Atheism: Old and New

[Hutch Hogan]

This distinction is getting thrown around more and more by the weary apologist.  I was wondering if any nerdfighting philosophers have thoughts about what is new atheism, what is old atheism or whether there is much difference at all. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You are now altering the issue. You said

"I'm trying to assert that he does not need some doctorate of theology to critique religion"

To which I have responded, that his criticisms are brash and over simplistic, and therefore he needs a better understanding, which a doctorate would provide. Are you claiming that his attacks are in fact, defensible or not? You claim he doesn't need a doctorate. Surely he needs a decent understanding, and would you not agree that he has failed to prove that he has that.

[Hutch Hogan]

You are now altering the issue. You said "I'm trying to assert that he does not need some doctorate of theology to critique religion"

I'm not altering the issue. 

To which I have responded, that his criticisms are brash and over simplistic, and therefore he needs a better understanding, which a doctorate would provide. Are you claiming that his attacks are in fact, defensible or not? You claim he doesn't need a doctorate. Surely he needs a decent understanding, and would you not agree that he has failed to prove that he has that.

To which I respond as enthusiastically as before: "Meh"

Dawkins has published a book with his beliefs and the reason he believe in his beliefs.  Lot's of people read the book and he's famous. 

Some disagree and invite him to debate, sometimes he says yes, sometimes he says no and sometimes he says why he says no. 

[Hutch Hogan]

Because I kind of expect better from atheists.  Like, I always kind of expected better from atheists, and until the rise of New Atheism, atheists usually delivered.  It turns out, I guess, that human nature is the same in everybody.  All you need to somebody asking you to follow the drumbeat of dogmatism and superiority, and we follow.  And that's just kind of disappointing.

You seem to one of those Christians making the "weary" complaint that I discussed with Thomas earlier in the thread. 

Based on what you've seen of my posts, am I a new atheist, or an old atheist? 

[Abreo]

In a court case, if one side deems that the other has flawed evidence, do they just say "you have no evidence" and leave it at that? No. They say "The evidence that you have is flawed" and a discussion can begin. Saying "you have no evidence" from the outset is a form of insult. Dawkins is basically arguing that religious people are fools, rather than merely people who he disagrees with. By saying "you have no evidence" he is basically accusing religious people for acting as they do for no reason. As if they are doing so completely arbitarily etc.

Court cases aren't really discussions and yes the defendant may say to the judge and jury that the prosecutor has no evidence against their client if the evidence is nonexistent or if it's rather shabby. 

Now jumping into a single debate one may see Dawkins as shutting down his opponent before the debate begins but he's been publicly debating respected theists for years. He's publicly stated his opinions on all of their arguments and evidence for years. It's not as though many of them have anything new to say. This isn't a series of totally separate court cases where he goes in totally blind as to what the defendant/prosecutor is going to say. He knows what evidence people have for religion and he's publicly turned it down already many many times.

Why should he have to pretend otherwise? That would just come off as even more condescending.

Yes, if he want's to speak of the origins of religions, let him do so. Expect, guess what? The origins of religions are over thousands of years ago. Engaging with modern religions like they are at the point of origin, which is what Dawkins is doing, is a strawman. His thesis is not "old religion can be defeated with science" his thesis is "all religion can be defeated with science".

Well that's what he's mostly upset about. You personally may not use Christianity to scoff at science but other people do and from my understanding that's one of the reasons he originally started denouncing religion in public. He thinks people who use religion to denounce science to any extent are detrimental to the progress of humanity.

Once again though, for many people religion is still a source of explanation for why everything is here and how and why we got here. Those questions seem to be fundamental ones for many people and they answer them with religion. Once again, if you don't do it then Dawkin's arguments don't apply to you but they're not strawmen. He's actually speaking to the beliefs that many people out there hold.

Yes, but you have to start the discussion with "what you believe is a valid source..." you cannot simply say "you have no evidence" because that is a non starter. Dawkins cannot, with accuracy say "you have no evidence". It isn't accurate. The evidence for Christianity is a valid source. He may not be convinced by it, but that's not the same thing.

