The New Atheism.

[hardheadjarhead]

In the last three years there have been a number of books written by atheists that have topped the charts:

Sam Harris (who got the ball rolling) with his End of Faith and subsequent Letter to a Christian Nation.

Noted biologist Richard Dawkins and his The God Delusion.

Daniel Dennett and his Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon.

Finally, God is Not Great by polemicist, journalist, and historian Christopher Hitchens. Being last in line--and known for his truculence-- Hitchens was described as "The Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse."

Anybody read any of these? If so, what do you think? Are we observing a significant backlash here in response to a conservative christianity's aggressive stance of the last twenty years?


Regards,

Steve

 

[michaeledward]

I am currently reading 'The God Delusion'.

Interestingly, Mr. Dawkins makes most of his arguement in the first third of the book. In the second two thirds, he is applying evolutionary theory to other areas of human existance; such as the development of religion. I'm not certain that evolutionary theory makes as good a case in these discussions, but it is something interestingly new to think about.

Certainly, I believe religious activities are entirely too prominent in our society today.

 

[Sukerkin]

I always have to beware in answering theads like this because I was brought up with a strictly religious background, rebelled in my mid-teens when I had learned enough to make certain judgements for myself and have been in a state of constant (friendly) debate on the matter with my father for thirty years.

As I've stated elsewhere, I'm an agnostic - if God was to knock on the door of the world tomorrow and say something along the lines of "Look, I'm the creator of all things, so will you please sort out your problems with free will and just get on with each other!?", I'd be one happy man.

However, the rise of the 'extreme right christian' that is settling a choke hold around the throat of powerful Western politicians is a big worry. To have prominent rationalists can only be a good thing because I fear that without enough of a countervailing point of view we're heading backwards through time at a great rate of knots in terms of religious tolerance and understanding.

If its not checked, it'll all end in tears, you mark my words .

 

[Steel Tiger]

I am currently reading 'The God Delusion'.

Interestingly, Mr. Dawkins makes most of his arguement in the first third of the book. In the second two thirds, he is applying evolutionary theory to other areas of human existance; such as the development of religion. I'm not certain that evolutionary theory makes as good a case in these discussions, but it is something interestingly new to think about.

Certainly, I believe religious activities are entirely too prominent in our society today.

I have to agree. The strength of Dawkins' book is the first part. Evolutionary theory is being applied to many things these days and I'm not sure it should be. Dawkins is trying to place religion in context with regard to social evolution. It should fit in there somehow, I'm just not sure that he was a ble to demonstrate it.

 

[Steel Tiger]

However, the rise of the 'extreme right christian' that is settling a choke hold around the throat of powerful Western politicians is a big worry. To have prominent rationalists can only be a good thing because I fear that without enough of a countervailing point of view we're heading backwards through time at a great rate of knots in terms of religious tolerance and understanding.

If its not checked, it'll all end in tears, you mark my words .

I cannot agree more my friend. The 'extreme right christian' has done a very good job of hiding behind a wall of fear and ignorance and putting the spotlight on other extremist religious movements all the while manipulating public policy. It is important that there are voices available to the general public that make them stop and think.

I for one would not like things to become something akin to the days of the Inquisition or the Puritan movement in England.

 

[Makalakumu]

Interestingly, Mr. Dawkins makes most of his arguement in the first third of the book. In the second two thirds, he is applying evolutionary theory to other areas of human existance; such as the development of religion. I'm not certain that evolutionary theory makes as good a case in these discussions, but it is something interestingly new to think about.

Why do you think this Michael? I feel that a strong case can be made that religion just another thing that evolved and evolves with humans.

 

[Andrew Green]

Anybody read any of these? If so, what do you think? Are we observing a significant backlash here in response to a conservative christianity's aggressive stance of the last twenty years?

Definitely a response. Creationism in schools, evolution under fire. Even a Creation "Museum" which is a big insult to science and reason IMO. A US President that claimed God told him to go to war, science being bumped in favour of religion. Things are a mess, and people are getting annoyed.

