The Demonization of New Atheism and the Relative Desensitization to Religious Extremism

[icehorse]

Only fair, as you are not of the type of atheist that this thread is about. Even though you do seem to be modestly trying to defend them.

As a proud anti-theist, I might be one of those atheists you're describing, and I feel you're cooking up strawmans big-time. IMO, there are too many bad ideas in religion to make it worth while, because the few good ideas religion claims can be supported easily without all the associated dogma. Other than that, I guess I'm a pretty standard secular humanist.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no such thing as "new" atheism. But it is very true that atheistic voices suffer from wildly unbalanced, often hypocritical criticism.

Probably because for far too many people the cultural directives for protecting theistic institutions is too far ingrained for rationality to be possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

As a proud anti-theist, I might be one of those atheists you're describing, and I feel you're cooking up strawmans big-time. IMO, there are too many bad ideas in religion to make it worth while, because the few good ideas religion claims can be supported easily without all the associated dogma. Other than that, I guess I'm a pretty standard secular humanist.

Still, you don't exude the kind of vitriolic animosity
which I see in the more annoying atheists.

 

[icehorse]

Still, you don't exude the kind of vitriolic animosity
which I see in the more annoying atheists.

Dang, I'll have to step up my game

 

[PureX]

As a proud anti-theist, I might be one of those atheists you're describing, and I feel you're cooking up strawmans big-time. IMO, there are too many bad ideas in religion to make it worth while, because the few good ideas religion claims can be supported easily without all the associated dogma. Other than that, I guess I'm a pretty standard secular humanist.

First of all, theology is a branch of philosophy based on the proposition that God/gods exist. Religions are collections of traditions, literature, rules and practices intended to enable an adherent to live life according to a specific theological conceptualization. So being an anti-religionist is not necessarily the same as being an atheist. There are many atheists that are not anti-religion. As there are many anti-religionists that are agnostic rather than atheist. Or are only very weakly leaning atheists. Also, "religion" is a big category of human endeavor involving a great many DIFFERENT ideals, traditions, rules, practices, and mythologies. Many of them have some things in common, and some things that are distinctly contradictory, simultaneously. So being "anti-religious" is, itself, a bit of a vague and impractical proposition.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

First of all, theology is a branch of philosophy based on the proposition that God/gods exist. Religions are collections of traditions, literature, rules and practices intended to enable an adherent to live life according to a specific theological conceptualization. So being an anti-religionist is not necessarily the same as being an atheist. There are many atheists that are not anti-religion. As there are many anti-religionists that are agnostic rather than atheist. Or are only very weakly leaning atheists. Also, "religion" is a big category of human endeavor involving a great many DIFFERENT ideals, traditions, rules, practices, and mythologies. Many of them have some things in common, and some things that are distinctly contradictory, simultaneously. So being "anti-religious" is, itself, a bit of a vague and impractical proposition.

I'm sorry, but you're just talking out your backside if you believe that many atheists are not anti religion. There are certainly a few, but I wouldn't characterize them as many.

 

[icehorse]

Also, "religion" is a big category of human endeavor involving a great many DIFFERENT ideals, traditions, rules, practices, and mythologies. Many of them have some things in common, and some things that are distinctly contradictory, simultaneously. So being "anti-religious" is, itself, a bit of a vague and impractical proposition.

I think the idea that religion is "un-pin-down-able" is a dodge. Of course we all know that it's varied, but if we're honest we also know that there is a core set of ideas that spans most of the world's popular religions. For example, while not all religions rely heavily on dogma, many do.

I think it's quite reasonable to say that religion tends to be dogmatic, and that dogmatic "thinking" has a long history of being problematic.

 

[Augustus]

Hmmm. I'd say that psychology, cognitive science, and philosophy (to name a few), represent progress towards understanding human nature more than religion does.

The good thing about sources of knowledge is that they are complementary.

Plenty of wisdom about the human condition in religions and their mythology as they are distillations of centuries of human experience. It would be foolish to ignore this simply because religions are 'made up'. Especially the warnings against hubris.

Anyway, advancements in understanding human nature are not advancements in human nature.

