Some Responses to the New Atheists

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Of course. Because it is true.

(Rib, rib.)

[Ariarates]

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.

Tooth and nail, really? Do you have any idea how little the world cares about the BoM?

[Ariarates]

While they are not perfectly replicable, many have performed the test and found it confirmed.

On the other hand, way many more have performed the test and found it failed. Replicability matters when it comes to testing,

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

And unlike the real scientific methodology, the BoM also supplies what result the test is supposed to yield.

[Rob Osborn]

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.

I have wayched their debates, listen to their commentary, read their points and watched their interviews on the news. So, have a nice day Tarski

[Ariarates]

... 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) ...

You don't get out of your village much, do you? There are millions of people in the world who are indifferent to religion and who do not revert to rape, murder and propertry crime. Likewise, there are millions of people who are religious and who do revert to rape, murder and property crime. People are agents unto themselves and all of us are born with an innate knowledge of good and evil.

While I do not care much for Dawkins' musings on theology (but love his biology, btw), he does make an interesting point when he says that people don't use the bible as a source for morality because there is plenty of immorality in the Bible which we wouldn't dream of applying. Obviously, we judge morality by other standards than by what's in the Bible - or the BoM for that matter, otherwise Nephi chopping off the incapacitated Laban's head would't be much of an issue.

Check out the reference in my sig line. It details some interesting experiments with moral behaviour in monkeys too.

[Ariarates]

However, most of them do not prompt one to take religion and especially theology very serious from the outset, which I find massively problematic.

I agree, a very good point. I've read Dawkins' God Delusion and while it is well written and makes some interesting observations, it prominently displays the problem you mention. I've started a book by Hitchens (can't remember which) but stopped after three or four chapters because it was just one big rant against religion.

Now Dan Dennett is another story. Have you read his book "Breaking the spell"? It is the exact opposite of these other authors which are labeled "new atheists" here. It does take religion seriously but it also requires religion to take itself seriously, to present good arguments rather than basing its claims in faith. Of course, his book is probably not as widely read as the other ones because reading it is hard work. I think you just may like it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I agree, a very good point. I've read Dawkins' God Delusion and while it is well written and makes some interesting observations, it prominently displays the problem you mention. I've started a book by Hitchens (can't remember which) but stopped after three or four chapters because it was just one big rant against religion.

Word. Glad to know there are some folks out there who can recognize the obvious problems (Tarski seems incapable of recognizing any flaws.)

Now Dan Dennett is another story. Have you read his book "Breaking the spell"? It is the exact opposite of these other authors which are labeled "new atheists" here. It does take religion seriously but it also requires religion to take itself seriously, to present good arguments rather than basing its claims in faith. Of course, his book is probably not as widely read as the other ones because reading it is hard work. I think you just may like it.

No, but I've read some of Dennett's other work.

[Tarski]

"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?

Look this isn't hard. You should be able to answer this even without reading Berlinski. Does the statement "religion poisons everything" ruin any overall argument Berlinski (or anyone else) could be making? If not then you will have to explain how the equivalent statement about religion is obviously fatal for the overall argument of any one of the New Atheists (as you just insisted it was without further comment).

[FutureTwitBlog]

Look this isn't hard. You should be able to answer this even without reading Berlinski. Does the statement "religion poisons everything" ruin any overall argument Berlinski (or anyone else) could be making? If not then you will have to explain how the equivalent statement about religion is obviously fatal for the overall argument of any one of the New Atheists (as you just insisted it was without further comment).

I think that it's perfectly acceptable in most fields -- when one think that a question has been sufficiently answered by another, one agrees with the answer, and the answer is readily available in published form-- for someone to refer to that answer in response to the same question from another person.

He feels that he has already answered your question by referring you to a published answer with which he agrees. If you're interested, I suppose that you can look up the response.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

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.

In agreement with that.

As for the Nazi belt buckle, it was a rehashing of a German theme that appeared multiple times back to the time when it was considered Prussia. Not by any means a theme unique to the Nazis.

[changed]

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.

Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."[1] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under communist atheistic regimes.[1] It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[8] Richard Dawkins has attempted to engage in historical revisionism concerning atheist atrocities and Dawkins was shown to be in gross error.

