Your thoughts on the players in the "New Atheism" movement...

Status
Not open for further replies.

mister_lister

Banned
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
129
Reaction score
13
Location
San Diego, CA
I don't know if this thread is a repeat of similar themed thread.

Specifically I would like to get feed back from Atheists and their reaction to the main players in the contemporary movement, namely: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Stephen Gould.

Do you think their methods and arguements are sound, perhaps in comaprison to earlier Atheists?

Do you think their methods and arguements are effective in swaying the general population over toward the atheist or at least agnostic camp?

What do you find missing in their arguements?


(Answer any or all).

I will just say I find some of these men more or less illiterate about theology and they stumble when confronted with theological arguements, but quite sound in scientific matters and some historical issues. I think a real effective atheist would be one that knew alot about science, philosophy, and could quote the Bible Chapter and Verse and knew theology like the back of his hand. That kind of Atheist would win hearts and minds from magical thinking to reason and reality.

For the record, I am an agnostic, a former fundementalist christian for 18 years (from age 15 to 33). I have read the bible, especially the new testament, many, many times and not just verses, whole books or letters in a sitting. I basically stopped reading the bible and haven't touched a religious text in a number of years. I am thinking about studying scripture again (just to be on the same footing as my opponents) as I learn more about science and philosophy.
 
Last edited:

Higgins

Banned
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
4,302
Reaction score
414
I don't know if this thread is a repeat of similar themed thread.

I am thinking about studying scripture again (just to be on the same footing as my opponents) as I learn more about science and philosophy.

Not a repeat and a pretty interesting set of questions. Unfortunately, as a strict CINO (Christian in Name only) I'm more or less already an Atheist so I don't see any point in reviewing arguments for Atheism. On the the other hand "arguing for" Atheism is always a matter of suggesting a certain set of new readings in terms of cultural evaluations. For example (and to affirm your sense that it could be fun to read Scripture as an Atheist), it seems to me that at least some of Christ's reported denounciations of the Pharisees are much more comic and ironical than the standard modern understanding of how serious Christ was (apparently deadly serious all the time, but possibly not, I think). Moreover, to see the Pharisees as in some sense "in on" the range of Early Christian Comedy (ECC) is to see the Pharisees and Christians as the two groups that opted out of the Judean revolts of the 60s and 130s, and thus two groups with similar views in many areas (eg. political, eg. not particularly anti-Roman, eg. very dubious about the Judean Oligarchy not to mention eternal life, the nearness of Angels and what not)...
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I think that it's a defensible position to consider that religion is delusion, that religious indoctrination of children is mental harm, and that religious dogma should be challenged whenever it intersects with science, history or social policy. I think it's also possible to mount that position on humanitarian grounds and make an evidence-based case for it.

What I'm not persuaded of is that pursuing this position from a rationalist perspective will produce the desired results effectively, or at all. Rationalism is for those whose minds are architected on rational grounds, and that's a small proportion of the population, regardless of their education.

I also don't believe that this position reflects anything like the range of reasons for atheism. And further, while the position is clearly atheistic, I don't think it's new. It's a form of rationalistic humanism -- one that is over a century old -- and all that's new is that some are promoting in popular forums, rather than just in academic circles.

ETA: Dawkins' position on religion is also quite different from Gould's. Gould didn't consider religion as a delusion necessarily, and advocated a partial separation of domains (religion should stay out of history and science, but he seemed to have no problem with religion in social policy). Dawkins thinks that all religion is deluded, and doesn't like religion in social policy where children are concerned.
 
Last edited:

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Richard Dawkins: not very new, a good mainstream pitbull. But dull upon repetiton

Christopher Hitchens: who?

Sam Harris: who?

Daniel Dennet: who?

Stephen Gould: a populariser of evolotuionary biology who occassional wrote about atheism, and is now sadly deceased.

I don't see a new movement. There are always believers and non-believers, some evangalical, some not. I don't deliberately keep up woth the current leaders of the non-faith because... well... I don't care. They don't have anything to teach me about atheism and I am not interested in converting others.
 

