Some Responses to the New Atheists

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

It should be noted the "efficiency" (for lack of a better term, however cold and horrifying this one is) has improved, making it possible for newer regimes to kill more people. (We have science to thank! Of course, we can thank scientific achievements for improving the quality of life and life expectancy for many people as well.)

[Tarski]

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.

What a tired and thoroughly debunked chestnut.

First, atheism per se has no principles other than incredulity concerning the the existence of gods. That's it.

One could be an atheist and a Buddhist monk, a US senator, a free market capitalist or a communist. One could be a pacifist or a warmonger. An atheist could be smart or stupid, a game sportsman or someone who refuses to kill even insects. One could even be an atheist and still promote God belief for the good of society (like Berlinski).

Second, Stalinism was a sort of religion in itself and as such went way beyond anything atheism implies and, being a sort of pseudo-religious movement, it is likely to be rejected by most anti-religionists.

Hitler was Catholic and never denounced his religion. In fact, he invoked it many times.

I was recently informed (and I will soon see for myself if the references are true as I expect they will be) that Hitler claimed to have "stamped atheism out" in Germany and supposedly outlawed all organized freethinking and atheist groups in 1933 and give their buildings to Catholic church causes.

Can you translate the writing on this Nazi belt buckle?

[elguanteloko]

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

Check where the "scientific methodology" comes from.

[Rob Osborn]

Let me just say that mormonism is not compatible with the atheism movement. In fact, the ne watheism movement headed up by the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens is exactly counter productive to the Lords work.

Whoses side are people on?

As for me I am sticking with Christ on this one. Forget the new atheists and their futile movement.

[semlogo]

Let me just say that mormonism is not compatible with the atheism movement.

I'd have that that this is so obvious that it need not be stated.

[elguanteloko]

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 majority of almost any given group that share a general opinion hold in common a shallow view of their own position. Most mormons have a shallow view of their own doctrines and most Chrstians do the same. The 'new atheists' may be good writters (I don't think they are) and they may be very influential in the general public (they indeed have been) but when it comes to confronting the arguments they use the shallow end of atheism to attack the shallow end of theism. I never meant to say they suck as writters... who cares if they are good at that? We are talking about their ideas here.

[LifeOnaPlate]

One could be an atheist and a Buddhist monk, a US senator, a free market capitalist or a communist. One could be a pacifist or a warmonger. An atheist could be smart or stupid, a game sportsman or someone who refuses to kill even insects. One could even be an atheist and still promote God belief for the good of society (like Berlinski).

Suddenly Tarski wants nuance and differentiation, but only when applied to what he adheres to. Religion, in contrast, poisons everything, and really has nothing to do with politics or these other considerations which he wants us to keep in mind regarding atheists. Like the new atheist writers under discussion here, a bit of nuance can exist for them, but as for those idiotic theists, not so. They are being inconsistent when they think they can can lump theists into the same ignorant stew, and even then, only respond to what they consider as the most bizarre and dumb. And therein lies another huge problem with new atheist writers.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Let me just say that mormonism is not compatible with the atheism movement. In fact, the ne watheism movement headed up by the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens is exactly counter productive to the Lords work.

Whoses side are people on?

As for me I am sticking with Christ on this one. Forget the new atheists and their futile movement.

I can think of a few good reasons to take the new atheist movement seriously. For starters, if we take the plan of salvation seriously we would be concerned with the movement to the extent that it prevents or pulls people away from Christ's gospel. Because the new atheist movement seems to attract enough people to sell a few best-sellers, I think it would be good to consider what the attraction is, what the arguments are, and to deal with them as honestly and forthrightly as possible. Another reason is that our own faith perhaps needs a bit of a check. Granted, new atheist arguments are difficult for believers to grapple with, but not necessarily because they are so intellectually challenging to faith, but more so because they are so sneering, hostile, or dismissive. It's very difficult to dialog with someone who refuses to take anything you say seriously. At the same time, becoming familiar with new atheist-like arguments can help clarify one's own faith, and can even help draw away some of the dross of one's faith in certain instances. There are more reasons, but suffice it to say I don't think merely dismissing it as "futile" and telling people to "forget it" is the most prudent approach.