Koukl summarized by stating:

[LifeOnaPlate]

Look this isn't hard. You should be able to answer this even without reading Berlinski. Does the statement "religion poisons everything" ruin any overall argument Berlinski (or anyone else) could be making? If not then you will have to explain how the equivalent statement about religion is obviously fatal for the overall argument of any one of the New Atheists (as you just insisted it was without further comment).

Look, this isn't hard, I've given you some points for discussion but you keep ignoring them.

[Tarski]

Look, this isn't hard, I've given you some points for discussion but you keep ignoring them.

Yeah, it was silly when you threw out "religion poisons everything" as an "inaccuracy" that undermines the argument that religion poisons everything.

And you say I am dodging? I have asked specific questions which you have ignored. I haven't seen anything of substance from you yet and you have fooled me twice into going back and reading through your posts to see if I missed something specific and well thought out.

I think we should focus on a specific item that comes up repeatedly.

1) What are the deep theological issues or points that Dawkins et. al. ignore that undermine their assessment of the social value of religion or the truth of it's supernatural claims?

[LifeOnaPlate]

It seems like you only read the very last line of my post and decided to microfocus on it, which was a throw-away comment about the ridiculous subtitle of Hitchens's book. Go read my post, in which I brought up several specific issues, and respond. I'm not playing your goalpost shifting game. If you can't tell, I'm getting irritated. You can respond to what I've already said or forget it. Here, I'll even give you some more help.

Hamblin points out that

Hitchens sees the New Testament as merely a "crude" forgery that was "hammered together long after its purported events." The notion that the Gospels could be based on eyewitness accounts is "a patently fraudulent claim." It is an error to assume "that the four Gospels were in any sense a historical record"; they were instead "a garbled and oral-based reconstruction undertaken some considerable time after the fact" (pp. 110

[changed]

1) What are the deep theological issues or points that Dawkins et. al. ignore that undermine their assessment of the social value of religion or the truth of it's supernatural claims?

refusing to talk to creationists is one way to ignore them...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/william-lane-craig-is-avoided-by-richard-dawkins/

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_public_refusal_to_debate_creationists'>http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_public_refusal_to_debate_creationists

I love conservapedia

Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL, born March 26, 1941 (age 69), is a biologist, evolutionist, atheist, and leftist/liberal. Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have been on the topic of evolutionary biology. Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere superstition.[1] However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the irreligious are more likely to be superstitious than evangelical Christians.[2] Moreover, in terms of the theism vs. atheism issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of theology and philosophy. For example, atheist philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse declared concerning Dawkins' book The God Delusion: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."[3] Furthermore, Richard Dawkins has established a reputation for avoiding debates with his strongest opponents. Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of atheism and the evolutionary paradigm. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the UK. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at Oxford.[4]

etc. etc. etc.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins

[WalkerW]

Speaking of Feser, here is a review he wrote of Dennett's Breaking the Spell. Worth checking out:

Edward Feser, "Not So Bright," The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture (Summer 2007).

I don't always agree with Feser's Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysics, but he's no joke. He's written on the philosophies of Aquinas (Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide: Oneworld, 2009), Locke (Locke: Oneworld, 2007), Hayek (The Cambridge Companion to Hayek (ed.): Cambridge University Press, 2006) and Nozick (On Nozick: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2003). I've read the one on Hayek and am currently reading the ones on Aquinas and Locke.

[Ariarates]

Speaking of Feser, here is a review he wrote of Dennett's Breaking the Spell. Worth checking out

From the review I don't get the impression that he actually read Dennett's book. Skimmed it, maybe; probably only read the ToC and the first paragraphs of the two or three chapters that caught his attention. Then takes that as his cue to deliver his own sermon.

Interestingly, Dennett predicted how people like Feser would react to his book. Only he intentionally buried that prediction in a footnote. Looks like Mr. Feser missed it :-)

[cdowis]

I think we should focus on a specific item that comes up repeatedly.

1) What are the deep theological issues or points that Dawkins et. al. ignore that undermine their assessment of the social value of religion or the truth of it's supernatural claims?

Personal revelation.

[WalkerW]

From the review I don't get the impression that he actually read Dennett's book. Skimmed it, maybe; probably only read the ToC and the first paragraphs of the two or three chapters that caught his attention. Then takes that as his cue to deliver his own sermon.

