Philosophy Now Forum

Michael Antony argues that the New Atheists miss the mark.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence

Please allow me to contribute a smiley here.

What's a "New Atheist"? Who coined this term?

Arising_uk wrote:What's a "New Atheist"? Who coined this term?

Exactly what I was wondering.
I know what a 'militant' atheist is supposed to be, and I usually have no truck with them.
I am an old atheist, and although I feel quite certain that all the various gods are equally fictitious, I don't feel like I could prove this, and am rather pleased that the 'First Law of Serendipity' (the impossible often turns out to be unnecessary) applies here.
Unless some holy-book-thumping bastard is trying to manipulate the gullible for the purposes of war-mongering or such, I have no problem with other people believing whatever floats their boat.
And if some holy-book-thumping bastard is trying to manipulate the gullible for the purposes of war, whipping up anti-Semitism, anti-arabism or other such shite, there are much clearer ways of challenging the bastard than by trying to prove that god doesn't exist, FFS.
In recent years I got into trying to argue against the existence of god in a public (Internet) way when I realised that the Creationists have been trying to wangle their way into our 'mind-forming' institutes. (schools).
But you can hardly blame them. Addictive sugar-caffeine soft-drugs are placed in 'donated' drinks machines in the common-rooms; Conservative politicians and private enterprises are working together to set up schools they can directly control; supermarket multi-nationals and sports-gear manufacturers are looking for a slice of the growing mind, too. So if the god-botherers and the barking young-earthers are trying to get in there, they're not alone.,
We need to find a better way to teach our children.
In other words, we need to re-address the distinction between 'education' and 'schooling'.
Once we've got our kids away from both the superstitious and the free-market fanatics, we can help their minds grow the way they need to; questioning, fearless, and encouraged to be so..

I've just gotten around to this forum, and I'm enjoying the articles posted here, including this one. Thanks, rebecca

I don't know, I think the article presents a dumb argument. I am fine with the Hellenist notion that reason, is the controlling force of the universe. It seems quite obvious to me that our reality would not be possible if the universe were not organized and maintained by physical laws. This would be a possible Deist understanding of God, and this understanding is a hands off understanding. That is, this God is not a personal God, and can not be pleased or displeased by our words and deeds. However, this God is very important to our understanding of morals. It says, if we do wrong, the effect will be bad, and if we do right, the effect will be good. That is the fundamental definition of right and wrong. Burning candles, praying to God that we don't suffer the effect of our wrong, or donating to church, isn't going to change anything. What will be will be.

I would rather argue specifics, such as does it make sense for God to speak to a couple of people, instead of everyone? Like really folks, how different is the God of Abraham from all the other gods and goddesses? Like if God really wanted to help us out, why didn't He begin with an explanation of bacteria and viruses that makes sense, instead of telling us of demons and a vague, "unclean things" all mixed up with superstitious notion of God wanting animal sacrifices, rituals not longer practiced, not even by Jews? There are some really good arguments to have. If God exist or not, is not a really good argument, but instead it reinforces the religious folks argument. That will never make the problem go away.

Athena wrote:I don't know, I think the article presents a dumb argument. I am fine with the Hellenist notion that reason, is the controlling force of the universe. It seems quite obvious to me that our reality would not be possible if the universe were not organized and maintained by physical laws. This would be a possible Deist understanding of God, and this understanding is a hands off understanding. That is, this God is not a personal God, and can not be pleased or displeased by our words and deeds. However, this God is very important to our understanding of morals. It says, if we do wrong, the effect will be bad, and if we do right, the effect will be good. That is the fundamental definition of right and wrong. Burning candles, praying to God that we don't suffer the effect of our wrong, or donating to church, isn't going to change anything. What will be will be.

I would rather argue specifics, such as does it make sense for God to speak to a couple of people, instead of everyone? Like really folks, how different is the God of Abraham from all the other gods and goddesses? Like if God really wanted to help us out, why didn't He begin with an explanation of bacteria and viruses that makes sense, instead of telling us of demons and a vague, "unclean things" all mixed up with superstitious notion of God wanting animal sacrifices, rituals not longer practiced, not even by Jews? There are some really good arguments to have. If God exist or not, is not a really good argument, but instead it reinforces the religious folks argument. That will never make the problem go away.

I'm a theist, not a fundamentalist. I've spent the past three decades trying to answer some of the questions you raise -- particularly why some reasonably well-verified "miracles" have happened to only a very few -- I once did some research into medical miracles -- but why only to those very few (not all were Christians, or even religious)? Why do some people seem to have a natural and benevolent connection with the divine, while others dedicate their lives to helping others and seeking God, yet never seem to receive an answer? Why is there no divine help for those who need it the most?

I don't hold all scripture as infallible, but the New Testament says that "Satan" or "The Prince of the Power of the Air" rules this world, that those who follow the way of Christ will suffer in this world (the spirit of Christ, to me, means a spirit of love, certainly not limited to one incarnation 2000 years ago). Apparently, then, God isn't all powerful in this world. Otherwise why would his followers suffer at the hands of some malevolent "ruler of this world"? I mean, if God had the power to end all the suffering of the innocent, to end the tragedy of third world children, but he didn't -- well, that doesn't sound like the God of Love I believe in, that sounds more like a God I'd invite to "take it outside", if you get my drift.

In my searching, I've seen and experienced enough for me to personally believe there is a God of Love. But I've failed in my efforts to find some common denominator among those who seem to make a real connection with the divine, to whom a life of selfless loving kindness comes naturally, and those who have been associated with verified medical miracles, whether or not they were Christian, or even religious.

