Some Responses to the New Atheists

[Bill Hamblin]

Berlinski, D. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (2009)

Flew, A. There is No A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2008)

Hart, D. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (2010)

McGrath, A. The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (2010)

[Log]

Bill,

Care to give a two-sentence summary of the central arguments of each book, for those without access?

[Calm]

Info on first book: http://www.davidberl...usion/about.php

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0307396266

second book: http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0061335290

wiki has a section about some controversy over the book: http://en.wikipedia....k_with_Varghese

Noted two errors---book title repeat in the third offering and "No" where there shouldn't be a "No" in the second.

Fourth book: http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism-Denial/dp/083083446X

wiki has a synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3F

[Calm]

Third book is likely Atheist Delusions by DB Hart: http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionable/dp/0300111908

[cdowis]

Makes me wonder where I would be intellectually if my twenty years of apologetics had been on the existence of deity, rather than Mormonism.

Nah.....

The very existence of the Book of Mormon is proof of deity, unlike the Bible. You can accept large parts of the bible as historical, but remain content in your atheist views. It was delivered thru the transmission of documents, discovered in situ by certified archeologists and scientists. The age of the papyri can easily be determined in the thousands of years. I can read the documents, either as a believer or disbeliever. Was David an actual historical figure? No problem. (But when we get to Moses and the Exodus, that becomes abit dicey.)

Now in the BOM we find such individuals as Lemhi, Mosiah, Coriantumr, etc. If we could prove just ONE of those were actual historical figures, we got a problem. We don't have ancient documents, but a book delivered by an angel, supposedly translated by.... get this... a man who actually spoke to God. Yep, God came to him and called his as his spokesman.

I cannot accept ANY aspect of the BOM as historical without facing that religious baggage it carries with it. A disbeliever, the atheist, must fight tooth and nail against any suggestion that there is even a particle of evidence for this book delivered by an angel. Nothing about it can be allowed within the limits of legitimate scientific inquiry. Any evidence for the BOM is evidence for the existence of deity.

Best of luck, folks, with your philosophical twisting and turning, but the best evidence for deity is something that you can hold in your hands. Open your mind and investigate that book, and you will find the proof that you are looking for.

[Hughes]

The question of the existence of God or not has nothing to do with the Biblical text, and even less the BOM. As the BOM isn't even close proving anything unless you believe. And the Biblical text, while historically based doesn't prove there's a God or not, to an unbelieving atheist.

[Tarski]

Bill have you read all of these?

My impressions mostly about the authors (and I only read portions of three of these books-rather large portions):

Berlinski, D. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (2009)

Smart guy but seems to have had his vision of the epistemological aspects of science somewhat skewed perhaps by having never gotten to far outside of mathematics proper and his brand of philosophy. In any case, while his writing is OK, a taste of him in a debate setting reveals him to be a thinly veiled Straussian and a contrarian pot stirrer--he likes taking an opposing view for the sake of something other than the truth per se. A sort of intellectual shock jock. As far as I can see, he doesn't believe in God and feels quite comfortable living for pleasure and his vices (he used similar words about himself). He just thinks the hoi polloi should believe in God (almost as if he is afraid that the simple folk would break into his house and dispatch him if they weren't afraid of God).

In a debate setting he seldom answers anything in a straightforward way especially if you ask him what he believes. He comes across --at least as impressions go--as someone who has little faith in anything--especially mainstream science. He might just be a radical relativist--but I am not sure yet.

Reviews of his book are mostly great and I too was temporarily ethralled by his rhetoric. But this is true of Dawkins book too (the reviews were great).

I agree very much agree with one reviewer who had, in part, this to say:

Finally, and most interestingly for me, Berlinski takes the view that humans are basically evil, and that, without a stern law giving God who will punish the bad in hell (and reward the good in heaven), mankind is totally subject to disaster. Morality, in other words, is impossible without God.

