Neo-Atheists

[FountainSiren]

<p>

@Cheers

FS…didn’t this article sound a little hollow coming from one of the most religiously observant countries in the world? Europe might have something to worry about–but the US? Worry about atheists? Before or after they all go to church on Sunday? Sounds like another trumped-up Limbaugh-esque false fright fest.

</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>I don’t know. I must have missed the alarmism in the op. </p>

<p>To me, it was a simple take on the form that the main talking heads of atheism have taken and the way the discussion has gone from metaphysical disputes to the belief that there should no longer be a discussion or dispute, the opposition (theists) are not worthy of a reasoned dispute; they are, after all, child abusers stubbornly deluded by the greatest lie ever told.</p>

<p>I can assure you that on campus, one will be taken far more seriously when claiming the US government was behind 9-11, or calling for the abolition of marriage, or condemning capitalism as the cause of all evil in the world than for maintaining a long-standing personal belief in the divine even though the majority of those we study, in literature, history etc, shared this “irrational” belief of ours.</p>

<p>Happily, the majority of this thread has born out the contention of the OP, which to me, renders your question mute. There has been no discussion of religion here; just pure condemnation with the standard (and insufferable) hokum of comparing Christianity (all religion?) to Nazism etc. </p>

<p>The thread has been filled with vicious propaganda the likes of which if applied to Judaism, Islam or Hinduism (which would be just as simple) would have been seen as anti-Semitic or racist. You simply could not use this form of slash and burn rhetoric with Judaism, for instance…not even in pure theology. </p>

<p>There have been, on the other hand, countless threads warning us all, in what could only be called an alarmist fashion, of the mortal danger the Republic faces due to the existence of, say, little Patrick Henry college and it’s staff of 15 professors. </p>

<p>No editorializing secularists seemed to find such threads “alarmist”. No surprise there.</p>

<p>To my mind, the op is pure commentary, more in a literary vein than a political one. It is about the difference in the dialogue and texture, not social policy and revolution. Neither Darwin, G B Shaw, H G Wells found the belief in the divine to be irrational or evil, they just believed that religion was wrong on the facts and were thus able to make some wonderful rhetorical points in an on-going debate. This spirit of intellectual exchange is sadly missing in the dialogue of today’s (cc’s) atheists.</p>

<p>And you just have to love the line, “When the very first population of atheists roamed the earth in the Victorian age”, it is to my mind, worthy of the writing of Mordecai Richler and John Barths.</p>

<p>As to your 76 year old dad, perhaps he is not so irrational as his jet-setting daughter would have us believe. He has, after all, lived a bit longer than his spunky little globe-trotter and I can assure you that in these parts (cc’s parent’s cafe), age is the gold standard of rhetorical legitimacy…if he shows up in this thread, you’re toast.</p>

<p>[for more on this see below]</p>

[qwilde]

<p>“the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God’s personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.”</p>

<p>You are misconstruing the word “God”. I have already expalined this, as has Einstein and Hawking.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>

@New York Review of Books

</p>

<p>"A Mission to Convert</p>

<p>Scientists’ interest in religion seems to come in waves…</p>

<p>In the last few months, three prominent scientists?all biologists?have published their own books on belief…
…Among these books, Dawkins’s The God Delusion stands out for two reasons. First, it’s by far the most ambitious…Dawkins is on a mission to convert. He is an enemy of religion, wants to explain why, and hopes thereby to drive the beast to extinction</p>

<p>…he’s just been featured on the cover of Time magazine…</p>

<p>Dawkins not only thinks religion is unalloyed nonsense but that it is an overwhelmingly pernicious, even “very evil,” force in the world. His target is not so much organized religion as all religion. And within organized religion, he attacks not only extremist sects but moderate ones. Indeed, he argues that rearing children in a religious tradition amounts to child abuse…</p>

<p>Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins’s work, I’m afraid that I’m among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he’s actually more an amateur?his book makes a far from convincing case…</p>