[Tarski]

The majority of almost any given group that share a general opinion hold in common a shallow view of their own position. Most mormons have a shallow view of their own doctrines and most Chrstians do the same. The 'new atheists' may be good writters (I don't think they are) and they may be very influential in the general public (they indeed have been) but when it comes to confronting the arguments they use the shallow end of atheism to attack the shallow end of theism. I never meant to say they suck as writters... who cares if they are good at that? We are talking about their ideas here.

OK, give me an example of something they overlook that ruins the overall argument.

[LifeOnaPlate]

OK, give me an example of something they overlook that ruins the overall argument.

Yes, hurry and provide that response so Tarski can subsequently ignore it. Or hey, I'll provide an example of something they overlook that ruins the overall argument: accuracy.

[Tarski]

Suddenly Tarski wants nuance and differentiation, but only when applied to what he adheres to. Religion, in contrast, poisons everything, and really has nothing to do with politics or these other considerations which he wants us to keep in mind regarding atheists. Like the new atheist writers under discussion here, a bit of nuance can exist for them, but as for those idiotic theists, not so. They are being inconsistent when they think they can can lump theists into the same ignorant stew, and even then, only respond to what they consider as the most bizarre and dumb. And therein lies another huge problem with new atheist writers.

I am going to have to ask you to read what I actually say rather than reading in what you think I must be saying. I never said that all religion poisons everything always. I have fairly positive impressions of Buddhism and positive impressions of some of the more modern less fundamentalistic religions (the social justice movement (hi Droopy) has some good spirit in it). Red letter charity and service based churches are also maybe a net positive.

Also, what in the world about my post makes you think I was bringing up anything that requires nuance in this instance. Quite the contrary. I ask that people pay attention to the meaning of the word atheism and stop talking about atheist principles as if it were a church rather than a word that simply refers to a lack of belief in gods.

An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in god or gods. Is that insisting on nuance?

If you want to insist that there is a defacto culture among American and European atheists and speak to that then fine but I think you will find we are a nice and reasonable bunch in the net balance of things. I'd take it over the Sharia promoters anyday.

If there is such a culture of modern western atheism in the spirit of Carl Sagan, then I think it safe to say that we don't fly planes into buildings or strap bombs to ourselves in the name of secularism. From what I can see we are also pro-democracy, pro-education, and pro-human rights. Also, the new atheists do not spend much time saying that theists are idiots or that all theism is alike. If you have read any of the writings you would know the opposite is true. Dawkins explicitly say, for example, that Francis Collins is an intelligent person. Dennett also speaks of toxic religion and benign, domesticated, or defanged religion. He recommends studying religion in a more systematic and empirical manner (why not?).

But lets call a spade a spade. Belief in a literal garden of eden with talking snakes just is idiotic. Creaiotnism is also idiotic.

If you read what Dawkins, Dennett and company say the same way you read what I write then no wonder you comdemn them. You have made them in the image of your expectations.

To admit that some religionists are inspired by their religion to charity etc. is not the same as conceding that, overall, religion has a positive net effect of society. Afterall, communism inspired many selfless and lofty acts too (I can provide examples).

Or if you like, consider this: Suppose Scientology were the dominant world religion with much political power and suppose you knew things that made you feel that the overall effect of this was negative. Would the fact that Scientology builds hospitals and inspires its members to be good parents or to give to charity be enough to change the overall balance of this state of affairs? I think not. They may well still be engaging in mind control and intimidation.

Now just so we are clear, I do not solidly come down on the side of the New Atheists. But I do insist that it is a live argument and that they are making very good points that must be addressed more seriously than what we have seen so far. The counter-arguments are really not so great as of yet. They often misrepresent and more often miss the point. Berlinski's aruments are particularly overrated.

[Tarski]

Yes, hurry and provide that response so Tarski can subsequently ignore it. Or hey, I'll provide an example of something they overlook that ruins the overall argument: accuracy.

I hope you have something other than pedantry. But, in anycase, you do have to provide specific examples.