Lhun

New kid, be gentle!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
1,956
Reaction score
137
Specifically I would like to get feed back from Atheists and their reaction to the main players in the contemporary movement, namely: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Stephen Gould.
The only one i can give feedback on is Daniel Dennet. His books are well worth checking out, though i'm saying that as a philosopher not as an atheist. His take on evolutionary psychology is very interesting.
I don't think there's much point in reading those books if you are an atheist, i think they're more intended for the people who aren't sure to get a second opinion to the omnipresent religious stuff.
Well, i have read some Dawkins, but only about the Meme theory, nothing from him about religion.
I will just say I find some of these men more or less illiterate about theology and they stumble when confronted with theological arguements, but quite sound in scientific matters and some historical issues. I think a real effective atheist would be one that knew alot about science, philosophy, and could quote the Bible Chapter and Verse and knew theology like the back of his hand.
I disagree. Theology is moot, a complete waste of time unless you are a believer. There is no point in arguing theology if you don't accept the basic premise. I don't need to be able to quote Simpson to argue that it's a fictional cartoon and not a documentary.
I have no idea about the other three as i haven't read any books by them, but i find it hard to imagine Dennet stumbling over theological arguments. Given that's his profession, he actually does know a lot about philosophy. Is there any stumbling in particular you were thinking of?
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Indeed. When debate god versus no god, theology is not relevant. It would be like citing barbeque recipes in an argument for or against being vegetarian.
 

gonovelgo

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
203
Reaction score
20
Location
Co. Meath, Ireland
I will just say I find some of these men more or less illiterate about theology and they stumble when confronted with theological arguements, but quite sound in scientific matters and some historical issues. I think a real effective atheist would be one that knew alot about science, philosophy, and could quote the Bible Chapter and Verse and knew theology like the back of his hand. That kind of Atheist would win hearts and minds from magical thinking to reason and reality.

I have to disagree here. I've studied Philosophy of Religion and found it hugely entertaining and informative, but I've never come across a theological argument that I thought was even remotely worthwhile. An awful lot of them seem to take it for granted that God exists and the go on from there, a tactic that's going to have most atheists pulling their hair out in annoyance. To take one good example: Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae, presents a good version of the cosmological argument. Great - most atheists who are willing to think about it could engage with that, because you don't need to already be a theist to understand it. But when he talks about the nature of God, he's very often doing so in a way that isn't going to make a whole lot of sense to someone who isn't already a Christian.

I also don't see the point of being able to 'quote the Bible Chapter and Verse' unless you're speaking to people who are already convinced of its veracity, but I do think that some of the 'big four' (Dawkins in particular) would benefit a lot from a philosophy course.
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
I disagree. Theology is moot, a complete waste of time unless you are a believer. There is no point in arguing theology if you don't accept the basic premise. I don't need to be able to quote Simpson to argue that it's a fictional cartoon and not a documentary.

Well remember that Dawkins and Harris are seeking an end to religion. Thus far, we've come to think they attack the beliefs of the religion on the basis of religious practice. But if you've read their books, you'd know that they ALSO base their arguments against religion from the basis of those religions' holy texts. I'm thinking in particular Sam Harris. But when it comes down to it, they cherry pick a verse, take it literally, and bemoan the fact that anyone could believe in such BS. So, if they are to attack Christianity from Christianity's POV, they should be more familiar with the material for their arguments to be more effective. Knowing "theology" is not the same as believing in it, and one should choose to engage or not to in "theology" from the start. "Nontheology" is one we should come up with. Which would include everything we felt like. Cool.


AMC
 

SPMiller

Prodigiously Hanged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
11,525
Reaction score
1,988
Age
41
Location
Dallas
Website
seanpatrickmiller.com
No offense to all the old people here, but the names listed in the OP belong to old people. There's nothing new about them or their arguments, so I question the validity of any such label as "New Atheism". Then again, it could be nothing more than jargon to refer to a specific strain of atheism that has been around a while.

I'm not sure eliminating religion will do us a favor in the short term. Although I'm quite comfortable in my atheism, I suspect a nontrivial subset of the population would have trouble behaving ethically without the threat of an invisible man in the sky sending them to a torturous afterlife for any wrong deeds.

Is religion destructive? Of course; it's poison to curiosity and reason. Would the absence of religion be more destructive? Maybe. I've seen arguments both ways. Perhaps the social sciences, such as they are, will suggest the best way forward. As I'm more into hard science, I can't guess what would be best.
 
Last edited:

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
No offense to all the old people here, but the names listed in the OP belong to old people.
Dang, you're right! All that New Age spiritualism should really be called Old Age spiritualism -- cos some of the people who believe it are like, over thirty!!

:tongue ;) :tongue ;) :tongue ;) :tongue
 

SPMiller

Prodigiously Hanged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
11,525
Reaction score
1,988
Age
41
Location
Dallas
Website
seanpatrickmiller.com
Dang, you're right! All that New Age spiritualism should really be called Old Age spiritualism -- cos some of the people who believe it are like, over thirty!!

