Myths of the New Atheism

[Twilight Hue]

I know many Atheists that I respect. There is a certain brutal integrity to atheism that is admirable. I remember how in CS Lewis' "That Hideous Strength" Ransom includes an Atheist skeptic on the team that fights the demonic entity -- he says that the skeptics keep believers honest.

But I have a real problem with the New Atheists. Not only are they hateful, undulu rude and obnoxious, but they are hypocrites. They ridicule religion for functioning on a set of unquestioned myths, but they seem blind to thei own myths.

1. Science will replace religion by answering questions about the universe

This radically underestimates the many roles and benefits religion. Religion provides social cohesion, meaning and purpose, ethics, etc. There are many biological benefits of rreligion that have evolved such as mental and physical health and a longer life. And then there are the questions of WHY. Why does the universe exist? Why do I exist? Why should I be a good person? Science can never answer those types of questions.
​

2. Humankind will progress.

There is no evidence of this. We progress technologically. But one has only to look at our crime rate and wars and decimation of other species to see that we are still the animals we have always been -- we just do our animal thing on a larger scale
​

3. Materialism explains everything.

It does not. For example, it does not explain the existence of math, which is a complete abstraction existing in our universe independent of human thought.​

4. Science solves our problems.

Science certainly solves some problems, but not the most important ones. From science we get modern medicine and thank goodness. We also get creature comforts that make our lives easier by reducing labor. And we get a lot of entertainment for that liesure time. But science utterly fails to make us happy -- something that religion is known to accomplish, especially in areas of the world that don't have the money for scientific gizmos, areas where they don't look to material goods for happiness. What good is health and long life if you can't enjoy it
​

This post is inspired by the following article: Why science can’t replace religion

I don't see how religion can effectively address any of the aforementioned issues much less answer the pertinent questions that we may have.

Besides the root word for atheism pretty much translates into, "One without gods". That's it. Fineto. ;0)

One thing about atheism is that it's not a philosophy or way of life or anything like that. That is the biggest myth about atheism. New or old.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is just not what scientific studies have shown. Religious people are healthier, happier, and live longer.

Apparently you haven't seen snake handlers and Faith Healers. ;0)

If you ask me, Christians or theists in general seem to be a notably pretty stressed out bunch like the rest of us.

Living longer? Naw. I would attribute that to diet, exercise, and having good genes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Living longer? Naw. I would attribute that to diet, exercise, and having good genes.

You can read the study for yourself:

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Abstract
Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation. In Study 2, exploratory analyses suggested that the religion–longevity association was moderated by city-level religiosity and city-level personality. In cities with low levels of trait openness, the nonreligiously affiliated had reduced longevity in highly religious cities relative to less religious cities, consistent with the religion-as-social-value hypothesis. Conversely, in cities with high levels of openness, the opposite trend was observed, suggesting a spillover effect of religion. The religiously affiliated were less influenced by these cultural factors.

 

[Sunstone]

​

3. Materialism explains everything.

It does not. For example, it does not explain the existence of math, which is a complete abstraction existing in our universe independent of human thought.​

While I think you make some good points, I believe that the above point is little more than an indulgence in metaphysical speculation.

 

[Sunstone]

​

2. Humankind will progress.

There is no evidence of this. We progress technologically. But one has only to look at our crime rate and wars and decimation of other species to see that we are still the animals we have always been -- we just do our animal thing on a larger scale
​

I agree human nature does not progress, but I think Stephen Pinker and others have made strong arguments for the notion that we've been getting a bit better culturally in several non-technological areas over the past 500 or so years. Where I most disagree with Pinker and the others is that I believe we could easily backslide from any progress we've made, including -- if conditions were right -- our technological progress.

 

[HonestJoe]

I went WAY out of my way to say that I wasn't talking about all atheists.

Yes, but you didn’t clearly define which “atheists” you were talking meaning all the negative characteristics you listed could be easily pushed on to anyone, especially anyone who challenges any aspect of your post. This isn’t specific about you or atheism, I think there is a general issue with attacks on ideas being initially and even primarily focused on groups of individuals rather than just on the ideas themselves regardless of who might make them (and, more significantly, who doesn’t). You could have made the purported point of the thread without mentioning “atheists” at all.