 

Well like I said, the debates you saw with him probably weren't the first time he publicly stated his opinions much less formed them. He knew what the arguments were going to be before he took the stage, you can tell because he usually has speeches prepared to answer everything his opponent says and he usually recites them word for word. I don't think he ever sat there one day and formed and memorized them, these speeches probably just came out naturally as he had to answer the same questions and arguments over and over again. 

Valid means well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful or logically correct. He doesn't strike me  as the type of person who thinks the evidence for religion is any of those things. In fact he usually states the evidence isn't any of those things outright. I've him call it loony, or unjustifiable, or illogical before. So his opinion isn't just you're wrong, it's you don't have any justifiable reason for believing in what you do. 

Now ignoring his behavior he has the right to think that so why can't he be on the opinion that Christianity has no evidence? I'm sure he knows everything as well as you do, it's not like all of his debates are with people who dwell in the sewers or something. I'm sure he's heard it all before, and I know him discrediting your beliefs is annoying (it would bother me too) but why can't he just come right out and say what he thinks? I don't think that's arrogant of him to do. He is arrogant but that's not why he's arrogant.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Now jumping into a single debate one may see Dawkins as shutting down his opponent before the debate begins but he's been publicly debating respected theists for years. He's publicly stated his opinions on all of their arguments and evidence for years. It's not as though many of them have anything new to say. This isn't a series of totally separate court cases where he goes in totally blind as to what the defendant/prosecutor is going to say. He knows what evidence people have for religion and he's publicly turned it down already many many times.

The fact that he has these arguments does not somehow mean the Bible is actually physically destroyed. He cannot say, with accuracy "you have no evidence". He can say "I don't buy into your evidence's credability" or "Your evidence seems to me flawed" but he cannot say "you have no evidence". Even taking your argument, the only way he could say "you have no evidence" is if he had objectively won the debate, which he has not.

Well that's what he's mostly upset about. You personally may not use Christianity to scoff at science but other people do and from my understanding that's one of the reasons he originally started denouncing religion in public. He thinks people who use religion to denounce science to any extent are detrimental to the progress of humanity.

If that is his issue, he would have an ally in me. Yet I don't see that in the God Delusion. What I see are arguments against the existence of God. Not arguments against science and religion being unharmonious.

Once again though, for many people religion is still a source of explanation for why everything is here and how and why we got here. Those questions seem to be fundamental ones for many people and they answer them with religion. Once again, if you don't do it then Dawkin's arguments don't apply to you but they're not strawmen. He's actually speaking to the beliefs that many people out there hold.

No, that is not what Dawkins is saying. Dawkins is saying "There is no evidence for God's existance". He isn't saying anything as neuanced as "theologies using god as creator as the foundation of their viability are poorly structured, but other theologies are more advanced". He is attacking all theologies the same. I have yet to see him say anything like "If you believe in god because of X reason, you are better than believing in him for Y". He is just making a round and blunt statement.

Now ignoring his behavior he has the right to think that so why can't he be on the opinion that Christianity has no evidence?

 

He has the right to believe whatever he likes. But he is not accurate in his turns of phrase, and in doing so is intellectually dishonest.

I'm sure he knows everything as well as you do, it's not like all of his debates are with people who dwell in the sewers or something. I'm sure he's heard it all before, and I know him discrediting your beliefs is annoying (it would bother me too) but why can't he just come right out and say what he thinks? I don't think that's arrogant of him to do. He is arrogant but that's not why he's arrogant.

 

He can say what he thinks, that's fine. But he believes that he has some kind of objective basis for his belief, and that is wrong. To support this belief, he essentially lies and misrepresents religion. That's wrong. While he has the right to freedom of speech, he does not have the right for such speech to be considered credible. Yet, it is. Which is what the issue is. He makes his speech more credible through the use of intentionally constructed misrepresentations of those he is attacking.

[Abreo]

The fact that he has these arguments does not somehow mean the Bible is actually physically destroyed. He cannot say, with accuracy "you have no evidence". He can say "I don't buy into your evidence's credability" or "Your evidence seems to me flawed" but he cannot say "you have no evidence". Even taking your argument, the only way he could say "you have no evidence" is if he had objectively won the debate, which he has not.

