New Atheism

[Thomas Knierim]

Anyone noticed the recent surge of "new atheism" on the world stage? For a couple of years, we have seen an unprecedented number of books, lectures, and media productions which convey the message that religion is nonsense and that the world would do better without it. Some of the leading advocates of this view are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and other writers which have one thing in common: they subscribe to scientific materialism and secular ideology. Simultaneously, we see a surge of religious fundamentalism, both in the Islamic and in the Christian world, particularly in the USA. Both groups become more aggressive and more influential and it seems that the "war of words" between its adherents is as acute as it is futile.

Kim Michaels makes an interesting observation on this new phenomenon in this video on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS_x6WJ-z0A). He points out that both sides, the atheists and the fundamentalists, have one thing in common. They both believe in a non-participatory universe. The atheists believe that they -as individuals- are separated from nature, or respectively that they are the observers and that nature/reality is the object being observed. The fundamentalists, on the other hand, believe that they are separated from God and his creation. Kim Michael goes on to explain the two worldviews in gory detail while pointing out their limitations, but you can get the picture by just watching the first two clips.

Independently of Kim Michael's input, it may be interesting to discuss why on earth a relatively unoriginal book like "The God Delusion" is suddenly making the bestseller list, while it would have likely been ignored 30 or 40 years ago. Are we experiencing a Zeitgeist shift?

Cheers, Thomas

[Michael]

Yes, we are experiencing a Zeitgeist shift, or something similiar. It is my experience that many people today, including religious people, have a growing spiritual awareness. Today one can have conversations that would have been impossible even 15 years ago. And, of course, the counter-part must also appear. The world seems to be taking sides, so to speak.

And I wouldn't presume that everyone who bought Dawkins book shared his views.

[schrodinger]

What is the difference between those who go into the temple to pray, and those who stand outside throwing rocks? In both cases, the temple holds some significance; they just have different means of expressing it. A true atheist is the one who walks past the temple, completely unaware that it even exists. Dawkins, for all his protesting, is as big a believer as they come.:rolleyes:

[...]

..i think it's simply a reaction to the increasingly unbearable stupidity that comes from religion in general. Altough rabid atheists are zealous in their atheism, they do a good job in getting the message across that institutionalized religion is, at it's core, irrational and that our world reflects that irrationality...

[kris]

..i think it's simply a reaction to the increasingly unbearable stupidity that comes from religion in general. .....
I agree. For about 2000 years, belief in God has been rammed down the throats of people by trickery, threats and terror. I find it refreshing that finally some people are beginning to see the hollow claims of religions. If it is a zeitgeist shift, I welcome it.

[Thomas Knierim]

Although there is reason to assume that the belief in God/gods is older than 2000 years, it is refreshing to know that it isn't considered compulsory anymore. I think anyone in one's right mind would agree that this constitutes an achievement of society.

However, today there are organisations other than the church working hard on ramming belief systems down the throat of the public. The media. The government. The administration. The scientific community. Just to name a few.

I still doubt whether we are better off these days, although one isn't burnt at the stake anymore for dissenting. That's clearly an improvement. :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[MelissaTaylor]

I sure hope a zeitgeist shift is taking place here...
Our world really needs it.

[kris]

Thomas, I did not mean to imply that belief in God is only 2000 years old. It is certainly much older. What I am saying is that the practice of ramming down this belief seems to be an innovation about 2000 years old, and coincides with the advent of Christianity. If the Christians did not invent this pracitce, they certainly adopted it with full force and vigor and practised it right down to the age of reformation just a couple of centuries ago.

Be that as it may, I don't think it is fair to juxtapose writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens with religious fundamentalists. All they have done is write books to express their views. Is there a better way to propose new ideas and bring them to people's attention? As far as I know, none of these writers have roasted a single black cat.

[Pyotr Izutsu]

Unlike many of the other posters, I don't see the success of the "New Atheists" as being a mark of progress as much as I see it as a mark of the general intellectual stagnation and regression of our times. I mean, we're being forced to choose between mechanistic reductionism or religionist literalism? That's a choice? If those are the two options we're being presented with by the mainstream, than it's clear that debate has become increasingly coarse and unsophisticated. And I certainly don't see much of a "zeitgeist shift" in this respect.