 

[`mud]

Just bang out junk analysis.....period !
I might die today, tomorrow, next week, or next year,
I'm getting close to the end, and not afraid of it.
When one get's past 70, one starts to realize that.
Peggy said it well: "Is that all there is ? "
With or without `God` and the mysterious `angels`.

 

[Quintessence]

What did you think of my point that religion has many more roles than simply explaining how the universe works?

I not only agree with this, I would say that the role religion has in addressing this question is minor and at times non-existent depending on what religious tradition we're talking about. Or rather, the way in which religion goes about "explaining how the universe works" is not logos, but mythos (see - Mythos and Logos - for what I mean by those terms). I've yet to meet anyone within my own religious demographics (which would include Unitarian Universalism, contemporary Paganism, and Druidry) who fails to recognize the narratives of their traditions are mythos rather than logos. Trouble is, mythological literalism (treating mythos as logos) became all the rage when certain segments of Christianity went all anti-intellectualist... what... a couple centuries ago or something? And since literalists tend to be loud and obnoxious, they get a lot of attention and we get people running around in America thinking that religion closely relates to logos (explaining how the universe works in the way sciences do) when it doesn't. That spirals into the whole "science vs. religion" myth, and yada, yada, yada. It's too bad, really. If we had proper education about religion in our school system maybe more folks would understand that mythic texts are to be approached in the same way as literature, not as a bloody science textbook.

First, I sense fertile ground for learning in your statement that the sciences are an extension of the religion impetus (and that you do this in your own religion). Please send me a post on this topic.

It was one of my parents who told me as a kid that I was "very religious" - a declaration I vehemently rejected at the time. They said that because I was always very curious and driven to learn about the world around me and make sense of it. At the time, that meant science, science, and only science to me. And maybe philosophy. I had telescopically ignorant ideas about religion, and didn't understand that religion is very much about learning about the world around you and making sense of it. The sciences limit to particular methods of doing that, where religions can utilize the arts as well. Storytelling, in particular - myths that convey how we relate to the world around us in ways that are true, but not intended to be literally true.

There's a bit more to the story than that, but this probably suffices for the moment.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I know many Atheists that I respect. There is a certain brutal integrity to atheism that is admirable. I remember how in CS Lewis' "That Hideous Strength" Ransom includes an Atheist skeptic on the team that fights the demonic entity -- he says that the skeptics keep believers honest.

But I have a real problem with the New Atheists. Not only are they hateful, undulu rude and obnoxious, but they are hypocrites. They ridicule religion for functioning on a set of unquestioned myths, but they seem blind to thei own myths.

1. Science will replace religion by answering questions about the universe

This radically underestimates the many roles and benefits religion. Religion provides social cohesion, meaning and purpose, ethics, etc. There are many biological benefits of rreligion that have evolved such as mental and physical health and a longer life. And then there are the questions of WHY. Why does the universe exist? Why do I exist? Why should I be a good person? Science can never answer those types of questions.
​

2. Humankind will progress.

There is no evidence of this. We progress technologically. But one has only to look at our crime rate and wars and decimation of other species to see that we are still the animals we have always been -- we just do our animal thing on a larger scale
​

3. Materialism explains everything.

It does not. For example, it does not explain the existence of math, which is a complete abstraction existing in our universe independent of human thought.​

4. Science solves our problems.

Science certainly solves some problems, but not the most important ones. From science we get modern medicine and thank goodness. We also get creature comforts that make our lives easier by reducing labor. And we get a lot of entertainment for that liesure time. But science utterly fails to make us happy -- something that religion is known to accomplish, especially in areas of the world that don't have the money for scientific gizmos, areas where they don't look to material goods for happiness. What good is health and long life if you can't enjoy it
​

This post is inspired by the following article: Why science can’t replace religion

On some level, I agree. Many "new atheists" are overly arrogant and over-estimate their own intellect. I also think that many of them are atheists because they think it's "cool" but have not done any deep thinking. However, your criticisms are inaccurate for a variety of reasons.

1) Why do you insist that the "why" questions even have answers? Asking a question like "why does the universe exist" or "why should I be a good person?" implies that these questions have answers, and presupposes purposes to the universe where none are evident.

