Myths of the New Atheism

[metis]

Punjabi music is beautiful whether plaintive, devotional, teasing and energetic. In the recent times, we have had Punjabi Rap.
Punjab is big on music because boys and girls are trained to sing Sikh devotional hymns. Every village has that tradition. Then it has poor Muslims families with tradition of singing sufi folk music.
In this village, every child knows his ragas - Times of India ►
Why Every Single Kid in This Tiny Village in Punjab Knows Classical Music

'Indian Idol' is a premier music competition here. Though it has not yet concluded, but Salman Ali is one of the best singers in the show. Salman is very poor and has a large family to support. Listen to some of his singing, you would find it enjoyable (the clothes that he is wearing have been provided by the show organizers).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b&ei=573dW83YHIrdvgT7kLfACw&q=Salman indian idol 10 site:youtube.com&oq=youtube&gs_l=psy-ab.3...84599.87125.0.87700.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.2L24NMtOYqY&ved=2ahUKEwiN6NSXxLjeAhWKro8KHXvIDbgQ2wF6BAgAEAg

Nice to know and thanks for the links.

Have a great weekend!


BTW, I have spent time with both the Hindu and Sikh congregations and enjoyed them both. Love the food, and my favorite restaurant here in the Detroit area is owned by a Sikh family.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Indic religions have a sibling syndrome. For many Hindus, Guru Nanak is the only teacher and Guru Granth Sahib is the only scripture.

 

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

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 their own myths.

So what you value is merely the skeptical aspect of atheism. The skepticism is the core of atheism and truly is nothing more than the final conclusion of skepticism. What you don't seem to like is the "culture" propped up around the modern western atheistic communities. Which is fair.

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.​

Personally any time someone says "replacement" there is a context to the conversation. Religion isn't going to be taken out and science simply take its place. We aren't changing the batteries in a remote. Its more like the car replacing the horse as a main form of travel. Yes we still have horses. Horses have many benefits such as companionship. Look at all these roads and wasted resources we have to expend just to make cars work. Horses just need some grain and water. Yet we have switched over to cars/trucks/trains/planes. Functionally for travel they have "replaced" horses.

In much the same way science has made aspects of religion obsolete. Explanatory power of the way the world functions is no longer in the hands of mystics but rather skeptical researchers. The proof is in the pudding to which works better. Philosophy and ethics has just as great an authority in morals/meaning. I also don't know what you mean when you say social cohesion? Do you mean that it functions as a community gathering for social interaction or are you talking about maintaining social order? Government has taken the latter and we don't require religion for the former.

And as far as the "big" questions go I would argue that religion doesn't give a satisfying answer to those questions either.



​

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​

We've undoubtedly progressed. No we don't live in a utopia but on every measurable scale we have improved our lives in the last few hundred years. Slavery is no longer a thing. Most places in the world has human rights etched into their government. A smaller percentage of the world goes hungry. We have the lowest crime rate almost ever in our history as humans. I don't see how one could deny the progress of humanity. Not of the human biologically or even psychologically but humanity for sure.
​

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.​

Mathematics is a concept of materialism. It depends on materialism being true.​

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​

It doesn't solve all our problems and I don't know what atheists are claiming this. However it is true to say that the problems that do get solved are almost always due to science. Just like how science doesn't have the answer to all questions but all questions that have been answered are thanks to science.​

 

[Augustus]

Better stated "It was Scientific enquiry that began answering questions, and not the clergy."

A disproportionately large number of people involved in scientific enquiry were part of the clergy...

 

[Augustus]

Cultural bond is big in India, that is what keeps India going; even Muslims are part of it. Religion is never the decider because it is considered a personal thing. Indian society has always consisted of people subscribing to various religions. Muslim native states had happy Hindus and Hindu native states had happy Muslims.

I wasn't talking about recent history, this goes back way before even Hinduism existed, let alone Islam.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hinduism is eternal, It does not have a date of beginning.

 

[Augustus]

Atheism itself is a variously defined, used and abused term in itself and "New Atheism" is no better. I doubt you could come up with a definitive definition everyone would agree on. It isn't a definition here, it's a label, one which can be applied to anyone.

You can't get a definitive definition that everyone disagree on for half of the concepts in the English language, that doesn't stop people being able to use them effectively.

I've never met anyone who had difficulty identifying what the term refers to, it's basically a anti-theistic version of Secular Humanism.

1) New Atheists are "hateful, unduly rude and obnoxious" and hypocrites

Sam Harris has said that given the choice between eliminating religion or rape, he'd eliminate religion.

Richard Dawkins believes religious folk are delusional and speculated that a child being raised Catholic is worse than the child experiencing mild sexual abuse.

NAs in general are contemptuous of religions and their adherents.

While hateful might be going too far, I can understand how a religious person might view them as obnoxious.

