Why modern atheism is so shallow

[Mempy]

I didn't read all of the article, but I did read most of it, surprising myself.

Originally Posted by Peguy

And the general tendency to dismiss rather than actually attempt to understand religion or religious sentiment is a big weakness of modern atheist polemics. At least the older atheists showed more appreciation for the many aspects of religious belief.

Voltaire was no friend of religion, but he was able to speak positively of the way religion inspired women to sacrifice their youth for the care and betterment of others.

I was an atheist before it was cool, yet I myself spoke admirably of the many things religion had done for the enrichment of humanity. Disbelief in God does not mean disrepect for belief in God. Many atheists(particularly younger ones) seem to loose sight of this.

I agree with you. I've long noticed this problem among atheists. And I do think it is a tremendous error to overlook what religion actually means to people and the significance it has in their personal lives. Because that is ultimately, to me, why religion has been around so long and why it will continue to be around: because of how it enriches people's lives on an individual, personal basis.

I kind of think of it this way: if there were not some universal human needs that needed meeting, and if religion did not satisfy those needs in some way, religion would not be a universal human phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Erasmus

But what value is an atheist book when the author knows neither the ideas nor the experiences of religious faith? Such an author ends up not attacking religion at all, and the believer is left with nothing to learn.

I think this is important.

Originally Posted by colors

It's not a good argument if people aren't angsty about it? Check.

Haha. I noticed that it really did sound like that at one point, myself. Only I thought, "He's calling modern-day atheistic arguments against religion bad because they're not poetic and dramatic?"

[ajblaise]

This sounds like the problem is with a few notable and very opinionated atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens...), not atheism itself. I've heard Hitchens acknowledge in an interview some of the positive things religion has been a part of.

And the reason most atheist writers will focus on fundamentalism is because that's where most of what they consider to be problems arise from. I would encourage religious people to live by the most liberal interpretation of that religion that they can muster. The liberalization of religious followers is a good thing.

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by Mempy

I agree with you. I've long noticed this problem among atheists. And I do think it is a tremendous error to overlook what religion actually means to people and the significance it has in their personal lives. Because that is ultimately, to me, why religion has been around so long and why it will continue to be around: because of how it enriches people's lives on an individual, personal basis.

I kind of think of it this way: if there were not some universal human needs that needed meeting, and if religion did not satisfy those needs in some way, religion would not be a universal human phenomenon.

*opens can of worms*

I take issue with that, because oh crap, there is a huge elephant over there, look!

The elephant is the flipside to that coin. The bitterness between people it can also cause, and the reason to start wars religion provides.

Just making a point.

[SolitaryWalker]

Too much fluff in this first post.

Finally got around to one statement worthy of serious discussion.

Originally Posted by Peguy

They do not bother to address the objection that, from Hume and Kant to Foucault and Derrida, a progressively secularizing West has grown increasingly less capable of maintaining the rational foundations of scientific realism. In short, they are oblivious to the whole problem of the loss of absolutes in the modern and postmodern eras.

Before 19th century, intellectuals had a view that we can have certain knowledge and what we regard as knowledge now, we will probably regard as knowledge forever. Probably will not even need to question it again.

Starting with Kant, an element of human subjectivity has been introduced. It has merely evinced what has always been obvious. We can make mistakes in reasoning that we overlook, and we often have insufficient information to establish a proper conclusion. This means that we likely will need to consistently review our position to make sure that it is sound.

This does not at all vitiate the 'scientific realist' view. It does not oppose the claim that science almost always gives us reliable knowledge of the world, it merely shows that we need to be more careful than we have been before.

YouTube - Hilary Putnam on the Philosophy of Science: Section 1

Above is an excellent overview of philosophy of science and science.

Originally Posted by Peguy

Secure in their philosophical obtuseness, they confidently preach that morals are independent of religious faith..

The definition of religion is a set of dictates with regard to ethics, cosmology and eschatology. In order for a person to be confident in his ethics, he needs to understand why they are intrinsically good.

Originally Posted by Peguy

This ignores the basic observation that ethics is not an empirical discipline like physics or chemistry, partly because of the disparity between “is” and “ought,” and partly because ethics relies on concepts such as “happiness,” “obligation,” and “humanity” that cannot be defined by laboratory experiments...