 

[Augustus]

There is no such thing as "new" atheism.

There is such a things as New Atheism though, regardless of whether or not you approve of the label.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Theists have just as good reasons to believe in their various ideas of God as you do not to. They really do.

Perhaps you think that if a thought is comforting, that belief in it is justified on those grounds, but those are not my standards for belief.

You seem to want equate belief and unbelief, theism and atheism, and faith based thought and reason and evidence based thought. You see them as two sides of the same coin - equals.

I don't.

But just as those reasons act as validation and "proof" for them, yours act as validation and "proof" for you. And so the mind becomes closed to the alternatives, respectively.

Closed-mindedness is characteristic of faith based belief. If one chooses to believe something because he wants it to be true, but it is false and evidence exists that it is false, the faith based believer must construct a defense against that evidence, usually in the form of a faith based confirmation bias. Look at these statements from prominent Christians, each telling you that his mind is completely closed to evidence that contradicts his faith based position:

• The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian." Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

• "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

Open-mindedness is the willingness to consider evidence impartially and the willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument or evidence. Show me a god, and I'm a theist that day. Thus, faith based thinking and critical thinking are very different regarding open- and closed-mindedness.

Doubt is no more or less rational than hope is. And neither of them is based on knowledge. They both have to be engaged in by an act of faith.

Doubt does not require faith. Faith, however, requires expunging doubt.

neither theism nor atheism is the result of knowing. Both are the result of choosing to trust in an ideal that cannot be proven (the action of faith).

There is no faith in atheism.

Imagine somebody incapable of faith - somebody absolutely incapable of believing without sufficient evidence because the neural circuitry responsible for that ability is absent. That person is an atheist.

Neither theism nor atheism are a "belief in" anything. They are terms that define the acceptance or rejection of a philosophical proposition (the existence of God/gods).

Accepting the existence of a god or gods sure sounds like a belief to me.

That skepticism is no more or less rational a response to our lack of knowledge than choosing to trust is.

Skepticism, or more correctly, the unwillingness to accept claims on faith or authority, and choosing to believe nothing more than the quantity and quality of available evidence justifies is rational. Choosing to believe without that is not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Our brains are too busy filling that silence with blathering chatter that we imagine is actually important.

And so for all the "humanism" these atheists claim they believe in, they tend to disregard, dismiss and disparage the very things that define us as human, and that make being human such an amazing and unique experience. And I think this causes a lot of dissonance, and frustration and resentment for those who see themselves as "hard core" atheists. They are at war with their own subjective nature.

Self-delusion is endemic to the human condition. How could it be otherwise for an intellectual entity that cannot experience reality directly or fully? And so to presume that we can or do rise above this impediment is one of the more common manifestations of that self-delusion. One that most atheists wallow in, ad nauseum.

Plenty of wisdom about the human condition in religions and their mythology as they are distillations of centuries of human experience. It would be foolish to ignore this simply because religions are 'made up'. Especially the warnings against hubris.

It's wonderful that you are all so interested in advising others how to think, but frankly, I can't identify with any of this.

My mind is constantly chattering and I love it. Inside my head is an interesting place for me to be. This morning, I couldn't remember if I had shampooed my hair while showering because of that chattering. I was distracted by my thoughts.

I'm a humanist with a deep respect for humanity acquired without ideas about gods or souls.

If this is self-delusion, give me more. It's been a wonderful dream.

And I don't need religion for wisdom, which I define as knowing what to pursue to be happy. Since I am happy now without religious input, I must disagree that it is foolishness to reject religious input. Doing so has worked quite well.

What advice do any of you have for a person who is content with life? Are you all content with your lives? If not, shouldn't the advice be going in the opposite direction?

 

[PureX]

I think the idea that religion is "un-pin-down-able" is a dodge. Of course we all know that it's varied, but if we're honest we also know that there is a core set of ideas that spans most of the world's popular religions. For example, while not all religions rely heavily on dogma, many do.

So, if we ignore all the ways that religions are different from each other, then we will see that they are really all the same. That seems to be what you're saying, here.

So, if you ignore all the ways in which I was wrong about this, you will see that I was quite right all along ...