This may be true, but Berlinski seems unaware of the existence of the Aristotelian notion of ethics, on which St. Thomas build his system. In this system, people naturally seek happiness, and their natural desires lead them in the right direction, always assuming that they can be led astray through ignorance, and, of course, in the Christian understanding, because of the weakening of the will due to original sin. St. Thomas may be wrong, of course, but if Berlinski wanted to go on about morality, he could at least have made reference to Aristotle. (I find it interesting, as an aside, that Sam Harris's position is basically that of Aristotle, but without Aquinas's divine framework for it all. Many atheists find that Harris not "really" one of them, and I think they're right.)

Further, and most troubling, Berlinski's idea that people are evil and can only know what's right because it is what God commands, not because it is right objectively, gets him into some interesting philosophical hot water. Something is right, he says, only because God commands it, not because it is truly so. But what if God then changes his mind? B. is OK with that. I find this troubling, because he seems to be kicking the problem of evil upstairs: without God, people would do evil. But now God can do whatever he wants--so aren't we back to "might makes right"?

Where the rubber hits the road on this point is in the following quotation:

"Richard Dawkins is less concerned to reject biblical miracles than to condemn the Deity for his hurtful insensitivity. 'The God of the OT, he writes, 'is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, blood thirtsy ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal...etc.'

Berlinski responds: "These are, to my way of thinking, striking points in God's FAVOR, but opinions will vary, I guess." (44)

If you think he's kidding, he's not. So, for Berlinski, we seem to be either lost in a meaningless universe or at the mercy of a completely arbitrary despot. This may be the case, but I have to admit it takes my breath away..

Flew, A. There is No A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2008)

From the portions that I have read, I would say that the stuff he wrote on his own earlier in his career was better. But then I expect to lean a little more toward theism as I approach death. It may well be an emotionally intelligent way to get along in those final years when all earthly accomplishments are in our past

Hart, D. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (2010)

No idea.

McGrath, A. The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (2010)

Nice guy. Fair debater. Never caustic. Makes you want him to win the argument. But,...his arguments concering God are disappointing and unoriginal. If you didn't already know the counter-arguments it might seem more impressive.

[Chris Smith]

Nice guy. Fair debater. Never caustic. Makes you want him to win the argument.

Maybe when he's debating atheists, but you should see what he wrote in his rebuttal to John Hick, a liberal Christian, in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Not only was it not very nice, it was also extremely ill-conceived.

[cdowis]

The question of the existence of God or not has nothing to do with the Biblical text, and even less the BOM. As the BOM isn't even close proving anything unless you believe.

1. Actually, the BOM hits the nail on the head. If the Book of Mormon is historical fact, it proves the existence of deity.

2. The scientific method is to test a hypothesis using the appropriate devices. Moroni 10:4-5, and Alma chapter 32 give specific tests on whether there is a God, and how to determine whether the Book of Mormon is true. Science uses microscopes, and electronic equipment for its test, and the BOM uses personal experience and revelation as the devices for testing. While they are not perfectly replicable, many have performed the test and found it confirmed.

Unlike the prathering of the philosophers, the Book of Mormon uses the scientific methodology with details on how to conduct the test.

[WalkerW]

I've read the books by McGrath and Hart. I wasn't overly impressed with McGrath. I was thoroughly impressed with Hart.

And Hart's book is Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press, 2009). Looks like Bill accidently posted Berlinski's title twice. I've suggested this book to you before, Tarski, in the discussion about religion and science a while back. I cited it in response to Charles Freeman's book. In further response to Freeman's book, I would suggest David C. Lindberg, "Myth #1: That the Rise of Christianity was Responsible for the Demise of Ancient Science," Galileo Goes to Jail: And Other Myths About Science and Religion, ed. Ronald L. Numbers (Harvard University Press, 2009). I would recommend the entire collection.

Also, The Cambridge Collection to Science and Religion just came out this year. The editor Peter Harrison has written some great stuff about Christianity and science, particularly Protestantism. Simon Conway Morris has an excellent article in it entitled "Evolution and the Inevitability of Intelligent Life." I think both secularists and theists could learn from it.