:tongue ;) :tongue ;) :tongue ;) :tongue
I'd rather use something descriptive, you know? Something that more properly represents the movement's key beliefs.
 

SPMiller

Prodigiously Hanged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
11,525
Reaction score
1,988
Age
41
Location
Dallas
Website
seanpatrickmiller.com
Well, that's exactly my point. "New" is effectively meaningless.

Apparently--according to Wikipedia--these so-called New Atheists are those who believe that religion is not just a delusion but a destructive influence. They believe we should eliminate religion as soon as possible. None of that is obvious from their label.
 

SPMiller

Prodigiously Hanged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
11,525
Reaction score
1,988
Age
41
Location
Dallas
Website
seanpatrickmiller.com
Intolerant Atheism would be my choice. The only problem with that is the negative connotation associated with intolerance, but what can you do?
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Intolerant Atheism would be my choice. The only problem with that is the negative connotation associated with intolerance, but what can you do?
Evangelical atheism? From 'angelos' - 'a messenger'. The behaviour of evangelists shows that they believe that the unconverted are somehow inferior. The basis for such a belief is always some mythic authority -- whether it's a religious authority, or a presumed authority from limited observation that the universe is universally and perpetually rational, say.

Putting one myth over an other strikes me as an act of bigotry and xenophobia. I see it as a completely different matter to challenging the myths that we hold. Challenging myths seems beneficial because it allows us to re-evaluate our thinking. Replacing one myth with another seems harmful because it just lets us swap blinkers.
 

ChristineR

What happened?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
1,307
Reaction score
124
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan. Downtown. Near the Universi
There are plenty of atheists who are also sound theologians. Bart Ehrman comes to mind. I'm not sure why you should criticize Dawkins et. al for not being theologians, as they are competent in other fields, and some of the best Bible scholars out there were converted to atheism by the Bible itself.

The main difference between the "new" Atheists and the "old" Atheists is that the new Atheists are not willing to sit back and say religion is okay if you like it and it works for you. If they make their arguments from authority or myth, they should be challenged. The thing is, I don't think that they do.

The only assumption that atheists have to make, or should make (in my humble opinion), is that reality is testable and absolute. If God exists, there should be some measurable difference in the way the universe works than if God doesn't exist. If God can be felt, then there should be some way to measure the feeling. It should not come down to people's opinions and prejudices. To me, that's not "presumed authority from limited observation." That's pretty much what all our observations tell us.

We don't generally tolerate people when they make unsubstantiated claims about medicine, or energy, or even fine wine. We mock these people mercilessly. Why shouldn't religion be subject to the same sorts of scrutiny? I'm all for politeness and sensitivity, but it's hard to be tolerant when people are flying airplanes into buildings.

That's the essence of New Atheism, at least so far as I see it.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
No offense to all the old people here, but the names listed in the OP belong to old people. There's nothing new about them or their arguments, so I question the validity of any such label as "New Atheism". Then again, it could be nothing more than jargon to refer to a specific strain of atheism that has been around a while.
I think what's "new" may be just the recent surge in popularity (at least in INTEREST in atheism, if not a substantial growth in atheism itself), as demonstrated in the sales of their books, and in their names being bandied about as "The Atheists of Our Time," or even by their self-styled (or adopted from someone else calling them this?) name from the Bible, "The Four Horsemen."