Scientific investigation of ethics is possible through psychology and sociology. Studies have been done with regard to what activities are most reliable generators of happiness.

Originally Posted by Peguy

Furthermore, on the issue of ethics without God, Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens misrepresent theologians’ traditional positions. ...

Or rather, dozens of views that regard themselves as the 'traditional position'?

Originally Posted by Peguy

Most classical theologians (at least Christian ones) argued that natural law and right reason support the basic moral principles that undergird society. The problem is that most people are not philosophers, and in practice we need the assistance of revelation and religious experience to make ethics a living reality. ...

There can be no doubt that religion can force people to behave in a certain way, however, this leads to a deeper problem. People will be without an ethical backbone because all they know is what they are 'supposed to do' and not what they truly believe in. Could be easily manipulated by political demagogues and for this reason internecine struggles are an old companion to the folk of many third-world countries dominated by religion. These countries are also likely to remain in the third-world because religion stultifies the free inquiry necessary in order to concoct ideas which shall elevate the quality of lives of members of such societies.

Originally Posted by Peguy

Ironically, our atheist authors make some shady ethical judgments of their own. Dawkins supports both abortion and euthanasia, and Harris makes extremely specious arguments for the use of torture (which is a strange position, since elsewhere in his book he inveighs against the Inquisition and witch trials). ...

1)Abortion-One does not become a human being until he reached a certain level of intellectual capability. Not only abortion is justifiable under this clause, but also infanticide.

2)Euthanasia-There is no reason to believe that the person who has acquired the intellectual capabilities necessary in order to claim human rights does not know what is best for his life. The only reason someone should be denied the choice of euthanasia is if their intellectual capabilities are no longer at the level necessary to retain human rights.

3)I do not know anything about the views of Richard Dawkins concerning torture.

No argument is made in the article against such ethical positions.

Originally Posted by Peguy

The strange confidence of Hitchens,’ Dawkins’ and Harris’ assumption that atheism has no destabilizing social consequences is closely related to a popular fallacy which they all repeat and elaborate. ...

Many societies in Western Europe are highly atheistic, yet remain stable. However, the ethical nihilism (as argued earlier in this post) induced by religions leads to internecine struggles, therefore societal instability. The opposite is the case from what the author has maintained.

Originally Posted by Peguy

First, it ignores the fact that the twentieth century is one long proof that collective homicide can occur quite independently of religion.
...

What are the highlights of such 'collective homicide' occurences?

1)Stalin's Communism-Stalin imposed a set of ethics onto his folk, provided a cosmology (how the world works) based on the writings of Karl Marx, though most of this work has been done by his successor Lenin. And an eschatology, he probed into the spiritual questions of life and asserted that the replacement for the spiritual bargainings of the people, ought to be the Communist Welfare.
2)Hitler's Fascism-Similar vision as the communist welfare. Imposed a system of ethics. And certainly had all kinds of strange ideas with regard to how the world works and how it is.

Thus, both worldviews met the requirement for being religions.

1)System of ethics.
2)Cosmology
3)Eschatology
4)Regard the aforementioned notions as incontrovertible.

Almost all similar attrocities had this religious philosophical structure. Thus, the statement I have quoted is false.

Though the author does have a point, doing away with the God notion has very little to do with abrogation of religion, as the advent of Communism has evinced to us. In this regard Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are short-sighted.

Originally Posted by Peguy

argues that Communists had a form of religious faith, but he misses the point that a godless cosmology provides no proof against fanaticism. ...

True.

Originally Posted by Peguy

Second, the “religion is evil” argument assumes that whenever religious differences are invoked, they are the primary causes of ethnic conflict
...

In almost all cases, ethnic conflict was inspired by religion (consider the cases of Stalin and Hitler). Religion in itself has nothing to do with ethnic conflict, as it is a mere set of dictates. However, because these dictates are addressed to a very small group of people (though by definition of religion they need not be, they could be addressed to the whole world), and often exhorts those people to exterminate or to subjugate those who were not addressed. Secondly, even if a religion does not do this, the 'chosen people' experience a profound sentiment of self-apotheosis, where they believe that because the higher power regards them as his favorites, their judgment is superior to that of all others. They can do whatever they want in effect, as long as they manage to convince themselves that it is consistent with God's expectations.