[elguanteloko]

Unlike the prathering of the philosophers, the Book of Mormon uses the scientific methodology with details on how to conduct the test. (underlines added by elguanteloko)

You might want to check where the "scientific methodology" comes from...

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

Only to someone who wants to believe. Beyond that of a book of unknown provenance can still be accurate. Just depends on the suppositions based on some material fact. So they could find Zarahemla tomorrow, but that would not substantiate that Jesus is the Christ.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here are four reviews I've written on books responding to so-called new atheism, in order of recommendation, least to greatest recommended:

Chris Hedges, When Atheism Becomes Religion

Terry Eagleton, Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate

John F. Haught, God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens

David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies

[elguanteloko]

I think us infidels and the saints can come together as brothers and sisters in saying the so-called "new atheists" suck overall. Who's with me?! Give me rep points if you agree! (haha, OK you don't have to do that one)

[Tarski]

I think us infidels and the saints can come together as brothers and sisters in saying the so-called "new atheists" suck overall. Who's with me?! Give me rep points if you agree! (haha, OK you don't have to do that one)

he he-- a bit of intellectual peer pressure there.

Suck? Overall I don't think so. Dawkins is a very very good writer on science, and his assumptions about theism in his "delusion" book may ignore erudite philosophical theology but he is correct in thinking this is not nearly as relevant as how the masses (everyone from church going Texans to Taliban leader to Mormon primary presidents) think about God. Talking to church going, voting, Christians here in the Bible belt I see that Dawkins addressed exactly the right issues. The complaint that he didn't treat deep notions like "God as the ground of Being" and all that seems especially ridiculous for Mormons given their hyper-literal theology.

Dennett is a force to be reckoned with. I spent my twenties and part of my thirties thinking he must be a simpleton because a superficial reading made it look like he was asserting things that I thought I knew couldn't be true. It turns out that his reasoning is much much better than I expected once you get past thinking that certain received ideas are obvious (rather than merely compellingly intuitive).

Dennett is also far less about eradicating religion than the other three.

I also don't think Sam Harris "sucks". I find him to be fairly clear headed and admirably direct. Put in other terms, he is not muddled by political correctness.

Hitchens is also a very good writer. In fact, he may be the best in literary terms. He can turn a phrase like few others (though it was Dennet that said that Berlinski exudes a "rich comic patina of smug miseducation"). Hitchens has the broadest education on non-scientific matters such as history although I expect some of his opponents to take issue with his interpretations (no surprise there). He is entertaining and engaging if nothing else.

I wonder how many here who want jump on the "new atheists suck" bandwagon are getting their info about these guys from opposing books and reviewers. Have you all really read the major works by these guys? Let's be honest.

Read "The Intentional Stance" by Dennett and then get back to me.

The other thing to mention is that there is nothing new about the new atheists and there are far more than 4 of them. In intellectual circles there hasn't been a shortage of atheists and agnostics for as long as I can remember. The opposing theism in academia has few real world effect as it is so defanged and often pretty silent. The opposing theism in popular culture is a joke. Here we see sports teams thanking Jesus for their wins and pop musicians thanking God for thier sucesses (which often means sex and cocaine fuled lives). Where am I to find the intellectually serious theists that Dawkins ignores? In the pews at a Baptist church or at a revival or mega-church listening to Ted Haggard? At the Grammy awards? On the field or in the stands at a football game? Are they flying planes into buildings or shooting adulterers in a soccer field in the middle east.

Maybe they are here busy promoting creationism or the idea that the Alpha and Omega is a glorified primate.

Maybe the exemplary theists are among the heros of capitalism -banks and Wall Street speculators-those who know who to make good use of credit default swaps and massive leveraging.

No the "new atheists" don't suck. The sucking is elsewhere.

[cdowis]

You might want to check where the "scientific methodology" comes from...

You might want to give some thought on what I actually said, rather than your shallow, knee-jerk interpretation of my words.