What I think bothers me the most is it is not the majority of Christians, who, for the most part are rational, intelligent people. They listen to science and have open minds. But there is that very loud "moral authority" group that want to force there beliefs on everyone and push science back into the dark ages that ignites the fires.

 

[Makalakumu]

In the last three years there have been a number of books written by atheists that have topped the charts:

Sam Harris (who got the ball rolling) with his End of Faith and subsequent Letter to a Christian Nation.

Noted biologist Richard Dawkins and his The God Delusion.

Daniel Dennett and his Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon.

Finally, God is Not Great by polemicist, journalist, and historian Christopher Hitchens. Being last in line--and known for his truculence-- Hitchens was described as "The Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse."

Anybody read any of these? If so, what do you think? Are we observing a significant backlash here in response to a conservative christianity's aggressive stance of the last twenty years?


Regards,

Steve

I've read Sam Harris' and Richard Dawkins' books. I'd like to read Dr. Dennett's book, because that sounds really interesting. There is actually a lot on youtube and google video of these guys giving speeches. They are excellent. Especially Mr. Hitchens, he lives up to his reputation, especially when he punks Hannity on live TV.

Anyway, what do I think? I think that in our global society, we are going to increasingly see conflict between various religions. And it will get nasty. My feeling that the rise of fundamentalism in many of the major religions is actually a backlash from the contact with other religions.

These books provide a strong rationale case that supports all of this. Religious organizations do some good, but the overarching menace that they present to the peaceful coexistance of homo sapians on this planet far outweighs any good they could or would do.

The bottom line is that I believe that religion is a feature that aided humanity in the past and has now become maladaptive. When religious fanatics control the buttons for nuclear arsenals that could annihilate 90% of the humans on this planet, I start to sweat a little bit.

There's no arguing with a guy who has Jesus on his side. Direct phone line and everything. Complete with all of the hallucinations.

 

[Makalakumu]

What I think bothers me the most is it is not the majority of Christians, who, for the most part are rational, intelligent people. They listen to science and have open minds. But there is that very loud "moral authority" group that want to force there beliefs on everyone and push science back into the dark ages that ignites the fires.

One of the things that these books bring up is that they shine the spotlight on the moderates you are referring to. Especially Sam Harris. The problem with religious moderates is that they promote religious tolerance and insulate their religion from criticism. They also make excuses for very inappropriate behaviors by claiming that they are NOT religion and that they are in fact driven by other factors.

Moderates protect the fundamentalists from reason.

 

[michaeledward]

Why do you think this Michael? I feel that a strong case can be made that religion just another thing that evolved and evolves with humans.

I don't know yet.

Dawkins points out that religious activities take a tremendous amount of resources. What would motivate humans to commit those efforts and resources, across so many societies for so much time through history.

His proposal that evolutionary theory plays a part is not something I have considered yet.

I have always felt that it has been more about the powerful finding a less obtrusive way of amassing more power, and controlling the less powerful.

To my knowledge, this is the first time I have been exposed to this idea. I'll chew on it a bit, and in a year or two, I may be able to have an intelligent opinion on the idea.

 

[arnisador]

Anybody read any of these?

I am a big fan of Dawkins' work, but I haven't read any of these (though I've read reviews of several of them). Frankly, as I consider the matter settled, more argument doesn't interest me all that much.

 

[Cirdan]

Personally I don`t think the rise of fundamentalism is a result of contact with other religions. Extremism rises because the more authorative religions are loosing the grip it once had on society. Like people, religious movement do not really fear evil but is scared of emptyness, oblivion.
Defining the "heatens" as your enemy is preferable however since it gives you a more easily defined adversary enabeling you to take the moral high ground and provide easy awnsers.

Haven`t read any of those books but i might check them out.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

To get a full flavor of the spectrum of arguments, I'd say all five books by the four authors need to be considered. They overlap at times, but each touches upon different areas of the debate.