<p>The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins’s failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. This is, obviously, an odd thing to say about a book-length investigation into God. But the problem reflects Dawkins’s cavalier attitude about the quality of religious thinking…he also tends to dismiss more sophisticated expressions of belief as sophistry (he cannot, for instance, tolerate the meticulous reasoning of theologians)…the ineluctable conclusion is that all religion is unworthy of serious thought…</p>

<p>The result is The God Delusion, a book that never squarely faces its opponents. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins’s book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?), no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions (are they like ordinary claims about everyday matters?), no effort to appreciate the complex history of interaction between the Church and science (does he know the Church had an important part in the rise of non-Aristotelian science?), and no attempt to understand even the simplest of religious attitudes (does Dawkins really believe, as he says, that Christians should be thrilled to learn they’re terminally ill?)…</p>

<p>Instead, Dawkins has written a book that’s distinctly, even defiantly, middlebrow. Dawkins’s intellectual universe appears populated by the likes of Douglas Adams, the author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and Carl Sagan, the science popularizer,[3] both of whom he cites repeatedly. This is a different group from thinkers like William James and Ludwig Wittgenstein?both of whom lived after Darwin, both of whom struggled with the question of belief, and both of whom had more to say about religion than Adams and Sagan…</p>

<p>The vacuum created by Dawkins’s failure to engage religious thought must be filled by something, and in The God Delusion, it gets filled by extraneous quotation, letters from correspondents, and, most of all, anecdote after anecdote…</p>

<p>One reason for the lack of extended argument in The God Delusion is clear: Dawkins doesn’t seem very good at it. Indeed he suffers from several problems when attempting to reason philosophically. The most obvious is that he has a preordained set of conclusions at which he’s determined to arrive. Consequently, Dawkins uses any argument, however feeble, that seems to get him there and the merit of various arguments appears judged largely by where they lead.
So why, you might wonder, is a clever philosophical argument for God subject to withering criticism while one against God gets a free pass and is deemed devastating…</p>

<p>The reason seems clear. The first argument leads to a conclusion Dawkins despises, while the second leads to one he loves…</p>

<p>Why, for example, is Dawkins so untroubled by his own (large) assumption that both matter and the laws of nature can be viewed as given…Why isn’t that question-begging?</p>

<p>Exercises in double standards also plague Dawkins’s discussion of the idea that religion encourages good behavior. Dawkins cites a litany of statistics revealing that red states (with many conservative Christians) suffer higher rates of crime, including murder, burglary, and theft, than do blue states. But now consider his response to the suggestion that the atheist Stalin and his comrades committed crimes of breathtaking magnitude: “We are not in the business,” he says, “of counting evils heads, compiling two rival roll calls of iniquity.” We’re not? We were forty-five pages ago."

<a href=“http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775[/url]”>http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[qwilde]

<p>I can assure you that on campus, one will be taken far more seriously when claiming the US government was behind 9-11, or calling for the abolition of marriage, or condemning capitalism as the cause of all evil in the world than for maintaining a long-standing personal belief in the divine even though the majority of those we study, in literature, history etc, shared this “irrational” belief of ours.</p>

<p>So, we should believe in something irrational because everyone else does or to gain the favor of others?</p>

<p>“divine even though the majority of those we study, in literature, history etc, shared this “irrational” belief of ours.”</p>

<p>There have been some great people wo believe the sun revolved around the earth. Does that make them anyless of a genious? No, it does not it merely means they did not have the plethora of knowledge we have today. There have also been many great minds that haven’t believe in a god. Millions of ignorant people have believed in religion too; is that a reason to also believe: no. Either way, what others believe, is irrelevant as I have already stated. Scientific fact and proof though, is not–irrelevant.</p>

[qwilde]