Furthermore, if inaccuracy ruins an overall argument then I am willing to bet that flushes Berlinksi's overall argument right down the toilet with a whoosh! In fact, his would have been flushed on the basis of philosophical murkiness and relativism and Straussianism right from the start without even getting to the question of accuracy per se.

By the way, what do you think of Nibley's "accuracy" and how does it affect his overall argument? Let's not engage in special pleading.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am going to have to ask you to read what I actually say rather than reading in what you think I must be saying. I never said that all religion poisons everything always. I have fairly positive impressions of Buddhism and positive impressions of some of the more modern less fundamentalistic religions (the social justice movement (hi Droopy) has some good spirit in it). Red letter charity and service based churches are also maybe a net positive.

Also, what in the world about my post makes you think I was bringing up anything that requires nuance in this instance. Quite the contrary. I ask that people pay attention to the meaning of the word atheism and stop talking about atheist principles as if it were a church rather than a word that simply refers to a lack of belief in gods.

An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in god or gods. Is that insisting on nuance?

So ironic. You are so insistent that people not oversimplify atheism, yet you defend a group of writers who do little more than oversimplify what they call "religion." By the way, your response fails to respond to the other points I've made in this thread, so before I move on I'll wait until you respond without changing the subject.

[Tarski]

So ironic. You are so insistent that people not oversimplify atheism, yet you defend a group of writers who do little more than oversimplify what they call "religion."

No they don't.

CFR

[LifeOnaPlate]

I hope you have something other than pedantry.

Pot, kettle, etc.

But, in anycase, you do have to provide specific examples.

OK. "Religion poisons everything." Inaccurate.

Furthermore, if inaccuracy ruins an overall argument then I am willing to bet that flushes Berlinksi's overall argument right down the toilet with a whoosh!

I don't care, I haven't read Berlinski.

By the way, what do you think of Nibley's "accuracy" and how does it affect his overall argument? Let's not engage in special pleading.

Tu quoque won't save the new atheist writers.

[LifeOnaPlate]

No they don't.

CFR

Yes they do. CFR, see all my posts in this thread so far, as well as the book reviews I linked to.

[Tarski]

Yes they do. CFR, see all my posts in this thread so far, as well as the book reviews I linked to.

I hope you are not talking about your post number 18 wherein you say things like

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

(as if we could appeal to some oracle concerning the usually ideologically infected disagreements about history)

Typically, you assert that there are these egregious problems with accuracy but give no specific examples let alone show that said inaccuracies change materially the thrust of the argument.

What would it mean if for every inaccuracy in one of Dennett's books I could find an innaccuracy in one of Hart's books?

What would it mean if I could defend both scientifically and philosophically most of Dennett's assertions and give point by point rebuttals to Hart's arguments?

Bring up a specific point that you find devastating and let's give it a go.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I hope you are not talking about your post number 18 wherein you say things like

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

(as if we could appeal to some oracle concerning the usually ideologically infected disagreements about history)

Now you're playing the historical relativist? There are, believe it or not, some criteria we can apply to try and keep things (relatively!) honest historically. Let's start with him take on the Bible. Check out Hamblin's response and show me any mistakes.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=21&num=2&id=773

It establishes some of the problems with Hitchens's poor history. As for Harris, I don't have his fearful book right now, so I can't refer you to any specifics there.

Typically, you assert that there are these egregious problems with accuracy but give no specific examples let alone show that said inaccuracies change materially the thrust of the argument.

Here's a simple example. Hitchens claims Aquinas said "I am a man of one book," presumably preparing the reader for his assertions about the ignorance of theists generally. Please find that quote for me.

What would it mean if for every inaccuracy in one of Dennett's books I could find an innaccuracy in one of Hart's books?

What would it mean if I could defend both scientifically and philosophically most of Dennett's assertions and give point by point rebuttals to Hart's arguments?

What if the New Jersey Nets win the NBA championship this year? What if up was down?

Bring up a specific point that you find devastating and let's give it a go.

"Religion poisons everything."

[Tarski]

"Religion poisons everything."

LOL

Is that a specific point of inaccuracy? Or a provocative title the thrust of which does not include the idea that religion poisons peanut butter?

How about Berlinkski's claim that atheism poisons everything? You OK with that?

