator etc".

It is not as if they had to look very far or hard to find concepts of god that fit that bill...

 

[Onkara]

So finding even one thing wrong in scripture, it all has to be wrong?


People do just that everyday.
They take what they want and ignore what they dislike, disagree with, do not understand, etc.


Seems to me that the word 'god' has not slowed people down one bit from doing it.


It is not as if they had to look very far or hard to find concepts of god that fit that bill...

It seems to me that finding one fault has lead to rejection of the whole scripture, yes. Personally I do not have a problem with it, my point here is to investigate that any faulty logic results in rejection of the work at hand, regardless of what that work is in favour of.

 

[McBell]

It seems to me that finding one fault has lead to rejection of the whole scripture, yes. Personally I do not have a problem with it, my point here is to investigate that any faulty logic results in rejection of the work at hand, regardless of what that work is in favour of.

My point is that one error does not automatically mean that the whole thing is wrong.
In fact, I will even go so far as to flat out state that to discard the whole thing over one little error is nothing more than an excuse to reject what you (meaning whomever does this, not you personally) dislike.

 

[Sunstone]

Hi Sunstone
Can we be sure that any of Dawkins' points are not poorly supported? I think I might have to read a book or call upon a neutral expert to continue further. The 30 minutes I saw where Dawkins argued that Catholic faith in miracles at a certain place was significant that it was wrong for pilgrims to go there themselves, I found to be lacking in logic and investigation. The problem is if we are not satisfied with his logic in any example, can we be satisfied with his logic at all?

I think a good place to start with Dawkins is his criticism of the Watchmaker Argument for the existence of deity. The Watchmaker Argument is more formally called the Argument from Design, and Dawkins shows how science -- especially evolution -- adequately accounts for the appearance of design in nature. Hence, there is no need to posit the existence of a deity in order to explain the appearance of design in nature.

Harris, sounds more reasonable. I do not support faith as a requirement, but rather a tool. Again, I do not know him well enough, so feel free to take an example/quote if you think it would help further investigation by us here (not suggesting to give you the burden of that, but just in case their work is something you are familiar enough with to be able to quote easily).

There is a sense in which it seems possible that folks a hundred years from now will think of Harris as having helped merge religion and science. Harris has called for two new sciences (or one new science, depending on how you define it): A science of mysticism and a science of human well being. The first would deal with the study of such things as which practices, if any, are most effective in leading to satori, while the second would deal with the study of human values.

Whether one thinks Harris is a visionary or a madman for wanting to put both enlightenment and human values on a scientific footing, the fact is that he -- and others -- are already working very hard to do that. Time will tell.

 

[Onkara]

My point is that one error does not automatically mean that the whole thing is wrong.
In fact, I will even go so far as to flat out state that to discard the whole thing over one little error is nothing more than an excuse to reject what you (meaning whomever does this, not you personally) dislike.

I agree with you My example is of how some people might approach scripture and reject it. I don't want us to go around in circles, so point out that above I suggested the need for further reading or a neutral expert, as based on what I have seen I am not convinced by Dawkin's argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Qualifications.

That you walk in heaven...with angels and saints...

Won't they look you over?

Will they not do unto you as you did unto others?

Going to heaven is a walk in the park?
Yeah...that would be nice.

I think you're taking as given your own specific ideas about Heaven that wouldn't normally be shared by other people.

Anyhow, even if (as implausible as it sounds) all atheists really were just worried about feeling somewhat self-conscious in Heaven, if they're really out to just pick a positive outcome, why wouldn't they go for a Heaven without judgemental angels and saints instead of no Heaven at all?