The most consistent aspect I've found in these special people is that they never claim to direct or will God in any way -- they certainly don't act like TV evangelists. Instead, they tend to be quiet, normal people who have an acute ability as "spiritual receivers" (for lack of a better descriptive), receiving intuitions, which they often describe as messages from God, to take actions which do then produce real and benevolent results, sometimes even miracles. But all the ones I know of claim that it was God who initiated contact, God who created the connection -- all they did was answer "yes".

I wish I had the answers, but I don't. Perhaps we'll both find our answers in the next life -- if there is a next life (I have hopes, but I'm not 100% certain on that one, either). rebecca

Thank you very much for this article. This has been something that I have come to see as a flaw as well for a great deal of time, but I could never communicate it correctly. I often told atheists that they hold religion to a higher standard of evidence than other sciences. The other point is that there is a great deal of distrust of anything that goes counter to what atheists believe, maybe more so than religion. While religion does not like the idea of evolution, you can see that many religious people are starting to believe it and get a better understanding of it.

But I would say that if a mircle happened, and could be verified by say some foreign government, that atheists would still reject it. I think it has to do with how our brains decide. There seems to be different levels of strength for a belief. The weakest is taught. We understand humans are fallible, and therefore what we are taught can be wrong. But we feel once we decide on a belief, that for that belief to be wrong is to admit that we are wrong. As atheists are taught one thing, but latter decide on another belief, that ups the strength of the belief and thus is that much harder to break. Then there is the fact that someone who defends it over and over again, to think that they were wrong all along is something that most people don't even want to think about.

I digress, thank you for this article, it points out what I have been trying to put into words for a very long time.

Some reason my post didn't go up...

So this is going to be sadly a shorter version. I first wantes to think the author and Philsophy Now for publishing this. This is exactly what I have been trying to communicate for awhile now, but have failed to do. But I would like to point out something else that I think goes in step with this, and that is level of belief.

So we all undersatand that people can be wrong. And for a belief, there are different levels. The lowest level is taught. As we know others can be wrong, we know that what we are taught can be wrong. Therefore, it is easy to toss aside old teaching for new information. We see this happening with evolution and religion.

But the higher level, and where many athesits I feel are, are in a position that they decided that what they were taught was wrong, and came to the decision of atheist (some people decide religion is right, thus reinforcing the belief to this higher level). To admit that your belief could be wrong, when you decided it, would mean that you personally were wrong on your decision. This is very difficult for many to come to terms with, religious or not. It goes double for when you become an advocate, such as Dawkins or Benny Hill. Now not only are you wrong, but you have been spreading a lie.

To this point, I derived that if such evidence for one side over another, would be rejected by most people who have this higher level of belief. If "God" appeared before the people of Russia, and it was documented, I don't think people in the EU or America would believe it as evidence. It goes against what they have decided and thus to accept it means to be wrong. I feel like this is a very large road block on all sides, and this article highlights that no side is really better than the rest, and we should respect that.

Here's the devastating flaw in this critique of New Atheist rhetoric:

However, on the common understanding of atheism – no divine reality of any kind exists – atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

New Atheists rhetoric:

Dawkins identifies himself repeatedly as an atheist, while also pointing out that, in a sense, he is also agnostic...

The author has attacked an easily defeated strawman (gnostic claims demand evidence). Leaving the atheism of Dawkins et al untouched (disbelief remains intellectually legitimate).

Also, the article's framing is profoundly loaded. One needn't accept the logical conclusion that "skepticism of gnostic claims" really just means (if you parse it literally) "a belief in agnosticism". It ignores the profound asymmetry.

Where's the evidence?

It has already been postulated that we are likely to be in a simulated reality...
http://philosophynow.org/issues/75/The_ ... d_Universe

So would that make the ultimate Judge...God...comparable to an AI (artificial intelligence)?

Is so....then is this evidence? Or just some VERY unlikely coincidences?

Where is the Evidence, to disprove the existence of God?. Where is the evidence to explain God. The Scriptures and nature. I have read posts, whereby some contributors, have "bashed" the reader with accolades of praise, for Kant, Nietzsche, John Gray, and even a reference to Wicca, which is basically a modern pagan religion. Milton's, Paradise Lost, is an accurate depiction of Adam and Eve and their fall from grace. So why, the decision to turn away from the Scriptures. There is just as much literal evidence to prove to the reader of the existence of God in the Bible. Below are some extracts I have copied from my research for this post.

"The many theories attempting to explain God, and the many arguments for and against His existence, show that human wisdom cannot penetrate the divine. Depending on human wisdom alone to learn about God is like using a magnifying glass to study the constellations. Hence, to many, God's wisdom is a "hidden wisdom" (1 Cor. 2:7). To them God is a mystery. Paul wrote, "None of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor. 2:8).

Unbelievers, therefore, cannot understand God. Paul exclaimed, "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:20, 21, NIV).

Evidence From Scripture. The Bible does not prove God's existence. It assumes it. Its opening text declares, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). The Bible describes God as the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of all creation. God's revelation through creation is so powerful that there is no excuse for atheism, which arises from a suppression of divine truth or from a mind that refuses to acknowledge the evidence that God exists (Ps. 14:1; Rom. 1:18-22, 28)."

There are enough evidences for God's existence to convince anyone who seriously tries to discover the truth about Him. Yet faith is a prerequisite for "without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).

Evidence is not needed to disprove a thing not previously proven.

God is an amorphous concept, whose parameters, characteristics and qualities are not even agreed upon by those that insist "He', "She, or "It" exists.

as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

chaz wyman wrote: God is an amorphous concept, whose parameters, characteristics and qualities are not even agreed upon by those that insist "He', "She, or "It" exists.

in what form could God plausibly exist to you?