|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:44 am Post subject: New Atheism: Swimming in shallow intellectual waters |
 |
|
Edward T. Oakes, S.J. on the New Atheism
Its long.
He addresses the ongoing irony of their advocacy of the return to the age of reason, in which the Napoleonic Wars occurred.
| Oakes wrote: |
It should not surprise the keen observer of these books that the new atheists do not attend to Nietzsche. As R. J. Hollingdale says in his fine biography, Nietzsche: The Man and His Philosophy, �Nineteenth-century rationalism was characterized by insight into the difficulty in accepting revealed religion, and obtuseness regarding the consequences of rejecting it.� As Nietzsche said so well of these foolish rationalists in his Twilight of the Idols:
| Nietzsche wrote: |
| They have got rid of the Christian God, and now feel obliged to cling all the more firmly to Christian morality: that is English consistency. . . . With us it is different. When one gives up Christian belief, one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. Whoever tries to peel off this fundamental idea�belief in God�from Christian morality will only be taking a hammer to the whole thing, shattering it to pieces. |
|
There are some problems with Oakes' critique, namely the supposition that New Atheism will lead to violence. I think that is going far. But its a nice reductio ad absurdum of New Atheism's arguments against the supposed historical violence of "Christianity", which is enormously hypocritical and dishonest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll read it in the morning.
By the "New Atheists", I'm assuming he means Harris, Hitchens, A.H.Ali, Dawkings etc. Their primary concern is the carving of humanity into competing moral communities.
| Quote: |
| New Atheism's arguments against the supposed historical violence of "Christianity", which is enormously hypocritical and dishonest. |
Not at all dishonest. The majority of the violence was inside the state and directed at citizens.
Hypocritical? Nah. There is a difference in a believer saying "I'm killing you for god" and an atheist (I assume you are referring to the commies) saying I'm killing you for "the people" or whatever. The massacres were not done in the name of atheism, but by people who were in one way or another not religious.
The religious are going to have to deal with a more aggressive push-back now. Simply saying "it is my faith" isn't going to cut it anymore. Not after Bush, Bin Laden and the rest (not drawing equivalences there).
Anyhow, I'll read it in the am.
edit:
after a quick glance:
| Quote: |
| Given these hopelessly confused and superficial arguments, it�s hard to take the new atheism seriously. |
He hasn't read any of them seriously.
Also, he is equating liberalism with atheism. Strange.
Lastly. Hitler wasn't an atheist. Catholic. Still hasn't been excommunicated either.
By the by, no evidence was provided for the validity of the xtian position. Just a wandering hack at what he perceives to be contradictions in the people he has read. No matter how much you think the atheist doesn't provide you a solid philosophical understanding of the world, that does not mean that Jesus was the son of God or that mo' talked to allah in Arabia.
I really will read closer tomorrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
By the by, no evidence was provided for the validity of the xtian position. Just a wandering hack at what he perceives to be contradictions in the people he has read. No matter how much you think the atheist doesn't provide you a solid philosophical understanding of the world, that does not mean that Jesus was the son of God or that mo' talked to allah in Arabia.
|
This point is far too often not realised by Christian writers. In the absence of evidence, weak atheism is the simplest logical conclusion. (weak atheism=the lack of any positive beliefs about God.)
Atheism doesn't claim to have any solid philosophical understandings. Lack of belief has never been much of a grounding for anything; it's simply too vague a condition.
PS Not having read Nietzsche: Is it possible that he was making distinctions between morality and Christian morality. The two are not absolutely the same thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
In the absence of evidence, weak atheism is the simplest logical conclusion. (weak atheism=the lack of any positive beliefs about God.)
|
What's this diff between that an agnosticism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
Lastly. Hitler wasn't an atheist. Catholic. Still hasn't been excommunicated either. |
Yeah Mein Kampf is replete with references to god for justification. Ain't no way you can spin Hitler as an atheist. The SS had a whole whack ball religion laid out.
I should stress the age of reason gave us science, medicine, and democracy. Religion had its turn at bad at gave us slavery.