I ought to mention that these are not the only writers out there stumping for atheism. Victor Stenger recently wrote God: the failed hypothesis. He's not as well known, however, and I for one had a difficult time grasping some of his arguments...for which I fault myself in part.

I 've read all of these books, seen the YouTube speeches, and heard Dennett speak live. I've also heard each author discuss his work on podcasts like Point of Inquiry, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, and Skepticality. As you might discern, when I get on a topic, I'm at it like a dog chewing a bone.

I think this pulse of secularism is a backlash response to a religiosity that has blossomed over the last thirty years. I think that religious impulse was in itself a backlash of sorts brought about a growing unease among the faithful. The world is changing, and it seems they can't keep up.

There is a reactionary response to social change. I the last forty years we've seen huge upheavals with the Vietnam war, the Civil Rights movement, the expansion of gay rights...tolerance across the board has increased dramatically. The "Old Guard" doesn't care for it, and is invested in shrilly pointing out what they perceive to be the decline of our culture.

Progressives like "The Four Horsemen" (the authors we're dealing with) have clearly had enough and are on the counter-attack. From what I've seen, however, they've netted a large and receptive audience. Those identifying themselves as "non-religious" have grown in number (depending upon the poll one uses), and many seem to be leaving their flocks in spite of the recent spate of mega-churches.

In addition, "the world has entered the church", with many mainline churches catering to an increasingly progressive younger generation. While their parents might loathe today's culture, the children do not...and often reject their parents bigotry while at the same time embracing a softer version of the faith.

The internet itself is playing a huge part in this "morality play," with secular and christian forums and blogs popping up with debates; websites devoted to apologetics or the debunking of same.

Question for everyone: Has secularism won over the internet?


Regards,


Steve

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I've only read God is Not Great. The author (and many of my esteemed scientific and athiestic friends) seems to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as my grannie might have said.

The problem is not religion, per se. The problem is when religions and religious people get involved with power, politics and money. Those things corrupt the institutions they feed.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I've only read God is Not Great. The author (and many of my esteemed scientific and athiestic friends) seems to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as my grannie might have said.

The problem is not religion, per se. The problem is when religions and religious people get involved with power, politics and money. Those things corrupt the institutions they feed.

In general I agree, but religion has always been involved in politics. It may be that the first organised religions, in Sumer, were created as political entities. I think this pattern has continued into the montheistic period and to the modern day. Religion itself may not be the problem but peop0le are determined to use it and excuses based on it to influence policy in their favour.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I as browsing a magazine I think Times a motnh or so ago and there was an article / interview with Harris and another well know Christian Speaker.

What I got from the arguement was that Harris was literate and presented statements while the other person (* I really am drawing a blank on his name sorry *) reacted emotionally and in the end pulled out Descrates arguement that it is better to believe in God and be wrong then it is to not believe and be wrong. This was the whole reason for his faith.

I care not what people believe and think that if it brings them a wellness this is good. I just ask that I am allowed to believe what I believe.

 

[tellner]

First off, the curmudgeonly part...

Dawkins has always had a streak of strict adaptationism that borders on teleology. And he enjoys the role of iconoclast perhaps a tad too much.

Harris? He should stick to neurophysiology and keep out of politics. His background in the first is impeccable. His opinions in the latter are often serious denials of realities that he doesn't want to hear.

I love Buddhist thought partially because of its position on deities. "They may well exist. They are irrelevant to what's important and a distraction from what you need to do. Now get back to polishing that mirror which isn't there." In a couple of the old Pali texts including The All Embracing Net of Views the Enlightened One points out that both belief in gods and a firm disbelief in them stem from desires, attachments and an urge to escape the consequences of one's actions. The question of whether they actually exist is not the important one.

In many ways I see in what the thread originator calls the "New Atheists" and the fundamentalists that same set of mirror twins.

