Main Discussion Zone > Religion In The News
Oh no, New Atheist just don't understand!
Hatter23:
http://www.oudaily.com/news/2012/apr/05/column-new-atheists-do-not-understand-religion/#comments
--- Quote ---When I used to envision a religious skeptic, the image was that of a surly, well-dressed academic with a pipe sticking out the side of his mouth. It wasn’t a particularly flattering picture, but at least it had gravitas.
Today, a much different image comes to mind — I imagine a smug adolescent arguing with Brother Jed on the South Oval, comparing Jesus to a spaghetti monster and masturbating to his own cleverness. This guy has about as much gravitas as a circus clown. He’s one of the New Atheists.
For those unfamiliar with the term, New Atheism refers to a surge of interest in religious skepticism in recent years. Credited with this resurgence are best-selling atheist books like “The End of Faith” by neuroscientist Sam Harris and “The God Delusion” by Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins.
These books form the intellectual foundation of the movement, positing that belief in God is irrational and that religion is a danger to be eliminated. They have proved especially popular with people my age, which explains why their rhetoric has seeped into that of atheists on campus.
I’m a skeptic myself, so you might expect me to welcome this new willingness to question religion. But you’d be wrong. The New Atheists are breathtakingly ignorant of what religion is and the deep philosophical concepts that undergird it. Additionally, they’re incredibly arrogant.
Popular atheists like Dawkins and Harris claim with disarming confidence that there are no good reasons to think God exists or that religion is valid. However, they rarely engage with the most powerful modern arguments from the opposing side, and when they do, they fumble badly.
For example, take one of Dawkins’ objections to what’s known as the fine-tuning argument. The argument posits that God is the best explanation of the laws of physics, which are improbably “tuned” for life. Dawkins objects that God can’t be an explanation because it raises a further question: Who designed the Designer?
But this objection is hopeless for two reasons. First, it is an elementary principle in philosophy of science that, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one need not have an explanation for the explanation. Second, the objection ignores the doctrine in philosophy of religion known as divine simplicity. Dawkins supposes that God must be complex, and thus requires an explanation. But this is controversial.
In addition to failing to address modern arguments, the New Atheists don’t seem to understand the purpose of religion, either. One of the major themes in the work of the late Christopher Hitchens is that religion was fashioned by a primitive, unscientific people for the purpose of explaining things beyond their ability to understand. The implication is that we’re ready to dispose of religion now that we have more reliable ways of understanding the world.
But this gets religion all wrong. It’s not an explanatory enterprise but a prescriptive one. Religion does not exist to explain why the world is the way it is but to show us how to live.
All these misunderstandings might be forgiven if the atheists who spewed them weren’t so self-assured. Many times, I’ve suggested to skeptics on campus that maybe belief in God isn’t totally irrational. I’ve suggested they read material from philosophy of religion to better understand the topic.
But usually my recommendations are met with condescension. “Philosophy isn’t science,” they’ve told me. “So it doesn’t count.” Then they refer me to some embarrassingly bad skeptic resources, like “Zeitgeist: The Movie” (2007).
This self-satisfied attitude is inconsistent with the skepticism atheists are supposed to embody. They should be willing to look at the strongest arguments from both sides and keep an open mind. The fact they don’t is evident from their tendency to regard religion as obviously false.
This week, Brother Jed graces our campus. As usual, I expect some hot debate with students. As this takes place, I beg my fellow skeptics to keep this in mind: The question of God’s existence is a tough, complex issue over which rational people can disagree. Neither side has a monopoly on reason or science. And there’s no substitute for good manners.
Steven Zoeller
--- End quote ---
Religion does not exist to explain why the world is the way it is?
Really?
Then how come do nearly every one of them start off with a creation myth?
And the whole existence of God isn't a tough complex issue. It is boiled down to "Is there proof?" The side that says "No, but we are going to believe anyway" has no monopoly on reason. The side that says "Yes" has no monopoly on science. The side that say "No, so we aren't going to believe till we see some" does have the monopoly on reason and science AS FAR AS THIS QUESTION.
jaimehlers:
I think the author of this piece misunderstood something. I think the biggest problem most "new" atheists have (bearing in mind this is my opinion) is the presumption of many believers that their god-of-choice is a real entity who really exists and really does things to benefit believers if they pray and believe hard enough. The problem is, if this were at all correct, there would be some evidence to back it up. If nothing else, there would be a statistically-significant variation in the lot of these believers, which could be discovered and analyzed. Yet, time and time again, there's no evidence discovered of this. Occam's razor still has to account for evidence.
Tero:
Philosoohy asks a lot of questions that can't be answered. Waste of time, not science.
It may have been of some use to Greeks. When we did not gave a lot of tools for measuring.
Historicity:
Some of the student responses to him:
--- Quote ---pbamma 2 hours, 4 minutes ago
I also don't think Atheists misunderstand religion as this study suggests.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1745/religious-knowledge-in-america-survey-atheists-agnostics-score-highest
I've met more than a few atheists that have gone through religious enlightened searches, which probably partially explains the data above.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---MarsellusWallace 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
...