It's perhaps much like the "New Age" movement was for a large part just a repackaging of Eastern religions with which people in the West, especially in the USA, were unfamiliar.
I'm not sure eliminating religion will do us a favor in the short term. Although I'm quite comfortable in my atheism, I suspect a nontrivial subset of the population would have trouble behaving ethically without the threat of an invisible man in the sky sending them to a torturous afterlife for any wrong deeds.
Yes, I do believe any "education campaign" that manages to convince one there's no God needs to emphasize that morals and good behavior should not disappear when faith does. I've heard of that sort of thing happening. How would one "rebel against God?" Become the opposite of what one sees as a Godly (or "God-fearing") person.
Is religion destructive? Of course; it's poison to curiosity and reason. Would the absence of religion be more destructive?
It's hard to know what "the absence of religion" would look like. One could hypothesize several atheist/"secular" civilizations which could turn out good or bad, depending on many other factors, but as far as I know, virtually almost all societies so far have had a significant or substantial amount of believers.
Maybe. I've seen arguments both ways. Perhaps the social sciences, such as they are, will suggest the best way forward.
I'm guessing social scientists would disagree wildly, all based on their own personal beliefs. It's hard to know without some good "experiments." Yes, "even scientists" are subconsciously influenced by their own beliefs.
Wait. There's a new atheism movement? What happened to the old one? I never even learned their names.
The name Nietzsche comes to mind, famous for writing "God is dead," by which I think he meant that belief in God was having so little influence in the times of scientific and industrial revolutions that He might as well be dead. His words reignited controversy when Time Magazine had a 1960's cover which had three words in "Man Walks On Moon" sized letters: "Is God Dead?" I actually have a vague memory of that, and I damn sure know what the answer was supposed to be when my parents were around.
Do I have to relearn why I don't believe in god?
No, no, no ... you only have to relearn why you SHOULD NOT believe in God. :)
Evangelical atheism? From 'angelos' - 'a messenger'. The behaviour of evangelists shows that they believe that the unconverted are somehow inferior. The basis for such a belief is always some mythic authority -- whether it's a religious authority, or a presumed authority from limited observation that the universe is universally and perpetually rational, say.
A person has a belief because he believes that belief corresponds most closely to reality out of all beliefs (that the believer may be familiar with, or may have heard of, or even over beliefs he has NOT heard of). It's inherent in this that all other beliefs are not as good at representing reality, and thus are inferior.

It seems to me that how "evangelical" one is is determined by how much one doesn't mind annoying others and even being ostracized by others who do not share the beliefs. If you think it's of vital importance to convince others of your belief (Christians believing it's vital to save others' souls, or these "New Atheists" believing religion is dangerous and so belief in it must be at least substantially reduced for the future of humankind), then you'll continue to speak up in spite of onslaughts.

Putting one myth over an other strikes me as an act of bigotry and xenophobia. I see it as a completely different matter to challenging the myths that we hold. Challenging myths seems beneficial because it allows us to re-evaluate our thinking. Replacing one myth with another seems harmful because it just lets us swap blinkers.
I just about prefer the more generalized word belief instead of myth (which I take to mean UNSUBSTANTIATED belief), as it covers everything. Many (most?) believers see atheists as believing in a myth, so it all "balances out" as far as how one thinks of others with differing beliefs.

In the very start of the video and transcripts of the "Four Horsemen" discussion (available online) Daniel Dennett tells of getting comments on his manuscript from believers among the students in his classes. He did not want to offend or be rude to people with his book, but even in his rewriting after their comments, they always took it that way. Interestingly, the "Radical Atheists" appear to see those telling of their religious beliefs the same way, as being rude and disrespectful to believers.

I see an impasse here, between believers and atheists, even more so than between those of different religions.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
It is only an impasse if we are trying to pass each other. I think the vast majority of people don't greatly care what their friends, neighbors, relatives or even spouses and children beleive if they are happy and kind. I think there will be nelievers and non-believers for many centuries to come, if not for the full length of human existence.

I think this is a good thing. Diversity is an asset in any species.
 

veronie

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
465
Reaction score
58
Location
Ocala, Florida
Website
www.preferredword.com
Bart Ehrman is more a Biblical textual scholar than a theologian, and he's overrated as a textual scholar imo. I don't think an atheist has to be a theological scholar, but if you're writing a book against religions, then it sure helps to have a good grasp of the intricacies of the theologies you're attacking, and Dawkins doesn't always. In Chapter Two of The God Delusion, he shrugs off the early Christian disagreements about the nature of Jesus as though it's not worth disusing. His point about killing people over a theological issue is a good point, but to say the question of whether Jesus was the same substance of god or a different substance is an important question. Even the nonreligious, and I am one, should still recognize that the question is an important one to the worldview.

I don't think the "old atheists" sat back and said religion is okay if it works for you. They were not usually subjectivists in the sense that all truth is subjective. The "old atheists" were just as strong in their language against religion, they just weren't as popular as Dawkins and Hitchens and the others have become.
 

ChristineR

What happened?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
1,307
Reaction score
124
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan. Downtown. Near the Universi
You can't argue with revealed truth--you can present evidence against it, but it doesn't really matter--you can always reinterpret the evidence to fit the revealed truth. This is I think why atheism seems disrespectful to believers. At some point you just have to stand up and say that revealed truth doesn't count unless there's hard evidence that there's something behind it. It's a completely different set of standards, not a variant of the same thing.

The believer might say that a simple assertion like "objective reality exists" is somehow on the same level as, say visions and prophecies, but to the non-believer it's obvious that they aren't even in the same class.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.