Progress, in my mind, would be represented by the worldview of the participatory universe presented by Kim Michaels. And as Michaels points out, none of the New Atheists advocates for anything like this. Their mechanistic perspective sees human beings as passive and atomized, just like the fundamentalists. This should not surprise us, since both worldviews share a common origin. Their "debate" is really just a family quarrel.

For that matter, I think the term "progress" here is somewhat mistaken, since we have had advocates for a participatory universe for just along as we've had theism and atheism. In this respect, a "participatory universe" perspective is not so much "new" or "progressive" as much as it is "perennial".

Also, while the New Atheists don't roast black cats, it's worth noting several of them are apologists for and advocates of British/ American imperialism. The most obvious example of this is Christopher Hitchens, who converted to Neo-Conservatism after decades of being a devout Trotskyist (as if either of those positions is less absurd or requires less faith than the religious people he lampoons! :lol:) is the most obvious example, but Sam Harris' work is also filled with subtle and not-so-subtle support for the "war on terror".

Give me a radical atheist like Nietzsche or Camus any day over these half-rate, pro-establishment "thinkers".

[Thomas Knierim]

Is there a better way to propose new ideas and bring them to people's attention? As far as I know, none of these writers have roasted a single black cat.

Well, they aren't exactly roasting black cats, but they are certainly whipping up people's minds. Richard Dawkins for example calls for militant atheism in this video (http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html) on TED. Why of all Dawkins, who strikes me as a mild-mannered man, makes such a boisterous statement is bewildering. The call for arms would fit someone like Christopher Hitchens more. I can't help asking myself what causes this level of animosity. Scientists have been atheists for decades, even centuries, and only the narrow-minded have taken offence.

Why this sudden uproar?

Fundamentalists generally don't roast atheists either, with the exception of some deeply disturbed individuals of course. Both sides primarily fight with words. Each side seems intent on forcing their beliefs onto their opponents. I am not sure whether this can be called dialogue. It seems more like verbal crossfire to me. After a public debate with theologians, Christopher Hitchens commented: "We massacred them."

There is no compassion in this. What possible effect could this have, except hardening the fronts? The ultimate silliness I recently came across is this: The Blasphemy Challenge (http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/) brought to you by the "rational response squad" (gulp). Just go to YouTube and see how many "anger and hate" videos you can find in response to this initiative. What's next? War on Santa Claus? A call to kill the Easter Bunny? That seems about as intelligent as asking people to say: "I deny the holy spirit."

I have to agree with Pyotr on this one. These oh-so-critical thinkers aren't critical at all. They aren't questioning the establishment; they are supporting it.

Cheers, Thomas

[kris]

If these atheistic writers sometimes go overboard in their attitude to the other side, they are reacting to the other side's outrageous behavior for the last 2000 years. I lived among the Mormons in Salt Lake City for a number of years. In that city there were two kinds of people - devout Mormons and their detractors. But the staunchest Mormon antagonists were almost always ex-Mormons, not those who never were Mormons. It is just the way, average humsn beings react to the repression they experience. While I do not advocate coarseness in any debate, I understand the frustration many feel towards those who have been opressors for a long time in human history.

[j000han]

While I do not advocate coarseness in any debate, I understand the frustration many feel towards those who have been opressors for a long time in human history.

perhaps this will spark some critical thinking with regard a more active role of atheists.
If perhaps some skillfull atheist(s) could get toghether and expose the role of the vatican and accuse them of having deliberately been misleading people
and how this process still goes on, then the Vatican can be charged with crime against humanity.
I do not hold my breath though.

[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090509_pietra-madaba_en.html]
Dear friends, I wish to renew my congratulations to the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and my encouragement to all who have taken this project to heart, together with those who are already engaged in the educational apostolate in this nation. May the Lord bless you and sustain you. I pray that your dreams may soon come true, that you may see generations of qualified men and women Christian, Muslim and of other religions, taking their place in society, equipped with professional skills, knowledgeable in their field, and educated in the values of wisdom, integrity, tolerance and peace. Upon you and upon all the future students and staff of this University and their families, I invoke Almighty God’s abundant blessings! Thank you!

do you notice the astute blasfemy here?
vis:
[*I* invoke Almighty God’s abundant blessings!]

