Some Responses to the New Atheists

[LifeOnaPlate]

I disagree. Atheists don

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The whole premise is that the truth matters. Mormon missionaries feel a bit of frustration when they knock on a Catholic

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Maybe you are an Internet New Atheist and I've only been reading Chapel New Atheists.

Oh snap, that was good.

[Analytics]

The new atheist movement is about trying to prove that belief in a deity is the root cause of evil in society. I am calling a spade a spade here. The new athiest movement is about making God to look like a bandit, a liar, an evil being. The author of the new atheism movement is Satan himself- it is his very religion.

Just so you know, your anti-new-atheist speech is as hateful and absurd as anything Ed Decker says about Mormons.

I think that's an interesting read of the approach of new atheism. I don't see this approach described by or articulated in new atheist works so far. Maybe you are an Internet New Atheist and I've only been reading Chapel New Atheists.

How much new atheism do you read? For example, have you read God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist?

This is interesting. In some ways it appears you are trying to build on a common belief. Kudos to you.

I was trained by the best, lol!

[WalkerW]

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.

Too true. The Social Gospel of the early 20th century, for example, supported the eugenics movement just like their secular brothers and sisters. See Thomas C. Leonard, "Religion and Evolution in Progressive Era Political Economy: Adversaries or Allies?" Forthcoming in History of Political Economy 43:3 (Fall 2011). What makes it worse is when authority and power is centralized in the hands of those who hold "exclusive ideologies."

[WalkerW]

How much new atheism do you read? For example, have you read God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist?

I actually read much of Stenger's book prior to ever hearing about Dawkins, Harris, etc. On my mission of all places when it first came out. I had a companion who loved to read as much I as did, so we often spent our P-Days in Borders. I spent 2 or 3 P-Days reading from Stenger's book. I'd like to go back and read it again now that I have a better grasp on what I'm dealing with. He was attacking arguments that I'd never used or thought to use at the time, so it didn't have a huge impact on me.

Thanks for bringing it up. I'll have to put it on my to-read list.

And in fairness to Blair, I think he's read quite a bit of the New Atheism and the responses to it. For example, if he has read F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, Thomas E. Woods, but not Llewellyn H. Rockwell, I wouldn't question his knowledge of Austrian economic theory just because he hasn't read the last author (though I would strongly suggest he do so).

[LifeOnaPlate]

How much new atheism do you read? For example, have you read God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist?

I haven't read that one, no. I probably should. I'm pretty curious as to how Mr. Stenger somehow figured out how to prove a negative.

[LifeOnaPlate]

He was attacking arguments that I'd never used or thought to use at the time, so it didn't have a huge impact on me.

I've found this is the case with some of the stuff I've read from Dawkins and Hitchens too. They spend a good deal of time criticizing concepts of God which don't apply to God as I understand God.

[Rob Osborn]

Just so you know, your anti-new-atheist speech is as hateful and absurd as anything Ed Decker says about Mormons.

Well then, good! I have done my job to defend Christian values.

[WalkerW]

I've found this is the case with some of the stuff I've read from Dawkins and Hitchens too. They spend a good deal of time criticizing concepts of God which don't apply to God as I understand God.

Right. Dawkins opens his book by addressing this response, but he still tries to throw every concept of "God" under the bus by attacking fundamentalists, creationists, and straw-man versions of Aquinas's philosophy. I'm not the first two and only embrace some aspects of Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysics. So...yeah. It leaves me thinking, "What's your point?"

[Analytics]

Right. Dawkins opens his book by addressing this response, but he still tries to throw every concept of "God" under the bus by attacking fundamentalists, creationists, and straw-man versions of Aquinas's philosophy. I'm not the first two and only embrace some aspects of Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysics. So...yeah. It leaves me thinking, "What's your point?"

Stenger says at the outset,

To be sure, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is not well defined. Not only do different views of God exist among these faiths, but also many differences can be found within each faith itself

[WalkerW]

...that lives on a planet orbiting Kolob.

Unless you want to start attributing fundamentalism to all Mormons, I'd have to say 'no' with this one.

[Tarski]

Right. Dawkins opens his book by addressing this response, but he still tries to throw every concept of "God" under the bus by attacking fundamentalists, creationists, and straw-man versions of Aquinas's philosophy. I'm not the first two and only embrace some aspects of Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysics. So...yeah. It leaves me thinking, "What's your point?"

It seems to me that he would have an even easier time with the Mormon God ( a hyper-literal vision of God as a glorified primate complete with teeth, hair, toenails, nipples, rectum etc. ). The number of absurdities that such a vision engenders when brought into proximity with evolutionary explanations of the body plan of homosapiens is quite high in my opinion.

Indeed, I don't understand the way Mormons like DCP bring up Aquinas and/or complain that Dawkins doesn't treat serious modern theology (God as the totally incorporeal genderless "ground of being"). As far as theology, Mormonism is in many ways more fundamentalist than the fundamentalists and is a very easy target. So much so, that people, don't even bother bringing Mormonism up much is such discussions.

*By the way, I really wasn't impressed with Hart's critique of Dennett at all. I found myself objecting all the way through the review.

[Analytics]

Unless you want to start attributing fundamentalism to all Mormons, I'd have to say 'no' with this one.