<p>Fistly, it is rather pathetic that you need a thrid party to make your argument for you. Secondly, you read one article and you believe you know everything about religion and Dawkin’s conclusions. Did you even bother to read the book? I mean actually read it; allowing the information to penetrate. Or did you provincially pick and choose obfuscating all that you didn’t like?</p>

<p>“The result is The God Delusion, a book that never squarely faces its opponents. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins’s book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?),”</p>

<p>Then why do 50% of Americans take the Bible literally. I thought we were supposed to be free of the shackles of ignorance and irrational thought.</p>

<p>“no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions (are they like ordinary claims about everyday matters?), no effort to appreciate the complex history of interaction between the Church and science (does he know the Church had an important part in the rise of non-Aristotelian science?)”</p>

<p>Yes, the church did propagate science, but only when it appeared to be in their favor. I’m sure they would have a difficult time convincing this to Galileo.</p>

<p>“, and no attempt to understand even the simplest of religious attitudes (does Dawkins really believe, as he says, that Christians should be thrilled to learn they’re terminally ill?).”</p>

<p>He does understand the simplest religious attitudes and then he justifies why they are terminally ill, which I thought would be apparent to the rational.</p>

<p>“Exercises in double standards also plague Dawkins’s discussion of the idea that religion encourages good behavior. Dawkins cites a litany of statistics revealing that red states (with many conservative Christians) suffer higher rates of crime, including murder, burglary, and theft, than do blue states. But now consider his response to the suggestion that the atheist Stalin and his comrades committed crimes of breathtaking magnitude:”</p>

<p>Stalin and “his comrades” did not commit those acts in the name of atheism; they committed them in the name of esurience and rapacity. His beliefs did not stem from atheism because unlike theists the common atheist doesn’t believe in anything but that of the moral zeitgeist. Crime is probably prevalent in those aforementioned areas though because their entrenched belief system which stems from religion.</p>

[edad]

<p>Qwilde,
I don’t believe I attributed moral behavior to religious beliefs. I suspect religious beliefs are more related to intolerance which as we see in Iraq and the middleeast, more often leads to war.</p>

<p>I see no reason to approach religion with “prudence and discern.” The history of the various rites, rituals, stories and beliefs really does not interest me that much. Greek mythology is a lot more fun and since no one is currently following the dictates of these old beliefs, there is no harm and I can enjoy the stories. There is just no point to trying to seriously look at religions from a logical point of view. You would be better off playing the Glass Bead Game.</p>

<p>And yes I do see a connection between religious beliefs and rooting for the home team of professional out of State performers and blindly supporting political parties, and governments, and other institutions. We seem to have some basic need to belong, to conform and to believe and we feel comforted when everyone else is with us and we win as a group. Unfortunately, imposing our will and beliefs on others seems to be a part of the same pattern.</p>

[qwilde]

<p>“Judaism, Islam or Hinduism (which would be just as simple) would have been seen as anti-Semitic or racist”</p>

<p>Sorry, but it is not our forte to commit acts of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and barbarity toward other religions and subgroups (it’s even dictated in your holy book). The church is far too good at that to even bother competing. </p>

<p>Jews aren’t a race. They may be considered an ethnic group though.</p>

[mathmom]

<p>Just my little bugaboo here. But points are rendered moot not mute.</p>

[qwilde]

<p>"And yes I do see a connection between religious beliefs and rooting for the home team of professional out of State performers and blindly supporting political parties, and governments, and other institutions. "</p>

<p>I fervently agree with this, but I was arguing that it does not lend credibility to the belief in god.</p>

<p>“The history of the various rites, rituals, stories and beliefs really does not interest me that much.” </p>

<p>Unfortunatley, some people take these rituals, stories, and beliefs as self-evident truths. They then subvert branches of intellectual thought, such as science, with their nonsensical rationale and oppress people, intellect, and life accordingly.</p>

[qwilde]