[cdowis]

cdowis:

Only to someone who wants to believe.

The BOM points out that this is for those who have the desire to find the truth, but I see no reference to "wanting to believe". Just as the scientific method is only useful to those who have a desire, and want to apply it.

It is a personal responsibility, using tools designed specifically to test religious truth. I think intellectual musings alone do not have the same effect. One may come to the conclusion that there is a deity, but then what? You can conclude that atoms exist, for example, but where do you go from there.

[LifeOnaPlate]

he he-- a bit of intellectual peer pressure there.

Suck? Overall I don't think so. Dawkins is a very very good writer on science, and his assumptions about theism in his "delusion" book may ignore erudite philosophical theology but he is correct in thinking this is not nearly as relevant as how the masses (everyone from church going Texans to Taliban leader to Mormon primary presidents) think about God. Talking to church going, voting, Christians here in the Bible belt I see that Dawkins addressed exactly the right issues. The complaint that he didn't treat deep notions like "God as the ground of Being" and all that seems especially ridiculous for Mormons given their hyper-literal theology.

This is as fallacious as saying I can responsibly prove science as misguided, silly, useless, even dangerous by only appealing to mass audience understanding of science. Do you think that's fair? I can thus demonstrate how dumb science is by only approaching creationists, I can demonstrate the uselessness of history by responding to Holocaust deniers. In my view it is philosophically responsible to respond to the best in the other. This Dawkins does not do. Further, he engages in plenty of theologizing of his own, making many statements not grounded at all in empirical fact and "scientific" understanding. In short: he's also a hypocrite. Certainly there are interesting and possibly even useful ideas in some of the work he has done. But I disagree with your position that one only needs to respond to what one (unempirically!) believes is the common position of the other.

I also don't think Sam Harris "sucks". I find him to be fairly clear headed and admirably direct. Put in other terms, he is not muddled by political correctness.

Nor is he often muddled by accuracy in religious and historical matters, for that matter.

Hitchens is also a very good writer. In fact, he may be the best in literary terms.

There's no accounting for taste. He is an easy writer. He's good because he makes his babbling accessible. Yes, he can turn a phrase like few others. I enjoyed some of Fawn Brodie's style as well. It was peppy. Peppy and accuracy, however, aren't always best friends. In this regard Hitchens is perhaps the most irresponsible of the new atheists. He has the ability to write and reach the most, but his "research" is so damnable.

Hitchens has the broadest education on non-scientific matters such as history although I expect some of his opponents to take issue with his interpretations (no surprise there). He is entertaining and engaging if nothing else.

I take issue with his education as well, not just his interpretation. He so often just gets things wrong, plain and simple. Even simple facts like the correct spelling of names, or dates, or pretty much all sorts of things. His interpretations are often dreadful, yes, but his simple data with which he works is often spurious to begin with.

I wonder how many here who want jump on the "new atheists suck" bandwagon are getting their info about these guys from opposing books and reviewers. Have you all really read the major works by these guys? Let's be honest.

It's pretty apparent that you haven't dealt at all with any rigorous objections to books by new atheists. Let's be honest. I'll wager a hefty sum that I've read much more from the new atheists than you've read the responses.

The other thing to mention is that there is nothing new about the new atheists and there are far more than 4 of them.

Actually I disagree here. There are a few new things about the new atheists. For one, several of them openly advocate the eradication of religion in total (without realizing they would be replacing it with their new brand of religion anyway. Again, philosophically weak positions, lack of self-awareness). This is related to another new thing is their lack of serious consideration of replacement. You can't tell me that these guys have considered matters as deeply as Nietzsche did, for example. It's simply not there. I am compelled to agree with David Hart in observing that new atheists are far more vapid than atheists of old in terms of discussing matters like morality, for example.