Really? According to Abraham 3:3, God told Abraham that Kolob is near Him. What do non-fundamentalist Mormons think God meant by that?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I will focus on those attributes of God that the bulk of believers in each of these varied groups worship. Some of these attributes are also shared by the deities of religion outside the three great monotheisms.

In other words, I'll focus on a few things which I think people believe (based on some gut instinct?), none of which actually comprise a God whom anyone in particular claims to believe in.

Seems like a poorly conceived project. And oddly unscientific.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Really? According to Abraham 3:3, God told Abraham that Kolob is near Him. What do non-fundamentalist Mormons think God meant by that?

It could be a planet it could be nothing. I have no idea. Why do you suppose it is a planet? Not that I disagree that it could be a planet.

[Tarski]

It could be a planet it could be nothing. I have no idea. Why do you suppose it is a planet? Not that I disagree that it could be a planet.

"Nothing" sounds like a winner to me. Are Mormons free to apply that option to the rest of the beings and entities mentioned in scripture?

[Analytics]

It could be a planet it could be nothing. I have no idea. Why do you suppose it is a planet? Not that I disagree that it could be a planet.

According to "The Guide to the Scriptures", Kolob is "The star nearest the throne of God."

http://lds.org/scriptures/gs/kolob.t1?lang=eng&letter=k

That's what I learned in seminary. That technically Kolob is a star, and that God lives on a planet tht orbits Kolob.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"Nothing" sounds like a winner to me. Are Mormons free to apply that option to the rest of the beings and entities mentioned in scripture?

Ha, that made me laugh. I only used nothing because the text never says anything other than Kolob being the nearest to the throne of God.

Is a throne a planet? Is it some other 3rd thing?

[Bill Hamblin]

It seems to me that he would have an even easier time with the Mormon God ( a hyper-literal vision of God as a glorified primate complete with teeth, hair, toenails, nipples, rectum etc. ). The number of absurdities that such a vision engenders when brought into proximity with evolutionary explanations of the body plan of homosapiens is quite high in my opinion.

Indeed, I don't understand the way Mormons like DCP bring up Aquinas and/or complain that Dawkins doesn't treat serious modern theology (God as the totally incorporeal genderless "ground of being"). As far as theology, Mormonism is in many ways more fundamentalist than the fundamentalists and is a very easy target. So much so, that people, don't even bother bringing Mormonism up much is such discussions.

*By the way, I really wasn't impressed with Hart's critique of Dennett at all. I found myself objecting all the way through the review.

Good grief Tarski, you are so predictable and boring. Don't you ever have anything NEW to say? Do you really think that continually repeating an idea over and over renders it more interesting or valid? I suppose you must.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

According to "The Guide to the Scriptures", Kolob is "The star nearest the throne of God."

http://lds.org/scriptures/gs/kolob.t1?lang=eng&letter=k

That's what I learned in seminary. That technically Kolob is a star, and that God lives on a planet tht orbits Kolob.

I never heard anything beyond what the text states. BTW I have found seminary teachers to be some of the worst teachers as far as false or twinkie doctrine is concerned.

Note: I am not claiming that all seminary teachers promulgate false doctrine.

[Analytics]

In other words, I'll focus on a few things which I think people believe (based on some gut instinct?), none of which actually comprise a God whom anyone in particular claims to believe in.

Seems like a poorly conceived project. And oddly unscientific.

Are you kidding me? You haven't even read the book. What's your basis of asserting that he merely "thinks" people believe these things about God? What's your basis for asserting that nobody in particular claims to believe these things about God?

[Analytics]

I never heard anything beyond what the text states. BTW I have found seminary teachers to be some of the worst teachers as far as false or twinkie doctrine is concerned.

Yea, seminary teachers are right up there with BYU professors, lol.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yea, seminary teachers are right up there with BYU professors, lol.

Ok ok, that was good.

[Tarski]

Good grief Tarski, you are so predictable and boring. Don't you ever have anything NEW to say? Do you really think that continually repeating an idea over and over renders it more interesting or valid? I suppose you must.

Do you think merely laughing something off over and over is interesting or valid?

The fact that no one has even come close to cogently addressing the various mentioned absurdities is by itself interesting. In fact, new absurdities are discovered by watching people make the attempt. Now that isn't boring, that's entertainment.

As far as saying something new, well it only takes one crack to make an edifice fall and what we have here is more than a mere crack.

Beside, you and I both know that I haven't brought this up in any detail for a while and there are all sorts of new people here that could benefit from hearing them for the first time.

Bringing these things up is also effective in that more than one of the exmos that used to be a marginal apologist has privately credited these points I make as playing a major role in their transformation.

The only problem is that Mormons are just already so used to living with these incongruities that the absurd doesn't seem absurd and some people just don't have any philosophical circumspection in the first place. They will be immune and I am fine with that.

Also, a heads up for you: The ploy of pointing at a good skeptical point and yawning only works with some people. The rest realize it is a form of intellectual bullying. The points I make are great and they aren't getting old. Sorry.

You know what would really make the point? Well, it would be fun to have a debate with some theologians and philosophers are judges. The question would be something like "does traditional Mormon theology as initiated especially in the King Follet discourses lead to absurdities in light of modern evolutionary biology?"

What do you think? Would it be a piece of cake for you since my points are just boring?