I found this interesting.
It is interesting. It's probably the best summary of what I think of as evangelical atheism that I've seen, (There's really nothing 'new' about it.)
"The ‘new atheism’ is the name given to contemporary atheism as spear-headed by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.
Dennett is a very good philosopher. I'm unfamiliar with what he says about religion or why. Harris has more subtle views about religion (he'd probably call it "spirituality") than he gets credit for. (Probably his own fault.) I'm unfamiliar with Hitchens except as a polemicist. And Dawkins is kind of a tragic figure, a once prominent evolutionary biologist who has become a rather sophomoric opponent of "religion", which in his mind seems to equate to fundamentalist Christian protestantism. It's tragic to see a once brilliant and productive scientist self-destruct like that.
The new atheism has twelve characteristics that define its nature:
(1) A commitment to explicit, strong or dogmatic atheism as the only rational
choice for modern, independent, free thinking individuals. The new atheists reject
agnosticism as too weak a response to the dangers of religion.
I think that agnosticism is by far the most intellectually defensible position to hold on these matters.
(2) A categorical rejection of any and all super-sensible beings and realities and a
corresponding commitment to ontological (metaphysical) materialism in explaining all phenomena;
That's just it, there's no way that they could possibly know that. Many atheists are aware of that problem and it seems to be part of what has motivated the recent redefinition of 'atheism' from belief in the non-existence of God to lack of belief in the existence of God. Which unfortunately threatens to make atheism synomymous with agnosticism.
(3) A militant agenda and tone which opposes not just of religion itself but even the tolerance of any religious beliefs in others; this agenda and tone is driven by the belief that religion per se is pathological in nature;
Which is a false premise in my opinion. Ignoring the good that religion does in people's lives turns it into a caricature. It's easy to point to historical evils attributable to "religion". But almost all of those are attributable even more to
politics. But have atheists rejected politics as pathological in nature and in toto? It's often hard to find people more political than atheists.
These sort of atheists remind me of fundamentalist evangelical theists with a bloody hole where their own faith was ripped out of their chests. But the same old missionary impulse remains, the desire to convert the planet and an intolerance for those who believe differently than they do.
(4) A strident, aggressive, provocative and insulting way of expressing themselves and
indulgence in all kinds of polemical and rhetorical shenanigans;
Yes. That's why I don't particularly like this kind of atheist (just as I dislike their religious opposite numbers). I'm much more comfortable as an agnostic among the more philosophically astute kind of religious people. The open-minded seeker types.
(5) Commitment to the ability of science to answer all human questions by means of the scientific method with its criteria of measurability, repeatability, predictability,
falsifiability; quantifiability;
Yes, there's a tendency to replace their lost religious faith with faith in scientism.
(6) A belief that faith is inherently an enemy of reason and science and no reconciliation
between them is possible. Religion is inherently irrational. They are naturally in a
perpetual conflict that must end with the victory of one or the other. Faith is defined
as “belief without evidence.” They adhere to the conflict model of the relationship
between religion/faith and reason;
I see faith and reason as complementary. My definition of faith might be something like 'Trust and confidence in beliefs and ideas that aren't conclusively justified'. The thing is that
every belief lacks conclusive justification when we inquire deeply enough. Scientific induction, the principles of logical inference, even the existence of the physical world are matters of faith too. We can't escape from the necessity of faith. That doesn't mean that some things aren't more plausible than others, but that's another discussion.
(7) A belief that religion is part of our past but not of our future, i.e. part of our evolutionary heritage that we must learn to overcome;
I think that it's foolish to conceive of history as a one-dimensional line from the past (bad) to a single preordained future (good), with our only choice how quickly we move leftwards along that line. That seems to me to be another atheist vestige of Christianity, this time its eschatology of the coming Kingdom.
I perceive of time more like a tree, with any number of possible futures, some paradisical, others hellish (and most in between). The actions we take now will determine what branch we take.
(8) An insistence of reading scriptures literally (in order to condemn religion) and a
consistent rejection of centuries of non-literal theological interpretations of the
relevant scriptures;
Yes. It seems to be to be another expression of the fundamentalism at the heart of the 'new atheism'. There's no end of fascinating subtleties in religious thought from all traditions that these fundamentalist atheists typically seem largely unaware of. They have decided that religion is bullsh*t, there's no need for them to study bullsh*t, so they are almost proud of their ignorance.
(9) An insistence that humankind has an innate and reliable moral sense or intuition that does not require the guidance of religion; morality is not inherently connected to or based on religion and our morals have less to do with religion than we tend to think.
As an agnostic, I'm inclined to think that humans do come from the factory so to speak with social instincts already installed. But countless inconsistent moral codes are consistent with those instincts, all "socially constructed". And I don't think that there is any objective fact of the matter that would allow us to choose between them.
(10) Presentism: judging past ages by the standards of today, which is, in effect, a failure to recognise progressive revelation. (also the logical error of anachronism);
Yes, I'm totally unwilling to dismiss the struggles and victories of my parents, their parents, and all that came before me. We stand today on the shoulders of giants. And none of them was perfect. They just did their best (most of the time) in the exceedingly imperfect circumstances in which they found themselves, and maybe left the world a little better place. We aren't perfect either and our children are likely to reject us too.
It's just foolish to imagine ourselves as somehow standing outside the flow of history, the only people who have ever lived who have a clear grasp on right and wrong, truth and falsity.
(11) Their belief that religious faith is either a mental illness or a criminal offense
comparable to child-molesting or an anti-social act that ‘dumbs down’ society as a
whole;
(12) Their rejection of the freedom to be religious; because religion is so damaging
religion is not a legitimate choice in society."
And these are indications of the fundamental authoritarianism and totalitarianism that lies at the heart of their worldview. To be fair, some of their religious opposite numbers suffer from the same defects, but that's no excuse for them turning themselves into the same thing in reverse.
This may become mankind's greatest challenge, is it the height of materialism, the downfall of the human race as described in prophecy?
How do you see it?
I think that last is over-stating it. The 'new atheists' are no more a threat than the religious fundamentalists they resemble so much and battle so vigorously. I don't foresee either side converting all of humanity. The cat of free-thought is already out of the bag.
Personally I can leave them to their thoughts, but since some here come up with these replies in their posts on religious threads, I thought it worth discussing.
Regards Tony
Good thread, Tony. It raises lots of issues for discussion.