In intellectual circles there hasn't been a shortage of atheists and agnostics for as long as I can remember. The opposing theism in academia has few real world effect as it is so defanged and often pretty silent. The opposing theism in popular culture is a joke. Here we see sports teams thanking Jesus for their wins and pop musicians thanking God for thier sucesses (which often means sex and cocaine fuled lives). Where am I to find the intellectually serious theists that Dawkins ignores? In the pews at a Baptist church or at a revival or mega-church listening to Ted Haggard? At the Grammy awards? On the field or in the stands at a football game? Are they flying planes into buildings or shooting adulterers in a soccer field in the middle east.

This is as stupid a caricature as the old cranky atheist who simply can't be moral because he has no belief in God, and desires nothing more than rampant hedonism and anything-goes. It's a weak, unempirical, unscientific and silly argument, to be frank. If you represent "new atheism" with this argument then we have a pretty good example in this thread of the intellectual weakness of the movement in these arguments.

No the "new atheists" don't suck. The sucking is elsewhere.

Nah. For the most part what they say about religion is lame. However, I guess if I think hard about it I can see some utility in their work. Some of the questions they raise are good to think about in general, whether you believe in God or not. To the extent that new atheists prompt people to think about religion, their work is useful. To the extent that they discourage violence or unthinking perspectives they may be useful. However, most of them do not prompt one to take religion and especially theology very serious from the outset, which I find massively problematic. It's like reading a book on why science is so awful and terrible, but the book doesn't actually talk about benefits of scientific discoveries, etc. but instead dwells only on the bizarre or frightening (and there is plenty of frightening to dwell on, parenthetically, in science and religion). Which leads me to another problem I see with new atheists. They often take for granted the current moral state of things, the current state and direction of science and technology without seriously considering potential fall out. Instead they offer cheerleading slogans about how dumb those True Believers are. After all, "breeziness sells books." Even to people who aren't dumb religious believers of the theistic variety.

They are fundamentalists critiquing fundamentalists, and thus they miss a huge swath of the religious AND scientific spectrum. Oddly enough.

[FutureTwitBlog]

Another thing that I find both curious and funny about New Atheists is the fact that they espouse a great deal of Euro-ethnocentrism without bothering to explore the origins of where these ideas come from. They try to deflect the inherent lack of a moral basis in atheism (because, after all, if you don't believe in life after death then really anything goes, including things like rape, murder and property crime) by appealing to moral values that "everyone" believes in, such as the fact that murder is wrong. But, if you press them on where this idea originated, they try to either belittle the question or him and haw to avoid talking about the contributions of religion, especially the Christian religion in this area. Even something as serious as suicide, more or less universally condemned in Western culture as a bad thing, has been espoused by various cultures throughout the world's history as acceptable or even desirable. Indeed, it is very Christian (also shared by other belief systems) concepts, such as ideas that "Life has value", "God knows of and supports us in suffering", "Life is a sacred gift that we should use fully and wisely" that form the rational and moral basis of our belief that suicide is wrong.

I also agree that the new atheist movement is much more shallow than its predecessors because of this unwillingness to confront the moral origins and basis of our society.

[LifeOnaPlate]

But, if you press them on where this idea originated, they try to either belittle the question or him and haw to avoid talking about the contributions of religion, especially the Christian religion in this area. Even something as serious as suicide, more or less universally condemned in Western culture as a bad thing, has been espoused by various cultures throughout the world's history as acceptable or even desirable. Indeed, it is very Christian (also shared by other belief systems) concepts, such as ideas that "Life has value", "God knows of and supports us in suffering", "Life is a sacred gift that we should use fully and wisely" that form the rational and moral basis of our belief that suicide is wrong.

I also agree that the new atheist movement is much more shallow than its predecessors because of this unwillingness to confront the moral origins and basis of our society.

Their lack of acknowledging anything positive about religion is perhaps one of the most troubling and intellectually irresponsible aspects of the new atheist movement, and certainly differs from certain earlier atheist critiques of religion. It need not be argued that in order to be moral today one must acknowledge the existence of an anthropomorphic deity, but to disregard how we came to be where we are today, and to go as far as to deny any positive contribution is disturbing. (Sam Harris, for one, fears that any such concessions is equivalent to a weak-kneed approval of religion which then opens the door for suicide bombers and other radicals. So his mantra is that we must not give any sort of leeway lest we accidentally leave air for radicals to breathe.)