In summary, yes, ethnic conflicts have emerged as an explicit cause of wars more frequently than religions. However, religions were the underlying cause of those ethnic conflicts. I challenge everyone on this board to come up with 3 examples of Wars close to the Callibre of the two World Wars, in the entire human history, that had nothing to do with religion.

Originally Posted by Peguy

The third and most serious problem with the “religion is evil” argument, however, is the way it selectively picks events from religious history......

Originally Posted by Peguy

In the Middle Ages and early modernity, Christians did persecute heretics, kill witches and wage religious wars. Christians also built schools and hospitals, established systems of poverty relief, and re-established the rule of law after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West. Almost every achievement in the areas of art, music, literature, philosophy, science, law and even engineering (think of the Gothic cathedrals) was associated with faith in the Bible, Trinity and Incarnation.......

This truly compares to the wars of the Calibre to the First and the Second World War.

Originally Posted by Peguy

He regards witch trials as an example of the evil of religious faith, when in fact they arose out of bad science.He regards witch trials as an example of the evil of religious faith, when in fact they arose out of bad science.....

Bad thinking is almost an inevitable consequence of religion, as religion insists on outdated and crude ideas accepted on authority. There are very few Aquinases, Maimonideses, Jameses and Pascals among us to withstand this influence.

Originally Posted by Peguy

He regards witch trials as an example of the evil of religious faith, when in fact they arose out of bad science. Demonology was a developed part of medieval and early modern natural philosophy, and the witch hunters thought they had empirical grounds for believing in witches, such as the testimony of pagan authors and the evidence of contemporary confessions.
.....

Philosophers would have had no reason to believe in witches or demons if such notions were not imposed upon them by religion.

Originally Posted by Peguy

As a consequence, although he turns to elementary secondary sources (such as The Catholic Encyclyopedia) and a few primary sources, he can only give cartoonish renderings of theology.

Can't blame him. With all the equivocations of the notion of theology and hundreds of incompatible worldviews equivocated under the same name, it is truly difficult to study them all properly. What is theology, Peguy? What is Catholic Theology?

Originally Posted by Peguy

In my opinion, this is a far worse error than atheism. God is invisible, so disbelief has some justification. But the works of human beings are visible and tangible, and to deny the creativity and intelligence that has gone into centuries of theological argumentation is an insult to humanity. .

There were very smart people who claimed they were religious. Were they truly though? Did they scrupulously follow the dictates from the book of dogma concerning cosmology, ethics and eschatology?

Originally Posted by Peguy

Dawkins fails to understand what theologians mean when they say God is “simple,” or how cosmological arguments for the existence of God operate..

Can we really blame him for not understanding what a theologian says?

Originally Posted by Peguy

Dawkins paraphrases it as a piece of schoolyard sophistry, a play on words that would be patently unconvincing in the twelfth century...

Most people who profess to be religious (common-place believers and preachers) have accomplished exactly what Dawkins described. Some of them were sharp, but they owe almost no credit to their religion.

Originally Posted by Peguy

Dawkins fails to get the basic theological point that the unity of God precludes any such infinite regress....

In that case God is all things, this means the same thing as unity of God. Therefore, the personal God of Judeo-Christianity cannot exist separably from this 'unity'. We know this is false, as this world includes more than one thing. God cannot be one of those things, as otherwise he would be all things, since he is that 'unity'.

Originally Posted by Peguy

If God exists, He is a purely spiritual principle beyond time and space, having no parts,.

As even here, the statement that God has 'no parts' hints at such a unity.

Originally Posted by Peguy

Rather, certain qualities of physical things, such as motion, contingency, and composition of spatial-temporal parts implies the existence of a First Mover and Supreme Architect.....If God exists, He is a purely spiritual principle beyond time and space, having no parts, interior divisions, or imperfections. Theologians do not assert that the mere existence of things implies God’s existence. Rather, certain qualities of physical things, such as motion, contingency, and composition of spatial-temporal parts implies the existence of a First Mover and Supreme Architect. Since God by definition does not have motion, contingency or composition of parts, God has no creator or designer.