2) I don't know how atheism implies that humankind will progress. There is no logical connection that I can see.

3) Math is (IMO) a language developed by humans to explain, model and describe aspects of the universe using abstraction. It is not some divine, immutable set of laws. To use one example, laws of multiplication differ depending on whether one is dealing with numbers or matrices. Rules for regular equations differ from rules for congruences, etc.

4) No argument here, we need more than science to make us happy of course. What does that have to do with God's existence?

 

[ChristineM]

But I have a real problem with the New Atheists. Not only are they hateful, undulu rude and obnoxious, but they are hypocrites. They ridicule religion for functioning on a set of unquestioned myths, but they seem blind to thei own myths.

Ever considered that it works both ways?

Btw
Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less, anything else you attribute to atheism is not atheism. Theists making claims about atheism is nothing more than confirmation bias.

And that is where the wall comes up. Theists make hurtful claims, an atheist is likely to respond in kind

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ever considered that it works both ways?

Btw
Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less, anything else you attribute to atheism is not atheism. Theists making claims about atheism is nothing more than confirmation bias.

And that is where the wall comes up. Theists make hurtful claims, an atheist is likely to respond in kind

There are indeed different forms that atheism can take

 

[IndigoChild5559]

On some level, I agree. Many "new atheists" are overly arrogant and over-estimate their own intellect. I also think that many of them are atheists because they think it's "cool" but have not done any deep thinking. However, your criticisms are inaccurate for a variety of reasons.

1) Why do you insist that the "why" questions even have answers? Asking a question like "why does the universe exist" or "why should I be a good person?" implies that these questions have answers, and presupposes purposes to the universe where none are evident.

2) I don't know how atheism implies that humankind will progress. There is no logical connection that I can see.

My statements were not about atheism. I went WAY out of my way to say I was only talking about the New Atheists. )

It is obvious from you answers that you do not fit into the category that I was referring to.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It was one of my parents who told me as a kid that I was "very religious" - a declaration I vehemently rejected at the time. They said that because I was always very curious and driven to learn about the world around me and make sense of it. At the time, that meant science, science, and only science to me. And maybe philosophy. I had telescopically ignorant ideas about religion, and didn't understand that religion is very much about learning about the world around you and making sense of it. The sciences limit to particular methods of doing that, where religions can utilize the arts as well. Storytelling, in particular - myths that convey how we relate to the world around us in ways that are true, but not intended to be literally true.

There's a bit more to the story than that, but this probably suffices for the moment.

Your parent was very wise.

I just bought the audiobook, "Women who run with the wolves." It's a Jungian text that explores the truths about us found in fairy tales.

 

[lukethethird]

This is just not what scientific studies have shown. Religious people are healthier, happier, and live longer.

Wait a minute, we can only wish.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Wait a minute, we can only wish.

run a google search for genuine scientific journal articles on these topics.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, but you didn’t clearly define which “atheists” you were talking meaning all the negative characteristics you listed could be easily pushed on to anyone, especially anyone who challenges any aspect of your post. This isn’t specific about you or atheism, I think there is a general issue with attacks on ideas being initially and even primarily focused on groups of individuals rather than just on the ideas themselves regardless of who might make them (and, more significantly, who doesn’t). You could have made the purported point of the thread without mentioning “atheists” at all.

Seemed pretty clear to me that the OP was discussing New Atheists.

New Atheism, whether one likes the term or not, is an ideology and thus is not simply atheism. It should really be treated as a proper noun, so when people quibble the term New Atheism by referring to the term atheism it is based on a misrepresentation/misunderstanding. The component letters/words in a proper noun don't really matter, so we could call New Atheists Spungoes instead or Moop-Moops any other arbitrary collection of letters and it would make no difference to its referent.

To say a criticism of New Atheism is somehow a criticism of atheism a bit like referring to to the word democratic in the name Democratic People's Republic of Korea and saying criticism of North Korea is thus criticism of democracy.

 

[Augustus]

This is just not what scientific studies have shown. Religious people are healthier, happier, and live longer.

While there are numerous studies that support what you say, studies overall are somewhat mixed/inconclusive on this and note significant culturally based differences.