 

To what extent would be have to discredit the evidence, in his own mind, before it becomes discredited? 

If that is his issue, he would have an ally in me. Yet I don't see that in the God Delusion. What I see are arguments against the existence of God. Not arguments against science and religion being unharmonious.

 

Well see that's because you're not his ally, he believes the only way for science and all of mankind to progress unharmed is for religion to be eradicated. That's also partially why he takes such a strong sense in debates, although for him to do that he would have to be as sure as he could be that religion doesn't retain any credibility. 

No, that is not what Dawkins is saying. Dawkins is saying "There is no evidence for God's existance". He isn't saying anything as neuanced as "theologies using god as creator as the foundation of their viability are poorly structured, but other theologies are more advanced". He is attacking all theologies the same. I have yet to see him say anything like "If you believe in god because of X reason, you are better than believing in him for Y". He is just making a round and blunt statement.

 

Because if he doesn't convince everyone to abandon their religions he thinks the problems with religion will continue forever. 

He can say what he thinks, that's fine. But he believes that he has some kind of objective basis for his belief, and that is wrong. To support this belief, he essentially lies and misrepresents religion. That's wrong. While he has the right to freedom of speech, he does not have the right for such speech to be considered credible. Yet, it is. Which is what the issue is. He makes his speech more credible through the use of intentionally constructed misrepresentations of those he is attacking.

 

I don't know what to say other than he doesn't see it that way. He does legitimately seem to believe that religion has no real evidence. I've seen him actually respond to theists, I've seen him bring up specific bits of evidence on his own. I haven't read The God Delusion, I see no reason to, but in debates he specifically adresses arguments. He just basis his entire argument around the thesis that there is no evidence for a god, which seems like an acceptable thesis seeing as he has been able to back it up at least to the extent where if someone says "The Bible" he won't just immediately dismiss it without any thought.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

To what extent would be have to discredit the evidence, in his own mind, before it becomes discredited?

In order for it to no longer be evidence, it would need to be demonstrated that it is not what it claims to be. IE it is actually out and out false.

Well see that's because you're not his ally, he believes the only way for science and all of mankind to progress unharmed is for religion to be eradicated.

 

Then he's demonstrably wrong. Without religion's guiding hand, many things would have gone horribly wrong in this world. Equally, many religious people have been eminent scientists, inspired by the notion of an ordered world, with systems ordained by God, to examine and understand it further.

I don't know what to say other than he doesn't see it that way. He does legitimately seem to believe that religion has no real evidence. I've seen him actually respond to theists, I've seen him bring up specific bits of evidence on his own. I haven't read The God Delusion, I see no reason to, but in debates he specifically adresses arguments. He just basis his entire argument around the thesis that there is no evidence for a god, which seems like an acceptable thesis seeing as he has been able to back it up at least to the extent where if someone says "The Bible" he won't just immediately dismiss it without any thought.

 

Then he needs to rephrase his thesis and stop lying.

[Lori S.]

I find New Atheism kind of sad, the way I find Christian fundamentalist kind of sad.  To me, it represents, like all fundamentalisms, a failure of imagination.

 

I think New Atheism is primarily a reaction to modern religious fundamentalism.  The interesting thing to me is that Christian fundamentalists and New Atheists agree on nearly all points about religious issues.  New Atheists and Christian fundamentalists interpret the Bible in the exact same way; they believe the same things about the nature of God; they believe the same things about the role of religion in society.  The difference, of course, is that New Atheists reject those things, while Christian fundamentalists embrace them.  But, both groups seem just immensely, dramatically uninterested in other ways to view things.  They're both, I guess, as Marcus Borg would say, "fact fundamentalists."  The idea that there can be meaning that is not factual is not something they are willing to explore.  The idea that a poem AND a math proof can both be true--and that the kind of truth the poem provides isn't inferior to the truth of the math proof--is not something they seem particularly okay about acknowledging.