Further, are the authors saying witch hunts were a good thing? No. Imagine a world without religious violence. That's not the same as arguing you will eliminate all violence. It's merely about eliminating a justification. Look, people swore Bush stole the election. They didn't start hacking each other to death with machetes like they did in Kenya. Why? Because there is no rational justification for it in America. But if you truly think you're doing god's work (as in Rwanda) by hacking your neighbor to death, then you sure might.
But their whole premise is a strawman. No one is arguing a return to the "age of reason". Atheists are simply asking for a place at the table like blacks and women did before. One shouldn't have to pass religious tests to become a law maker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
| Quote: |
In the absence of evidence, weak atheism is the simplest logical conclusion. (weak atheism=the lack of any positive beliefs about God.)
|
What's this diff between that an agnosticism? |
Everyone has their own definitions. I think an agnostic would argue there's no way of knowing either way so he's not going to bother. From ADH:
One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.
Am I agnostic to the idea of blue fairies or am I atheistic as regards their existence? There could be evidence. But I need to be shown.
AHD on atheist:
One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
I see no evidence for god. But if a closed entropic system suddenly displayed order and information and told me an accurate prediction about the future and would only do such for catholics after prayer (and never born agains or jews), I would take that as great evidence of the existence of god. However, the strong atheist actively says there is no god period. Any evidence, even the evidence above, has a non god interpretation. Maybe very clever space aliens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
PS Not having read Nietzsche: Is it possible that he was making distinctions between morality and Christian morality. The two are not absolutely the same thing. |
Nietzsche recognizes many moralities, but groups them into two principal sets: master morality and slave morality.
He places Christianity under the set slave morality along with Buddhism. Interestingly, Nietzsche also believes that Buddhism is a subtler and richer slave morality than Christianity. Although with Buddhism we arrive more easily to where Nietzsche directs us to look for with all slave moralities: a underlying will to nothing.
Nietzsche regards contemporary atheism as weak, feeble, and built on the detritus of a shattered Christianity. He particularly mocks (many but not all) scientists, especially for their laboring at improving the lives of the small in small, incremental ways. There is nothing more intellectually ironic than a Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris invoking Nietzsche in their cause.
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Yeah Mein Kampf is replete with references to god for justification. Ain't no way you can spin Hitler as an atheist. The SS had a whole whack ball religion laid out. |
Hitler was neither Christian nor atheist. At heart he was a pagan. His national mythos hearkened back to Norse traditions and pre-Christian racial identity. Remember, Christianity emerged to try to eliminate the tribes and establish universal salvation (hence: Catholic). But you're right to call Oakes out on this, Hitler was not an atheist in the term we use today.
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| But their whole premise is a strawman. No one is arguing a return to the "age of reason". |
New Atheism refers to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and their disciples. I don't think he means to speak of all atheists. Many atheists don't seek to start a movement, and so it would be absurd to accuse them of inciting violence. Meanwhile, the above three are trying to start a movement, or at least appear to do so while collecting millions in book sales. The so-called "Four Horsemen" (I'm missing one of the shallow four) do speak of burying religion an establishing a society full of people who spurn belief for rational thought. Have we heard this before? Its the enlightenment, except without any of the intellectual illumination.
Note that as an agnostic myself, I have nothing against atheists or theists. But I think the Culture War is ridiculous. Oakes, counsel for the Horsemen's opposition, makes a number of good points. One of which in atheism's short history, 'atheism' killed a lot of people. I display the argument as a reductio, not accusing atheism itself of the killing, but demonstrating how leaders espousing atheist dogma have killed at least as many as leaders have done while espousing Christian dogma.
It should be quite an uncontroversial, balanced, and intuitive point. But many on the atheist side of the Culture War (again, not claiming here that all atheists are fighting the Culture war), can't seem to grasp it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The recent upsurge in the number of books on atheism is a direct result, and a direct reaction to, the aggressive reoccurance of religion in modern politics. It is a welcome balance, and gives the opportunity to reassert the values of rationalism and science and the part they play in modern Western societies.