[Tarski]

This is as fallacious as saying I can responsibly prove science as misguided, silly, useless, even dangerous by only appealing to mass audience understanding of science. Do you think that's fair?

Yes I do because what science actually is is a function of what scientists do. But, religion is not intended to be for theologians and priests to "do". There isn't a symmetry.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes I do because what science actually is is a function of what scientists do. But, religion is not intended to be for theologians and priests to "do". There isn't a symmetry.

I'll simply meet your bald assertion by a counter assertion. Theology is a fundamental part of what religion is, whether it be academic and systematic, or whether it be completely folk. So yes, there is symmetry. The fact that you limit your response to "priests" and "theologians" only demonstrates further the lack of rigor in your approach, par for the new atheist course. Here's to hoping you respond to more than one of my points.

Getting back to one of my earlier points: I am very suspicious of new atheism because I am suspicious of fundamentalism of any stripe.

[cdowis]

I wonder how many here who want jump on the "new atheists suck" bandwagon are getting their info about these guys from opposing books and reviewers. Have you all really read the major works by these guys? Let's be honest.

Read "The Intentional Stance" by Dennett and then get back to me.

The other thing to mention is that there is nothing new about the new atheists and there are far more than 4 of them. In intellectual circles there hasn't been a shortage of atheists and agnostics for as long as I can remember. The opposing theism in academia has few real world effect as it is so defanged and often pretty silent. The opposing theism in popular culture is a joke. Here we see sports teams thanking Jesus for their wins and pop musicians thanking God for thier sucesses (which often means sex and cocaine fuled lives). Where am I to find the intellectually serious theists that Dawkins ignores? In the pews at a Baptist church or at a revival or mega-church listening to Ted Haggard? At the Grammy awards? On the field or in the stands at a football game? Are they flying planes into buildings or shooting adulterers in a soccer field in the middle east.

Maybe they are here busy promoting creationism or the idea that the Alpha and Omega is a glorified primate.

Maybe the exemplary theists are among the heros of capitalism -banks and Wall Street speculators-those who know who to make good use of credit default swaps and massive leveraging.

No the "new atheists" don't suck. The sucking is elsewhere.

You apparently have forgotten your audience here. We are not a bunch of Jesus thanking for a sports victory

Christians. In case you are unaware, the Mormons have a strong sense of who we are, our purpose in life, and what we believe. We do not have professional theologians to tell us what we believe, because WE know what we believe.

Beck, in his search for answers to his quesions on religion, found those answers -- not from Mormon theologians, but from ordinary members in an ordinary Sunday School class. Just ordinary Mormons.

So, sir, before I read Dennett, tell me what he has to offer me, the ordinary Mormon. Now YOU get back to us when you can give us an answer, and stop insulting us with your condensension about our religious ignorance.

Get back to me when you are willing to give us the new athiest response to my post on the Book of Mormon and how it provides at least three specific responses on how to prove deity.

Get back to us when you can give us a cogent response, instead of some breezy comment on sports Christians and people who blow themselves up in the name of religion.

Tarski, this is a forum on Mormonism. Tell us specifically what they have to say to us.

[Ah Pook]

From the portions that I have read, I would say that the stuff he wrote on his own earlier in his career was better. But then I expect to lean a little more toward theism as I approach death. It may well be an emotionally intelligent way to get along in those final years when all earthly accomplishments are in our past.

The standard brush-off of Antony Flew's late life reversal.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

I simply note throughout history that atheistic principles when they became heads of government haven't really turned out in a positive manner, with more killed by atheistic regimes where it was forced down on the people (Lenin and Stalinist Russia and Mao's China, among a couple of them) than have been killed in the name of religion in all the preceding centuries of human existence.