Some studies have shown that religious people seem to do better in religious societies, but when societies become sufficiently irreligious this advantage seems to disappear.

(SWB = subjective well-being)

Diener, E., Tay, L., & Myers, D. G. (2011). The religion paradox: If religion makes people happy, why are so many dropping out? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1278–1290. doi:10.1037/a0024402

 

[Milton Platt]

I know many Atheists that I respect. There is a certain brutal integrity to atheism that is admirable. I remember how in CS Lewis' "That Hideous Strength" Ransom includes an Atheist skeptic on the team that fights the demonic entity -- he says that the skeptics keep believers honest.

But I have a real problem with the New Atheists. Not only are they hateful, undulu rude and obnoxious, but they are hypocrites. They ridicule religion for functioning on a set of unquestioned myths, but they seem blind to thei own myths.

1. Science will replace religion by answering questions about the universe

This radically underestimates the many roles and benefits religion. Religion provides social cohesion, meaning and purpose, ethics, etc. There are many biological benefits of rreligion that have evolved such as mental and physical health and a longer life. And then there are the questions of WHY. Why does the universe exist? Why do I exist? Why should I be a good person? Science can never answer those types of questions.
​

2. Humankind will progress.

There is no evidence of this. We progress technologically. But one has only to look at our crime rate and wars and decimation of other species to see that we are still the animals we have always been -- we just do our animal thing on a larger scale
​

3. Materialism explains everything.

It does not. For example, it does not explain the existence of math, which is a complete abstraction existing in our universe independent of human thought.​

4. Science solves our problems.

Science certainly solves some problems, but not the most important ones. From science we get modern medicine and thank goodness. We also get creature comforts that make our lives easier by reducing labor. And we get a lot of entertainment for that liesure time. But science utterly fails to make us happy -- something that religion is known to accomplish, especially in areas of the world that don't have the money for scientific gizmos, areas where they don't look to material goods for happiness. What good is health and long life if you can't enjoy it
​

This post is inspired by the following article: Why science can’t replace religion

Religion does not answer questions about the universe. It merely stops people from asking the questions and looking for the answers. It certainly does not answer why or how the universe exists. The answer to a mystery isn’t to postulate a bigger mystery. The correct merhod is to continue to study the evidence and go where it leads.

Religion can have limited sociological benefits.....that does not establish that it is true.

The fact that a religious person might be happy is of no more import than the fact that a drunken man might be happier than a sober one. Religion is also known to cause unhappiness, discord, death, and destruction.

Science is not about the human concept of happy. It is a methodology (or set of methodologies) for understanding the world and the universe. Happiness is hard to achieve without good health and a long life.

Millions of people are happy without religion, so clearly it isn’t necessary for happiness.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The fact that a religious person might be happy is of no more import than the fact that a drunken man might be happier than a sober one. Religion is also known to cause unhappiness, discord, death, and destruction.

Science is not about the human concept of happy. It is a methodology (or set of methodologies) for understanding the world and the universe. Happiness is hard to achieve without good health and a long life..

Oh, I would much, much rather have the happiness that religion provides, than the creature comforts that science provides, any day of the week. I dare say that I'm a typical human being in this regard. What good is health or long life or a high definition TV if one is miserable?

 

[Trailblazer]

Religion does not answer questions about the universe. It merely stops people from asking the questions and looking for the answers.

The Baha'i Faith does not do that. We encourage people to ask questions and we believe that science is just as important as religion.

The fact that a religious person might be happy is of no more import than the fact that a drunken man might be happier than a sober one. Religion is also known to cause unhappiness, discord, death, and destruction.

Religion is not the cause of happiness or unhappiness. People are happy for many different reasons.

Happiness is hard to achieve without good health and a long life.

Spiritual happiness can be achieved without either of those.

Millions of people are happy without religion, so clearly it isn’t necessary for happiness.

We should not believe in a religion so we can be happy. The ONLY reason we should believe in a religion is because it is the Truth from God.

Happiness is overrated and it is transitory. One can be happy with what this material world has to offer as long as they are here, but if that is all they know they will be lost after they die and go to the spiritual world.

If one wants to take a chance that there is no afterlife they can do that, but it is a big gamble because if you lose, you lose big.