Interestingly, Dennett predicted how people like Feser would react to his book. Only he intentionally buried that prediction in a footnote. Looks like Mr. Feser missed it :-)

Perhaps. Given his book The Last Superstition, however, I don't think that is the case. Especially since Feser's book is an analysis of Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysics that demonstrates Dennett's understanding of the "First Cause" argument is superficial as is his dismissal of "the niceties of scholastic logic." One can argue that the Aquinas approach is philosophically unsound, but you have to get the Aquinas approach correct first. Otherwise, you make a straw man like many of the New Atheists do.

I would also suggest David Bentley Hart, "Daniel Dennett Hunts the Snark," First Things 169 (January 2007).

[elguanteloko]

In agreement with that.

As for the Nazi belt buckle, it was a rehashing of a German theme that appeared multiple times back to the time when it was considered Prussia. Not by any means a theme unique to the Nazis.

The point is it doesn't really matter if Hitler was an atheist or not since he himself didn't kill millions of people. The point of the belt buckle is that Hitler and his criminals used quasi-religious elements to control their soldiers and motivate them to do horrors. The Nazis weren't a case of well-thought secular values gone wrong.

[Chris Smith]

The point is it doesn't really matter if Hitler was an atheist or not since he himself didn't kill millions of people. The point of the belt buckle is that Hitler and his criminals used quasi-religious elements to control their soldiers and motivate them to do horrors. The Nazis weren't a case of well-thought secular values gone wrong.

That's only half true. The "scientific racism" on which eugenics was founded was indeed "a case of well-thought secular values gone wrong." However, you're correct that the Nazis turned Arian supremacy into a pseudo-religious ideology and even overtly co-opted the Lutheran churches in order to support their regime.

In my opinion, the problem isn't so much religion or atheism as "exclusive ideology"-- ideology that essentializes groups and idolizes the "purity" of the ingroup while demonizing outgroups. This can be racism, nationalism, Islamism, Christian sectarianism, American nativism, Bolshevism, Maoism, or any number of other virulent ideologies. All of these ideologies function in similar ways, using similar persuasive and coercive strategies, and all of them have contributed to cases of mass deportation and genocidal violence.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That's only half true. The "scientific racism" on which eugenics was founded was indeed "a case of well-thought secular values gone wrong." However, you're correct that the Nazis turned Arian supremacy into a pseudo-religious ideology and even overtly co-opted the Lutheran churches in order to support their regime.

In my opinion, the problem isn't so much religion or atheism as "exclusive ideology"-- ideology that essentializes groups and idolizes the "purity" of the ingroup while demonizing outgroups. This can be racism, nationalism, Islamism, Christian sectarianism, American nativism, Bolshevism, Maoism, or any number of other virulent ideologies. All of these ideologies function in similar ways, using similar persuasive and coercive strategies, and all of them have contributed to cases of mass deportation and genocidal violence.

A great point, IMO. Conceiving of the struggle as existing between the irrational religious on one side and the coldly-rational secular folks on the other misses the mark, to our peril.

[Rob Osborn]

The main point of the new atheist movement is that it seeks to plot God as the evil one, the motivating cause of violence in society. Of course this is Satan's plan, he truly wants God to be thought of as the evil one while he can take some glory for himself.

This is why I think it is wrong to just say "religion" in these contexts. When people see the word "religion" they automatically think of a deity faith based system. But in the broader sense, and how it should be used, religion can be defined as any group who have the same ideaology. Even the gadianton robbers in the BoM can be defined as a religion. Governments of countries can be seen as a religion. Often time we mistake that deity has to be the main backer of a group to be defined as a "religion" and yet God himself has said that religion can be the church of the devil- any manner of wickedness.

[Analytics]

The main point of the new atheist movement is that it seeks to plot God as the evil one, the motivating cause of violence in society. Of course this is Satan's plan, he truly wants God to be thought of as the evil one while he can take some glory for himself.

This is why I think it is wrong to just say "religion" in these contexts. When people see the word "religion" they automatically think of a deity faith based system. But in the broader sense, and how it should be used, religion can be defined as any group who have the same ideaology. Even the gadianton robbers in the BoM can be defined as a religion. Governments of countries can be seen as a religion. Often time we mistake that deity has to be the main backer of a group to be defined as a "religion" and yet God himself has said that religion can be the church of the devil- any manner of wickedness.

I disagree. Atheists don

[Rob Osborn]

I disagree. Atheists don