I consider myself an apathetic on the question of the existence of any god. It just isn't interesting to me. The history of religions is another matter. My interest is in where others' religious beliefs impinge on society and my life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greedy_bones
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Location: not quite sure anymore
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oakes wrote: |
| For like a �red thread� running through all their other arguments, each book has one central claim: Belief in God causes violence. |
Based on this statement, I truly doubt that Oakes has actually read any of their books. While there are parts of the recent Atheist books that discuss violence caused by religion, none of them assert that belief in god causes violence. Harris mostly talks about the differences between religions, Hitchens talks about the violence caused by theocracies, Dawkins talks about the benefits of reason, and I don't really know what Dennett has to say.
I think Harris's points are good counter to Oakes's nonsense. First, you don't see Tibetan Buddhists suicide bombing the Chinese or similar behavior from Quakers, Jainists, or other inherently peaceful religions.
Another point he makes is that even though other religions or its practitioners are more peaceful, doesn't mean the belief is any less insane. The idea that dying while killing infidels will get you 72(I think that's how many...not sure) virgins, while having a significantly more violent result, is no more insane than the idea that a wafer magically transforms into Jesus's body. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing new here.
In lumping "new atheist" authors together, Oakes shows his ignorance. Dan Dennett and Sam Harris have little in common as writers. Dennett examines religion as an anthropological phenomenon, while Harris condemns its effects. Those are two different theses and must be addressed separately.
Oakes asserts that atheism kills people, saying "the connection between [Nazism and Communism] and the recession of the Christian God in the nineteenth [century] is nearly seamless". Wrong; correlation does not prove causation. Communism and Nazism killed people, but their atheism was incidental to their murderous doctrines of revolution and Aryan supremacy, respectively. Of course he is free to disagree and insist that atheism constituted some sort of underlying motivation, but this leaves a difficulty in accounting for peaceful majority-atheist societies like modern Scandinavia, Japan, etc., and in any case makes no sense: No one ever said "I'm going to kill you because I don't believe in God". Not believing in something simply doesn't supply the motivation for murder. Personally, I tend to take people at their word. If someone says "I'm killing you for the people" or "I'm killing you because you're a filthy Jew" or "I'm killing you because God wants me to", then I assume those are their genuine motives unless I have a very good reason to think otherwise. Theists show an odd unwillingness to accept this logic, especially in the third case.
Then he argues that atheism offers no alternative morality to Christianity other than an ineffective "jejune, wan, and bloodless humanism". Again, this will be news to the good people of Norway, who have steadfastly refrained from embarking on lives of wanton immorality; it will also be news to those atheists who live in religious societies but are not incarcerated at a greater rate than believers. The insistent theist refrain that irreligion makes people immoral is a classic case of sophistry. The facts do not bear it out, however logical or self-evident it appears (to the religious) in theory.
Finally, and most damningly, he doesn't even bother to address the primary atheist argument, which is simply that there is no good reason to believe god(s) exist. Even if not believing in gods was 100% guaranteed to cause the collapse of civilization, it would not alter the actual existence or nonexistence of gods one bit. I don't believe things because I want to believe them or because I think it would be nice if they were true. (At least, that's the ideal. Admittedly we all fall short of it sometimes, but this is a human weakness, not a logical argument.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| intellectualism. god. where exactly do the two intersect? ever? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agnostics aren't sure if there's no god, athiests are.
Basically agnostic means "without knowledge" or the idea that you can never know God, existent or not, and that uncertainty is the big difference.
And how are these guys really... New? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mistermasan wrote: |
| intellectualism. god. where exactly do the two intersect? ever? |
Augustine, Mimonides, Aquinas, Anselm, Kierkegaard, Kepler, Newton, I could go on, but why bother in this case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
Finally, and most damningly, he doesn't even bother to address the primary atheist argument, which is simply that there is no good reason to believe god(s) exist. |
He addressed it obliquely by talking about morality, but I don't think the point of his work was to defend the existence of God, so much as offer a polemic response against the New Atheists (who are nothing but polemicists themselves). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