He exists outside of time, and space, yet he is the first mover? First, implies in relation to WHEN other things have happened, therefore presupposes the existence of time. 'Moving' means changing position in space. Therefore God exists in time if he was the first mover. This means that he must have been created. Hence, the claim of Dawkins is vindicated.


If God exists outside of time, he cannot be a first mover. Morever, if that is the case, such a statement is logically equivalent with the statement that he does not exist at all. All things that the human mind is capable of imagining is in space and time. If our mind is incapable of experiencing an entity, as far as we are concerned it does not exist, as it has no bearing upon us. An entity is only relevant to our existence if it is able to influence us. An entity that has no relationship to our mind cannot influence us, it is therefore irrelevant.

In addition to all this it should be noted that God is not self-created. Nothing comes from nothing, therefore nothing can be self-created. If he always existed, he is infinite. Therefore all things had an origin in the infinite entity. Therefore nothing can exist separably from God. To create something means to cause for something to exist from scratch, this is not possible.

Originally Posted by Peguy

Rather, certain qualities of physical things, such as motion, contingency, and composition of spatial-temporal parts implies the existence of a First Mover and Supreme Architect.......

How?

Originally Posted by Peguy

In his critique of faith and revelation, Harris does make some telling points. If faith is understood as a blind stubbornness to a conviction, it is the kind of evil that he describes (which Bin Laden and Bush illustrate). And its ill effects are compounded when it is combined with what he and others call “fundamentalism,” i.e., the kind of rigid adherence to a text that we see among the Taliban, less sophisticated evangelicals, and others. Still, Harris has no understanding of traditional religion or mainstream theological thought (including mainstream conservative religious thought), so his whole book attacks a polemical straw man.

How, is is a strawman? It should be noted however, that Bush and Taliban are profoundly religious much like Hitler, Stalin, Jesus and Muhammad for reasons described above.

Originally Posted by Peguy

Likewise, Harris’ assumption that all religious believers are either fundamentalists or radical liberals is a grossly false dichotomy. .

A religious believer is one who scrupulously follows a set of dictates concerning epistemology, ethics and cosmology. Fundamentalism is the definition of such scrupulous adherence. Thus 'religious believer' and 'fundamentalist' are synonymous.

I do not know what radical liberalism has to do with religiosity.

Originally Posted by Peguy

But what value is an atheist book when the author knows neither the ideas nor the experiences of religious faith?.

It is all very easy to understand. Religious faith is a set of dictates concerning ethics, cosmology and eschatology. The many illusions people experience with regard to their emotional experience of religious faith is irrelevant to the essence of religious faith.

[Magic Poriferan]

I'm a quiet agnostic. I tend to regard theist and atheist partisans with an equal amount of vexation over how much time and energy they are wasting. It can't be good to be spewing so much bile so much of the time.

I have doubts about the existence of God, but they constantly differ depending on how you define "God". One of the reasons I do not like religious discussion is that it rests so much on confusing terminology. That aside, I also tend to think it's very irrelevant.

There are arguments in that piece that agree with, and ones I disagree with. I do not care about how passionate and awe inspired the old atheists were. I do not believe there is much of a connection between religion and ethics, really. I do admit though that religion is just one of many fronts that people use to commit violence and supress knowledge, and it is unreasonable selectivism to put all or even most of the blame on religion. Indeed, class, ethnicity, race, culture, and the general want of resources are the main causes of war. Religion is just oil for the gears, and thing of political or sociological nature will suffice just as well if religion is not used. Criticizing faith in general is an a substantially less valid argument, since I could pin everyone of these atheists and scientists down to admitting that they make fundamental life decisions on faith all the time.

One of my complaints with a lot of the athiests out there, and notably here on this forum, is that they have a particular self-defeating inconsistency I'd like to point out. They have a tendency to deride religious people for being too conceited. They try to prove that this means the religions are overly-zealous, and self-absorbed to the point of being shut off from objective truth, the needs of others, and the possibility of being wrong. The problem here, is most of the athiests making these claims are just as conceited, in much the same way. So, if I were to take their premises and conclusion to be valid, it would require me to also reject the athiests as much as it would require me to reject the theists.