IMO, smugness is requiring individuals to smoke a pipe and to study Latin and religious philosophy before they can legitimately question their beliefs.
P.S. I find no self-satisfaction in promoting my growing insignificance in the universe, but rather the opposite.
--- End quote ---
Zoeller in the article:
--- Quote ---Second, the objection ignores the doctrine in philosophy of religion known as divine simplicity.
--- End quote ---
Zoeller in rebuttal further down the page:
--- Quote ---Who said God was simple? Not me! I was merely pointing out a widely held doctrine in philosophy of religion...
--- End quote ---
I wouldn't call that plausible deniability because it is implausible.
--- Quote ---bridgetmolly 9 hours, 20 minutes ago
There is no "new atheism". Ingersoll made the same arguments a hundred years ago. How on earth are you a skeptic if you don't investigate your own magical beliefs?
--- End quote ---
As for:
--- Quote ---First, it is an elementary principle in philosophy of science that, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one need not have an explanation for the explanation.
--- End quote ---
Elementary principle? No, Zoeller just made that up.
There's the fallacy of the Argumentum ad Legem[1] -- laying down the law. It is especially used by inventing a law and bluffing the reader that they should have heard of it.
1. I can read Latin. I made that one up. You won't find it in a book.
velkyn:
--- Quote from: http://www.oudaily.com/news/2012/apr/05/column-new-atheists-do-not-understand-religion/#comments
=topic=22133.msg494169#msg494169 date=1333658504 ---When I used to envision a religious skeptic, the image was that of a surly, well-dressed academic with a pipe sticking out the side of his mouth. It wasn’t a particularly flattering picture, but at least it had gravitas.
Today, a much different image comes to mind — I imagine a smug adolescent arguing with Brother Jed on the South Oval, comparing Jesus to a spaghetti monster and masturbating to his own cleverness. This guy has about as much gravitas as a circus clown. He’s one of the New Atheists.
--- End quote ---
nice little attempt to misrepresent atheists. Poor thing, he can’t imagine a 45 year old woman who is versed in geology, biology, history, archaeology and who has read the bible who as decided that there is no evidence for any gods or magic.
--- Quote ---I’m a skeptic myself, so you might expect me to welcome this new willingness to question religion. But you’d be wrong. The New Atheists are breathtakingly ignorant of what religion is and the deep philosophical concepts that undergird it. Additionally, they’re incredibly arrogant.
--- End quote ---
Hmm, I’m skeptical about that considering the author’s ignorance about real new atheists. I’m also amused by one more theist who claims this and then proceeds to claim that he has the real “most powerful modern arguments” for their god.
--- Quote ---For example, take one of Dawkins’ objections to what’s known as the fine-tuning argument. The argument posits that God is the best explanation of the laws of physics, which are improbably “tuned” for life. Dawkins objects that God can’t be an explanation because it raises a further question: Who designed the Designer?
But this objection is hopeless for two reasons. First, it is an elementary principle in philosophy of science that, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one need not have an explanation for the explanation. Second, the objection ignores the doctrine in philosophy of religion known as divine simplicity. Dawkins supposes that God must be complex, and thus requires an explanation. But this is controversial.
--- End quote ---
But in science there is no special pleading. Poor author. And divine simplicity, golly one more argument between theists about their invisible friends.
--- Quote ---In addition to failing to address modern arguments, the New Atheists don’t seem to understand the purpose of religion, either. One of the major themes in the work of the late Christopher Hitchens is that religion was fashioned by a primitive, unscientific people for the purpose of explaining things beyond their ability to understand. The implication is that we’re ready to dispose of religion now that we have more reliable ways of understanding the world. But this gets religion all wrong. It’s not an explanatory enterprise but a prescriptive one. Religion does not exist to explain why the world is the way it is but to show us how to live.
--- End quote ---
Quite a liar for Christ, this one is. Religion does exist to explain why the world is the way it is. That’s all it does. It claims to explain why there is evil, why there are animals, why there are plants, why the stars shine, etc. It tries to claim that the world is bad and that one must worship the gods it claims as real ot make it better, or to gain some magical reward. And for showing us how to live? Well, which religion gets it right? Heck, which sect of which religion gets it “right”? Funny how theists can’t agree on that either.
Oh and the usual ignorance that atheists are often ex-theists and have read plenty of religious nonsense even the “philosophy of religion”. Philosophy is little different from religion, it has the same baseless claims that come afoul of reality. And like religion, it very occasionally might get something right. But that does not mean it is a good way to understand the world. I am skeptical, alas for the lies of this author, and his trying to claim that the only real skeptics who have “real open minds” are those who agree with him is the usual OneTrueWhatever argument.
Religion is obviously false. We have thousands of religons, billions of believers and not one of them can demonstrate his religion has any magical truth to it or that their god(s) exist. Not Christianity, not Islam, not Hinduism, etc.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version