 

I guess what bothers me most about New Atheism is its complete disengagement with both ancient religious thought and contemporary religious thought.  It really only concerns itself with one very specific type of modern fundamentalism.  That Dawkins can dispense with the entirety of contemporary theology--with Tillich and Barth and Moltmann and Niebuhr and Buber as well as with liberation theology and process theology and pretty much any incarnation of religious thought that isn't flat literalism--with like three sentences that amount to "Well, that sounds mighty funny!" is telling.  He and the other New Atheists consistently refuse to engage with the best of religious thought, and instead applaud themselves for smacking down the most simplistic, literalistic forms of religious belief, seemingly unaware that moderate and liberal theologians have been doing that job for decades and doing a much better job of it.  

I don't think the difference is between "old" and "New" atheism, though. It's just between people who arrogantly believe they have all the answers and everybody should agree with them, and people who don't. And, we see that distinction in pretty much every groups, including in atheists. Most atheists I know, though, are not interested in destroying religion or converting religious people to atheism or touting the superiority of their worldview; they just want to walk out their truth in humility and love, and be given the space to do so. And, most religious people I know what the same thing. But there's a very vocal minority in all groups that is loud, abrasive, and dogmatic, and they are where the attention tends to go.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

To which I respond as enthusiastically as before: "Meh"

And I maintain, you are changing the issue. Before you said "he doesn't need a doctorate". I've responded by saying, if he doesn't need a doctorate, he at least needs a higher understanding. Do you agree?

Some disagree and invite him to debate, sometimes he says yes, sometimes he says no and sometimes he says why he says no.

Right, so lying and intellectual dishonesty are "meh" issues to you. Fine.

[Hutch Hogan]

And I maintain, you are changing the issue. Before you said "he doesn't need a doctorate". I've responded by saying, if he doesn't need a doctorate, he at least needs a higher understanding. Do you agree?

To enter a debate and give his opinions no.  I don't worship any one, including Dawkins.  Your purporting that he doesn't have a higher understanding, whatever that weasel phrase can be defined to mean.  I haven't read his books, I saw one documentary by him on astrology, psychics and mediums.  And I've said this when you brought up the Ultimate 747 Gambit when I said that I don't know Dawkins, but I know that Hitchens has not used the argument in debate. 

I know that Dawkins is an award winning scientist and I've saw a biology publication of his.  

Do I think that you need a higher understanding to debate religion? No.  But if you don't know the arguments then you'll look like a fool.  Has Dawkins been made to look like a fool? Dunno, never watched him debate. 

Right, so lying and intellectual dishonesty are "meh" issues to you. Fine.

Where's the lie in that? Some people disagree with his views and invite him to debate, he has debated some individuals, mostly bishops assuming that the letter to the Guardian was a thorough self-account, but I doubt it.  Sometimes he says no, like to William Lane Craig.  And he gave his reasons for saying no in the Guardian article. 

You getting all pissed at me for not caring about Dawkins is indeed a "meh" issue.  Just relax and don't throw a tizzy. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Where's the lie in that? Some people disagree with his views and invite him to debate, he has debated some individuals, mostly bishops assuming that the letter to the Guardian was a thorough self-account, but I doubt it.  Sometimes he says no, like to William Lane Craig.  And he gave his reasons for saying no in the Guardian article.

The lie is in his reasoning. The fact is, he doesn't want to debate with Craig because he's afraid of loosing. He knew about Craig's views on the OT when he shared a platform with him in Mexico. He stated that his reasoning "would remain" that he didn't think much of Craig's credentials, and then when that was roundly challenged within both the atheistic and religious circles as being hogwash, he switched to a position of "I'll never share a platform with someone who defends the OT wars" despite already having shared a platform with several bishops and archbishops who do just that, and secondly by already having shared a platform with WLC himself in a discussion format.

[Hutch Hogan]

I don't care about Dawkins.  If I did, I would have at least bothered to watch his debates.  I'm not going to defend him and I'm not going to accuse him of any thing because I haven't bothered to take the time to look into his arguments because, I don't care about him. If you have a problem with that, whatever, send him some hate mail.