[CaptainChick]

I know what I am about to write is sheerly anecdotal evidence, but I do not feel like reading that snoringly boring wall of text, nor do I feel like engaging in an academic-style argument as to why your position as to why modern atheism is so shallow is absolutely hogwash.

So I will give you my two cents.

I know a buttload of SHALLOW theists whereas I do not know a buttload of shallow atheists.

Well, it is simply a question of numbers. MOST people are theists, and many people are shallow. It has been my experience that many of these shallow people so too shallowly wear their crosses and believe in their popular gods, well, because it is popular.

The few atheists that I do, (thankfully) know have been deep, why? Because they have actually had the cognitive inclination, strength and fortitude to question the status quo. And to look for answers not readily fed to them by the masses or by the mass media.

It is *EASY* and *EXPECTED* for people to believe in god, it is rare and quite noble when they don't, imo.

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

I know what I am about to write is sheerly anecdotal evidence, but I do not feel like reading that snoringly boring wall of text, nor do I feel like engaging in an academic-style argument as to why your position as to why modern atheism is so shallow is absolutely hogwash.

You should probably make a point to read the whole thing before giving staunch rebuttals.

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

I know a buttload of SHALLOW theists whereas I do not know a buttload of shallow atheists.

As you said, anecdotal. Too anecdotal to amount to much. Too bad the odds broke that way for you.

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

Well, it is simply a question of numbers. MOST people are theists, and many people are shallow. It has been my experience that many of these shallow people so too shallowly wear their crosses and believe in their popular gods, well, because it is popular.

So, most people are shallow. Most people are theists. The frequency of the two linning up may be one huge coincidence. The coincidence is large, but very plausible. At best, you can only point out a correlation, which as the cliche goes, is not causation.

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

The few atheists that I do, (thankfully) know have been deep, why? Because they have actually had the cognitive inclination, strength and fortitude to question the status quo. And to look for answers not readily fed to them by the masses or by the mass media.

I've known a ton of shallow athiests. I have also spoken to thoughtful religious people, and one is in my current logic class, in fact. There's my anecdotal evidence.

Aside from it just being obvious that there are stupid atheists, you also continue to ignore the very deep thinking religious people of history, like Descartes. Perhaps a more amusing example would be Darwin. A lot of the people who made some of the biggest, supposedly religion refuting discoveries were actually believers themselves, who did not see why their own discoveries should be problematic.

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

It is *EASY* and *EXPECTED* for people to believe in god, it is rare and quite noble when they don't, imo.

It's easy to take whatever is given to you. If someone was raised by atheists in a town of mixed or secular beliefs, then it woud be easy for them to be athiests. It would be more surprising if they became religious. The point here is that it has little to do with the qualities of religious beliefs. You are merely talking about social conformity, regardless of what everyone is conforming around.

I'm not an atheist, but I am not a believer in God either. So, would you say that my choice is noble, or that I am deep?

[CaptainChick]

^They're all the paradigm of depth, fo' shizzle.

And believe you me, I can play this game all night.

Trying to find pics of shallow atheists, and gosh darnit, I am having difficulties doing so, hmm, wonder why?

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

^They're all the paradigm of depth, fo' shizzle.

And believe you me, I can play this game all night.

Trying to find pics of shallow atheists, and gosh darnit, I am having difficulties doing so, hmm, wonder why?

That's very poor evidence and reasoning. You are picking out specifically stupid people that happen to be religious. It doesn't say anything of the average. There are so many different ways you could be intentionally and/or unintentionally failing to do that properly that I don't know where to begin.

Let's just say that matching words with picture of people, and then deciding if said people are stupid or smart, is not a sophisticated or reliable means of making an argument.

[CaptainChick]

Listen, I NEVER said that theists were shallow.

I do not think that theists are necessarily shallow.

I do, however, think that humanist atheists happen to also be incredibly deep.

I cannot provide evidence for this opinion, who can?!?!?!

How can one prove human depth or shallowness?!?!?