<p>FountainSiren you claim that we have only adressed what you consider the trivial after effects of religion, but you have yet to address some of my and other’s contentions. </p>

<p>“If the evil in the world is intended by god he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can’t be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since god is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only god can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that god, and not Satan created the universe?”</p>

<p>You can also logically disprove god and most fallacies of the bible.</p>

<p>God for instance must be all-knowing and all powerful. God must be able to see everything that ever has and ever will be. Ultimately if god is omniscient then god is chained by fate and de facto is not all powerful. Can god create a rock that he cannot lift? If not god is not all powerful. If god can than god is not all powerful? Can God create a fence that god cannot jump over? You know how it goes. </p>

<p>Also, god is not an explanation, but merely a non-explanation. Justifying the unknown by using god answers how and not why. It raises more questions than it answers. If god created this unbelievably intricate universe, than god it must be even more intricate. Ultimately, god can be removed from the equation with Occam’s Razor.</p>

<p>If god created the universe, who created god? If god just is, why can’t the universe just be?</p>

<p>Prayer is pointless because god is all knowing. God can see everything that ever has and ever will happen. Subsequently, god would have foreseen what you prayed for and changed the universe accordingly before creating it.</p>

[mathmom]

<p>

Dawkins’s intellectual universe appears populated by the likes of Douglas Adams, the author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and Carl Sagan, the science popularizer,[3] both of whom he cites repeatedly.

</p>

<p>Carl Sagan my have been a “science popularizer”, but he had a Phd in astronomy and astrophysics from the University of Chicago and was a professor at Harvard and Cornell. Not too shabby.</p>

<p>As for Douglas Adams, who I am sure is quoted for his clever way with words, he got his degree (in English Lit) from Cambridge.</p>

<p>(The reviewer btw is a bio professor at U. of Rochester.)</p>

[edad]

<p>“it does not lend credibility to the belief in god.”</p>

<p>People believe in god, that is all the credibility we need. If you want to know specifically what different people believe, you will find many of them really have only nebulous ideas about their beliefs and the specifics are subject to change. Again, it might be less frustrating to become immersed in the Glass Bead Game.</p>

[qwilde]

<p>People believe in god, that is all the credibility we need.</p>

<p>If I believe that pigs can fly, is that all it requires for them to actually fly (from a non solipsist point of view)? People argue that god is so great that god cannot be understood through our logic. Well then I urge you to unlearn everything that you have so far. Unlearn what science has taught you, what math has taught, what even literature has taught you-all of which are founded in rationale and logic. Because if God is not worthy of our logic, then what is?</p>

[edad]

<p>If lots and lots of people believe pigs fly, or aliens are among us, or the world was created a few thousand years ago, or that a flood wiped out the whole world except for Noah and a boatload of animals, then that is important. If no one has actually seen a pig fly and these and other beliefs are not derived from logic or science, you will not get very far at applying logic to these beliefs. The important consideration is that the beliefs exist.</p>

[qwilde]

<p>So we should endorse imagination as fact?</p>

[edad]

<p>We should be able to demonstrate that imagination exists. Most of us can directly experience this phenomenon and we can get feedback from others who have had similar experiences.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>Qwilde,</p>

<p>Your evangelism is not without precedent. You are it seems–ironically enough–more religious/evangelical than Billy Graham and the Pope in high dudgeon: Jerry Falwell could learn a thing or two from you about intolerance and evangelism.</p>

<p>No one in this thread, from what I have read, has suggested that you or any other atheist should believe in anything at all…god included. Not even the author of the op would be so bold or crass as to suggest that atheists should believe in god or not believe in god; not even to suggest that there is something wrong with not believing in god. That in itself is some kind of humility, I suppose.</p>

<p>What’s more, I do not ever recall anyone, in the 3 years I have been on this forum, telling atheists that they are wrong not to believe in god; it always comes the other way around: people of faith are deluded, wrong, evil, abusive, and the newest wrinkle, are suspect parents.</p>