I think it's quite reasonable to say that religion tends to be dogmatic, and that dogmatic "thinking" has a long history of being problematic.

I think it would be far more accurate to say that some PEOPLE are dogmatic about religion, and about politics, culture, and lots of other things, too. And that if we ignore all the people that are not dogmatic, we will tend to perceive that most people are.

 

[Augustus]

And I don't need religion for wisdom, which I define as knowing what to pursue to be happy. Since I am happy now without religious input, I must disagree that it is foolishness to reject religious input. Doing so has worked quite well.

You misinterpreted what I was saying. The point wasn't that everyone must scour religions for the wisdom contained within, there's only so many hours in a day after all, but that they contain wisdom that may be discovered.

Basically, it's foolish to believe that one couldn't possibly find any wisdom in religions.

 

[PureX]

Doubt does not require faith. Faith, however, requires expunging doubt.

Statements like this show me that you have no idea what you're talking about, and that you have no intention of learning anything.

To reject a possibility based on ignorance is no less an act of faith than to accept that possibility based on desire.

And faith does not "expunge doubt", it gives us a course forward, through our doubts. Faith without doubt is blind pretense.

 

[icehorse]

So, if we ignore all the ways that religions are different from each other, then we will see that they are really all the same. That seems to be what you're saying, here.

It's hard for me to believe that's really what you think I'm saying, but I'll rephrase: If we were to construct a Venn diagram of the major religions, we would find some aspects that are common to most of them. This does not deny their differences.

I think it would be far more accurate to say that some PEOPLE are dogmatic about religion, and about politics, culture, and lots of other things, too. And that if we ignore all the people that are not dogmatic, we will tend to perceive that most people are.

While I agree that some religious folks are more dogmatic than others, I still contend that most religions - by there very nature - demand dogmatic thinking of their followers.

 

[Windwalker]

What advice do any of you have for a person who is content with life? Are you all content with your lives? If not, shouldn't the advice be going in the opposite direction?

If that person was content with their lives, nothing others said would make them terribly upset.

 

[outlawState]

Ultimately, I think the vocal criticism of religion that New Atheism is known for is something that many communities and societies need more of, and my criticism of New Atheism for the issues it has doesn't change my mind on this at all even though I find them disappointing and akin to a noticeable smudge on a beautiful painting.

For vocal criticism, read "hatred." Everyone can be criticized, and especially the politicized churches, and sects, which are inherently susceptible to critique for hypocrisy. Yet atheists go much further to hate all religion, and even the truth, itself. That is more than a "smudge" on their character. Atheists miss the golden gems and throw them out in the trash. It is supreme recklessness.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is such a things as New Atheism though, regardless of whether or not you approve of the label.

That is a fiction, and a misleading one at that. "New Atheism" is a substanceless label that implies circunstances that just are not there to be found.

 

[LuisDantas]

For vocal criticism, read "hatred." Everyone can be criticized, and especially the politicized churches, and sects, which are inherently susceptible to critique for hypocrisy. Yet atheists go much further to hate all religion, and even the truth, itself. That is more than a "smudge" on their character. Atheists miss the golden gems and throw them out in the trash. It is supreme recklessness.

There is no truth whatsoever in that, among other reasons because you are confusing theism with "all religions" and criticism with hatred.

 

[Kirran]

Theists believe in god, yes, but theism is much more than the philosophical proposition that god exists.

Theists believe in an intervening, revelatory god that does things like choosing a chosen people, impregnating teenage Jewish virgins, etc...

Theism is precisely as I described it above.

It believes in a god that is the creator AND ruler of the universe, ruling over the creations in the universe as a king rules its kingdom establishing things like the 10 commandments, etc...

To be a theist, you have to believe god is a personal god that listens to prayers, intervenes on behalf of his favored people, etc...

This seems a very narrow view of theism. While I respect that you may well have primarily experienced an environment in which this was all you were exposed to in this regard, I think it would be remiss if I didn't point out (as nobody else seems to have done so far) that even within Abrahamic religions alone, this view far from encompasses the whole. A great many people who could fairly be described as theists would disagree with this 'king ruling their kingdom' narrative of God.