2) New Atheists believe these four "myths"

These beliefs are pretty much core Secular Humanist principles, you'll find versions of them in the Amsterdam Declaration of Secular Humanism The Amsterdam Declaration | IHEU

This means that anyone who supports any of those "myths" (or challenges the definitions, which is treated the same way) can be labelled as "New Atheist" by definition, with all the implications of the first assertion. The OP might not even be consciously aware this is what they're doing but it is the fundamental core of this form of argument.

The better approach is to either present the four concepts without the negative baggage of the labelling so they can be openly discussed in
abstract or quote the statements of named individuals so the challenges (and any negativity) is focused on them and not automatically spread to anyone else.

I'm an atheist and it doesn't bother me when people criticise New Atheists. In fact I find it preferable that they make this distinction from generic atheism.

Also, seeing as almost no one self-identifies as a New Atheist it's not exactly damaging to their sense of identity.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nope, there is only one form as per the definition.

Anything else is not atheism but individual personalities

https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Types-Atheism-John-Gray/dp/0374261091

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Mathematics is a concept of materialism. It depends on materialism being true.

This is the only part of your answer that I truly didn't understand. Mathematics is 100% an abstraction. Amazingly, it does correlate nicely with the material universe. But that doesn't mean it is material. If the material world didn't exist, math would still exist.

 

[ChristineM]

https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Types-Atheism-John-Gray/dp/0374261091

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

Do you think he would make any royalties writing that?

Despite its title, which is an allusion to William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity, John Gray’s new book is not really about atheism. It refers to various famous atheists, but essentially it is an account of the course of human history as Gray understands it,
Review: Seven Types of Atheism by John Gray — ‘the most depressing book I have read’

 

[ChristineM]

This is the only part of your answer that I truly didn't understand. Mathematics is 100% an abstraction. Amazingly, it does correlate nicely with the material universe. But that doesn't mean it is material. If the material world didn't exist, math would still exist.

Applied mathematics is not an abstraction

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

Do you think he would make any royalties writing that?

Despite its title, which is an allusion to William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity, John Gray’s new book is not really about atheism. It refers to various famous atheists, but essentially it is an account of the course of human history as Gray understands it,
Review: Seven Types of Atheism by John Gray — ‘the most depressing book I have read’

You are trying to make the claim that there are not significant subdivisions of atheists. It's ridiculous. It's like saying there aren't significant subdivisions of Christians. And I do have this same argument with those who say, "I'm just a Christian, no other labels."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Applied mathematics is not an abstraction

I'm not talking about applied mathematics. I'm talking unadulterated math.

 

[ChristineM]

You are trying to make the claim that there are not significant subdivisions of atheists. It's ridiculous. It's like saying there aren't significant subdivisions of Christians. And I do have this same argument with those who say, "I'm just a Christian, no other labels."

I am making the claim that the definition of atheism is clear. Anything you want to add to to that is purely personal opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

If that caricature is what you think "New Atheism" is, no wonder you hate it. Luckily, the reality isn't much like that at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Do they show that?

I've seen studies that showed that people who attend weekly religious services are generally somewhat healthier than people who don't, but since the "attendees" category necessarily only includes people who are healthy enough to get out of the house once a week and the "non-attendees" category necessarily includes not only non-religious people but all the people who would like to attend - and maybe attended their whole lives - but are now too unwell or infirm to do it, it seems to me that there's a fair bit of selection bias going on.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not talking about applied mathematics. I'm talking unadulterated math.

Then please be more clear rather than making statements like "Mathematics is 100% an abstraction"

Applied maths relates to real life problems, is quite ubiquitous in every day situations from your utility bills to how long traffic lights stay green to gps positioning to programming the next space flight.

 

[ChristineM]

Do they show that?

I've seen studies that showed that people who attend weekly religious services are generally somewhat healthier than people who don't, but since the "attendees" category necessarily only includes people who are healthy enough to get out of the house once a week and the "non-attendees" category necessarily includes not only non-religious people but all the people who would like to attend - and maybe attended their whole lives - but are now too unwell or infirm to do it, it seems to me that there's a fair bit of selection bias going on.

Interesting article. Not on health specifically but quality of life showing a strong correlation that secular us states fair better than religious states. It also mentions that the correlation holds internationally.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...lar-societies-fare-better-religious-societies

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are trying to make the claim that there are not significant subdivisions of atheists. It's ridiculous. It's like saying there aren't significant subdivisions of Christians. And I do have this same argument with those who say, "I'm just a Christian, no other labels."

There are as many "subdivisions of atheist" as there are atheists. Every atheist is a unique person. The fact that none of them are theists tells you almost nothing about them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am making the claim that the definition of atheism is clear. Anything you want to add to to that is purely personal opinion.

My post assumed the definition of atheism was the belief that there is no god. But my post was NOT about atheism. My post was about the "NEW atheism" which is a subcategory.

It would be like me putting up a post about Methodists and you complaining that the things I said weren't true about all Christians.