[Life of Luxury]

Take Religulous for example.

Belligerent atheism is an obstacle to its own goal. Here the task is to expose religion as utter nonsense that clouds reasonable judgment. From this stems the grave endeavor of taking responsibility for the crimes of the followers who would not have acted so egregiously had they only knew that God didn't exist. As soon as the atheistic aggressors cast the first stone, they render their cause useless.

Atheists in this sense are as self-righteous as their opponents. Fundamentalists say that theirs is the true god. Atheists say that non-religion is the only way. But how can you berate absolutism while preaching it? It is like running backwards on an escalator; you exert energy but go nowhere.

If only people spent less time pursuing the demise of "competing" belief systems and learned to live with their neighbors preference (God, Jesus, Allah, alien creators, the tree in my backyard) the world would be finished with this problem once and for all.

[Thomas Knierim]

It is like running backwards on an escalator; you exert energy but go nowhere.

Lovely metaphor. :)

[Life of Luxury]

Lovely metaphor. :)

Danke :thumbsup:

[schrodinger]

Atheists in this sense are as self-righteous as their opponents. Fundamentalists say that theirs is the true god. Atheists say that non-religion is the only way. But how can you berate absolutism while preaching it? It is like running backwards on an escalator; you exert energy but go nowhere.

If only people spent less time pursuing the demise of "competing" belief systems and learned to live with their neighbors preference (God, Jesus, Allah, alien creators, the tree in my backyard) the world would be finished with this problem once and for all.


Yes, true; but where do you start? The competition already exists. Christianity was created to compete with Judaism, and Islam was created to compete with both Christianity and Judaism. The competition has been very bloody and as 911 and the War on Terrorism confirm, it continues to be so. Who do you think will “disarm” first? I use the term disarm because being armed with religion is not much different from the nuclear arms issue. If the USA were to completely abandon atomic weapons, what do you suppose will happen? My guess is that Russia and China would soon take control of what was once the USA and then they would have a very bloody fight with each other for control of the world. Abandonment of the old ways will only work if everyone abandons them mutually, and I cannot see that ever happening. And if all Christians were to renounce their religion tomorrow, what do you suppose would happen? My guess is that Islam would then compete with the remaining religions for ultimate control of mankind via the spiritual realm, and it would be no less bloody than the nuclear holocaust. In fact, it would be exactly the same. It would have been better if the Abrahamic faiths were never created, just as it would have been better if nuclear weapons were never created. Unfortunately, they both exist in a precarious state of balance which can be upset at almost any time. It is all too easy to speak of a utopian existence where mankind realizes that running on a treadmill gets you nowhere; but that does not answer the question of how to get off the damn treadmill once we are already on it.

[Michael]

I suspect the answer lies in not asking the question

[sonrisa]

I wonder if those Muslim extremists would be so willing to commit violence if they thought there were no virgins waiting for them on the other side?

not to lay all the blame on Islam. Fred Phelps & his ilk do Christianity no favors either :knockout:

[Life of Luxury]

The escalator metaphor referred to the hypocrisy of aggressive atheists ridiculing religion for its transgressions while practicing the same absolutism they sought to condemn. I made no assertion that humanity was stuck in park.

Also I never called for a mass disarmament of religion. Eradicating the negative byproducts of religion by totally abandoning our beliefs is about as barbaric an elimination tactic as possible. I say eliminate and not solve because one, it will not actually solve anything as I shall address shortly and two, it is problem ridden detrimental course of action. For a moment imagine a mother frustrated with her children's bickering. She could kill them and the shouting and fighting would cease. Problem solved, right? Uh, I don't think so. Actually there was a concealed option available to her that doesn't involve insanity. She could, believe it or not, teach the children tolerance, acceptance, and understanding. Now if only us grownup's could get our gods to do the same. And without the dietricide!

I'm Catholic. I'm not deeply religious nor am I (obviously) anti-religion. And I'm certainly not one to say that you are on your way to perdition unless you turn to Jesus right now. People simply need to learn to respect others for their religious beliefs. That means for example, atheists not mocking the Bible and Christians not condemning them to hell for their lack of faith.