On one hand religion has been on the defensive in the West since Copernicus. Dogma has clashed with science and has generally gotten the worst of it. Dogma is Eternal Truth. It must not change. That is why it's dogma. Science by definition changes. Every scientist knows that her pet theory or insight can be demolished immediately by a single inconvenient fact. In fact, scientific progress is measured by how its predictions and models change to accord with the data to form better and more accurate theories. As our tools for investigating the physical world get better the advances in science keep brushing up against dogma.

Geocentrism was a big one. It ruined the neat view that Heaven was Up There and we were at the center of the Universe. Evolutionary biology was an even bigger hit. It challenged a lot of very important not to mention self important notions about us as a species. Twentieth century physics and 20th/21st century neuroscience are chipping away at the possibility of a deity of the sort to which many of the dogmatic hold fast and are close to reducing the religious impulse to a biochemical phenomenon.

It's not just the Abrahamic religions which have trouble with this. A particularly conservative not to mention racist form of Hindu thought is strong in parts of India right now. It places Brahmin Indians at the pinnacle of evolution and is offended to hear that human beings originated elsewhere. May other religions from Cargo Cults on have fallen beneath the microscope and the archeologist's hammer. But they were often peoples who were getting the whole colonial treatment. The loss of their gods was just one of a number of wrenching changes.

Religion in the narrow sense had its turf in the West. That territory has been encroached on and been subjected to new challenges. Combine that with a conservative trend in the last couple decades, particularly in North America, a desire for emotional and intellectual security, a dose of Future Shock and the melding of religious dogma with political power and certain powerful economic interests. You get a situation where the Church and the Lab are going to be in severe conflict. One stands for unchallengeable statements. The other holds that nothing should be rejected simply because one doesn't want to believe it. The foundations of morality based on the ideas of transcendent justice are at risk. Just because they may be right there's no reason to believe that they aren't hidebound and dogmatic.

We are also in an age where debate and real public participation are almost things of the past. Facts are matters of spin. Critical thought isn't just lacking but is actively opposed by the political machines, the advertising industry, the entertainment juggernaut and the other opinion-shaping entities. I disagree with many of the specifics, but Al Gore's new book The Assault on Reason has some good points down at the base.

If the Church feels threatened, so does the Lab. On one hand many believe that they are uncovering the real parameters of what we are and why we are that way. At the same time funding for science is on the decline in North America and parts of Europe. Science education is poor. Research has become less a matter of "lay one small brick in the bright temple of Knowledge" and more an activity focused entirely on short term product development as the public research infrastructure was replaced by corporate labs which in turn have largely collapsed.

Combine the biologists and physicists who have been eating red meat with a certain amount of arrogance and a feeling that they are under attack by the witch burners. A lot of what used to be called "Freethinking" will take on a harder edge. Just because they may be right there's no reason to believe that they aren't hidebound and dogmatic.

I prefer a different take on the whole thing. Both the priests and the scientists are probably right. The religious impulse may well be an integral part of the human species. It might be because the Soul instinctively seeks its Maker. It might be because of the evolutionary development of certain aspects of brain chemistry that arose from other traits. The same can be said of the sort of curiosity which leads people to pick things up, examine them and poke at them to see what makes them tick. The question isn't whether one or the other is a good thing. They are both part of us. We would cease to be human if they were removed. The better one is how can those twin urges be satisfied in constructive ways which neither deny reality nor vainly attempt to impose one's fears and desires upon it, ones which are compatible with justice and a world in which people can live.

 

[Sukerkin]

Good and well structured post my friend ... and now I feel guilty because all I've done tonight is drink wine and play Age of Empires III rather than do the good job of pondering the philosophy of science and religion that you have :O.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Good and well structured post my friend ... and now I feel guilty because all I've done tonight is drink wine and play Age of Empires III rather than do the good job of pondering the philosophy of science and religion that you have :O.

Have to agree even though I'm not drinking wine (damn). Great post Tellner.

 

[FearlessFreep]

in the end pulled out Descrates arguement that it is better to believe in God and be wrong then it is to not believe and be wrong. This was the whole reason for his faith.

That would be Pascal's Wager