<p>So who’s the <em>true</em> evangelists here? Where’s the intolerance here?</p>

<p>As per usual, the tenor of this thread has become nothing more or less than an attack on the individual beliefs of those that believe in any and all forms of divinity; but, as is all too common, in their angry resentment against the status quo, the resenters direct their attacks specifically at the Christian theology, often for obvious political reasons, some times for partisan religious/ethnic reasons (fwiw, I am not myself a Christian), though I do not know if this applies specifically to you.</p>

<p>It has been suggested that some of those that hold a personal belief in god are alarmist. The only alarmism I’ve seen has been the fear of and condemnation directed against those who hold on to a very fragile faith (as all faith is always, by its nature, fragile…much like love) by those who find such faith intolerable and abhorrent. </p>

<p>As to your jejune inquiry into an all-powerful god, I leave it to you to decide—as it should be. Though I will note, that should I ever have children, and should it not be deemed that my raising my own children is on the face of it child abuse, because I believe in the divine, I could my own children from making the <em>wrong</em> choices by locking them away with no freedom to make <em>bad</em> choices; or I could allow them to learn to make good choices, by allowing them to make bad choices. For me, it is the essence of freewill, and the divine prerogative to grant it.</p>

<p>Still, find your own way. Try to exhibit a little less intolerance, and hope for the best.</p>

<p>That’s what I do.</p>

<p>This is just a message board, but good luck with it.</p>

<p>[edit: fwiw, I more or less agree with edad’s posts in this regard]</p>

[qwilde]

<p>I don’t want everyone to adhere to my beliefs. I like diversity. I adamantly believe in tolearnce but when mystical ideals, which are immersed in nothing else but heresay and imagination, are used to suppress intellectual thought, defame science, and slaughter millions in its name, then there is a time when a rational person just has to say “enough is enough”.</p>

<p>Religion prevents independent thought and it is mortally dangerous. There are people around the globe who want to kill you, me, and themselves because they believe they are being guided by a higher power.</p>

<p>Faith=nonthinking</p>

<p>We should be living in an age of reason, not intellectual backwardness and militant faith.</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>what is interesting is that drugs can often mimic the “experiences” of God</p>

<p>that many who believed were thought insane</p>

<p>that if a person professes they are reborn, we are supposed to forgive them, after all, God has, and who are we to not follow God</p>

<p>someone talked about mercy…isn;t mercy just a forgiveness, don’t feel guilty cause God forgives you if you apologize to God?</p>

<p>as well, the idea that what people believe is personal is all fine and dandy, but was have seen of late in the public arena is the talk of this being a Christian nation becuase its founders said God once in a while</p>

<p>when that discussion is started, it must be countered, because when you impart “faith” or “fear” of God as the top power in our country, and the bible as the source of all our rules, which is not what the founders intended it is imperative to discuss religion from ALL sides</p>

<p>and FS, after living with a Pres who talks about being born again, and that what he did in his past is irrelevant cause he found God, is it fair to NOT discuss his actions because he invoked God?</p>

<p>when you have leaders saying God is on OUR side in battles, is it fair to the soldiers on the ground to not go, whoa, wait a second WHAT?</p>

<p>does it scare you when people ask questions about Faith? if a persons faith is real, then a person wondering, etc, should not be afraid, I would think</p>

<p>so, in an ideal world, religion WOULD be a personal thing, but alas, it is not, it is VERY public, and has been made so by the “religious”-</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>Whether directed at gay couples or Christian couples, intolerance is intolerance; whether it is directed at suppressing child rearing in gay couples, straight couples or Christian couples, it all still applies. There are no exemptions.</p>

<p>The ideologue always puts ideas before people; too often, the evangelical (of any stripe) cannot see through the steam coming from their own ears and nostrils, the blood in their own eyes. Their fear and anger blind them to the reality of real lives lived by real people in a real world.</p>