Nations have clashed because men could not accept the premise of another way. A Christian and a Muslim debate whether Jesus was man's savior or if Muhammad was truly a prophet. Atheism engages in the same fruitless debate when proponents pronounce that there is no god. Contend this you may, but that aggression only perpetuates the intolerance of two thousand years of nothing. If only, somehow, people could learn this tolerance on a global scale. Once people accept others, the fighting and repeated attempts at salvation monopolization will cease for good. The interesting thing about it is, its actually possible. Here in America Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, agnostics, atheists, and Scientologists all live together without slitting eachother's throats.

True, religion is used to justify unspeakable crimes but it is a device of the ambitious to manipulate the masses to do their bidding, not a self-propelled engine of destruction. It is a rallying point, a beacon, an unfurled banner in a sea of humanity unto which its respective adherents rally. The corrupt and immoral use our differences to construct factions. With this, it is easy to define us and them. These adherents and all of humanity though, rally under many banners. If religion vanished without a trace tomorrow new divisions would arise to achieve the same purpose. Instead of religious beliefs, humans would war and unite under race or ethnicity or nationality or eye color. Someone would likely try to even turn the lefties against the righties (righties would win;)). Religion can be used to divide, just like anything else that makes us different.

So where do we start? Life of Luxury suggests the impossible: coexistence and tolerance. Well, like I said we can all get along in America and many other places too. But what about those places where we don't get along? Tolerance is simply a matter of choice. I can not guide you. It is innate; it is in all of us. How can I teach the creature that has never raised its left arm to raise its left arm? Just raise your left arm. Easy, but then again its never raised it. We just have to do it. But as long as someone has something to gain by preventing it, it probably won't occur.

[Thomas Knierim]

Fred Phelps... deranged. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIp9Tx8xcF8&feature=related)

I think that the figure gollum in Lord of The Rings may have been patterned after him.

Cheers, Thomas

[schrodinger]

Here in America Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, agnostics, atheists, and Scientologists all live together without slitting eachother's throats........


So where do we start? Life of Luxury suggests the impossible: coexistence and tolerance. Well, like I said we can all get along in America and many other places too. But what about those places where we don't get along? Tolerance is simply a matter of choice. I can not guide you. It is innate; it is in all of us. How can I teach the creature that has never raised its left arm to raise its left arm? Just raise your left arm. Easy, but then again its never raised it. We just have to do it. But as long as someone has something to gain by preventing it, it probably won't occur.


If I remember correctly, one of the world’s worst acts of terrorism occurred in America and the continuing price paid is the loss of some civil liberties for all Americans, indeed all world travelers. Or have you never been through an airport security screening?

At the risk of being seen as intolerant to religious beliefs, America now risks endangering other fundamental principles of freedom. It so happens that polygamy is an integral part of Islamic tradition. However, polygamy is outlawed by the US constitution. This provides an opening that Islamists can take advantage of to change the US constitution and the American way of life. Another example: freedom of expression, one of America’s most prized principles, was stepped on when American journalists were essentially prohibited from publishing cartoons depicting the prophet mohammed in deference to Muslim sensitivities.

It is no secret that the jihadist goal is nothing less than a world in which Islam is not only the dominant religion but also the basis of government under Sharia law. Islamification of Europe is already well under way and America cannot be far behind as the Islamists take advantage of the very same religious tolerance which you praise. It is a case of exploiting one of America’s greatest strengths, by turning it into one of America’s greatest weaknesses.

"Just raise your left arm" and you may get a dagger stuck in your ribs. That is the unfortunate reality. I will continue to keep my arms in a protective position, even though I Adhere to NO organized religion.

[Michael]

Schrodinger, your view has at its core the belief that American values must be held inviolate. Things are not like that, no human system remains unchanged, nor should.

My belief is that the roots of the fears and defensiveness of America are to be found in its Puritan beliefs, which are rigid, unforgiving and punitive, and the unrecogised guilt it bears for its treatment of its indigenous peoples. As I see it, much 0f the American value system arises from this deeply conflicted.
mentality.

By this I do not mean that the American system is less than any other, just different. Systems are like people,each with strengths and weaknesses