Come on, quit pointing to other's reviews and so forth and just bring up your own specific point and defend it.

[Rob Osborn]

I can think of a few good reasons to take the new atheist movement seriously. For starters, if we take the plan of salvation seriously we would be concerned with the movement to the extent that it prevents or pulls people away from Christ's gospel. Because the new atheist movement seems to attract enough people to sell a few best-sellers, I think it would be good to consider what the attraction is, what the arguments are, and to deal with them as honestly and forthrightly as possible. Another reason is that our own faith perhaps needs a bit of a check. Granted, new atheist arguments are difficult for believers to grapple with, but not necessarily because they are so intellectually challenging to faith, but more so because they are so sneering, hostile, or dismissive. It's very difficult to dialog with someone who refuses to take anything you say seriously. At the same time, becoming familiar with new atheist-like arguments can help clarify one's own faith, and can even help draw away some of the dross of one's faith in certain instances. There are more reasons, but suffice it to say I don't think merely dismissing it as "futile" and telling people to "forget it" is the most prudent approach.

I don't have a lot of patience with the new atheist movement because of their distortion of facts, lies, and their basic attitude towards God- they hate him and think anyone who follows such craziness must have a few screws loose. And, they do it all in the name of building fame and fortune to themselves. It's childish, immature, and it is futile.

[Tarski]

I don't have a lot of patience with the new atheist movement because of their distortion of facts, lies, and their basic attitude towards God- they hate him and think anyone who follows such craziness must have a few screws loose. And, they do it all in the name of building fame and fortune to themselves. It's childish, immature, and it is futile.

A little bird named "A. Hunch" is whispering in my ear. He is saying he thinks maybe Rob didn't read even one of the books written by the so called new atheists and that his claims of distortions are based on mere assumption or the word of others. Will Rob be truthful about this? I wonder.

[elguanteloko]

OK, give me an example of something they overlook that ruins the overall argument.

The reasons why extremists are extremists. They fail to attribute to the religious community all the good actions that come through them enough as they deserve. The many good values that are promoted through religion. Unrealistic, almost childish, expectations of "science and reason" (their mantra) to answer philosophical and moral questions.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOL

Is that a specific point of inaccuracy? Or a provocative title the thrust of which does not include the idea that religion poisons peanut butter?

How about Berlinkski's claim that atheism poisons everything? You OK with that?

"LOL" I just told you I don't know anything about Berlinski. Should I make a crack about how your reading comprehension in the thread is an indication of why new atheist arguments appeal to you? I brought up points and you dismissed them on the grounds that I am pointing to "other's reviews". I suggest you quit beating around the bush and deal with the points I just posted. Are they irrelevant if I'm not the only person who has pointed them out? Or if I did not notice them myself? Am I on trial here or are new atheist arguments on trial? I was under the impression we were talking about new atheists, not my own cleverness or perceptive nature. Seems more like you're just not willing to put forth the effort to defend poor arguments and reasoning. Surprise me. Find the Aquinas quote. Show me where Hamblin is wrong in his critique of Hitchens. Until then we're at a standstill. The ball is in your court, and (to mix metaphors) I'm not going to keep it up if you're simply going to start shifting goal posts.

[WalkerW]

I'll add Daniel Peterson's review "God and Mr. Hitchens" for good measure.

I've read The God Delusion, The End of Faith, and god is Not Great. The first (which I actually own) was a fun jab at fundamentalists, but utterly worthless to anyone who has actually read theology or history (I found his sneer at the 17th century English of the Book of Mormon rather ironic given Royal Skousen's research). The second was my least favorite of the three, being the most generalized and most angry. The third I enjoyed only because I like listening to Hitchens (I actually listened to the audio CD - it was all the library had), but it was so feeble, so historically and philosophically inaccurate that it was laughable.

I enjoyed Edward Feser's The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism not because I accept all of Feser's Scholasticism, but because it demonstrated how little the New Atheists even understand the philosophies they are supposedly debunking.

You might also check the citations regarding Hitler and the Pope that Peterson gives. They may help with your Nazi-Catholicism connection.

[WalkerW]

Perhaps God and the afterlife are just too silly for the New Atheists. They all hope to return as

.