Myths of the New Atheism

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Look, you aren't understanding the difference between actual math, and how math is applied to our reality. There is the abstraction 3x2=6. There is nothing material about it. It can be i.e., completely represented in he absact using set theory. Now, can you ALSO apply it to the material world? Amazingly, yes. This is why math teachers all over he world will forever torment their students with word problems LOL. It is odd and wondrous just how much the mathematical world does line with our material reality. But the two should not be confused.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Sure, but if you subdivide that small, it is not helpful.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

That is your opinion that somehow massages your confirmation bias.

Unlike religion, in atheism there is no need to bicker and schism into 50,000,000 groups. The definition is clear.

Any allusion to "new atheism" should be directed at individuals

 

[ChristineM]

Sure, but if you subdivide that small, it is not helpful.

Whether it helps you or not is irrelevant, it is factual

 

[ChristineM]

Look, you aren't understanding the difference between actual math, and how math is applied to our reality. There is the abstraction 3x2=6. There is nothing material about it. It can be i.e., completely represented in he absact using set theory. Now, can you ALSO apply it to the material world? Amazingly, yes. This is why math teachers all over he world will forever torment their students with word problems LOL. It is odd and wondrous just how much the mathematical world does line with our material reality. But the two should not be confused.

Look, you made a statement and it was incorrect.

3 * 2 = 6 is a reality, not an abstraction. You buy 3 items, someone else buys 3 items. In reality 6 items have been purchased. That is not an abstract concept.

Why are you confused? The world depends on maths. Its nota line up, its a physicality.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is your opinion that somehow massages your confirmation bias.

Unlike religion, in atheism there is no need to bicker and schism into 50,000,000 groups. The definition is clear.

Any allusion to "new atheism" should be directed at individuals

Christine, if you don't see subdivisions within atheism, it is only you fooling yourself. One of my closest friends is an older atheist who, among other things, spends his retirement years on an "free thinkers' (read atheist) email list. He shares with me all their interesting squabbles and little philosophical cliques. He'd be the first one to tell you that the New Atheists stand apart as a subgroup in many ways.

I've spent enough time on his with you. You don't want to see what's out there. Quite possibly you are sheltered. Or perhaps your philosophical views about atheism prevent you from seeing what is right before your eyes. I really don't care. It's not my job to bring you out of denial.

Shalom.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Look, you made a statement and it was incorrect.

3 * 2 = 6 is a reality, not an abstraction. You buy 3 items, someone else buys 3 items. In reality 6 items have been purchased. That is not an abstract concept.

Why are you confused? The world depends on maths. Its nota line up, its a physicality.

Who told you that abstractions aren't realities???? That is YOUR error. Materialism is a big mista. ke. 3x2=6 is an abstraction and a reaity, both. Saying I have three plants with two flowers each, meaning six flowers in all, is merely an application of 3x2=6. It is not the equation in its pure form.

 

[Shad]

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.​

You are name off benefits of religion which has nothing to do with the questions of the universe. You conflate questions about the universe with questions about purpose, self, morality. You have merely projected your idea of questions as if an atheist.
​

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​

Agreed. Although religion, among many factions, is a cause of this.
​

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.​

Theist's dead horse. Science has moved beyond materialism.​

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​

Anyone claiming a purpose of science is to create happiness is a fool. This seems like a strawman.

Drugs make people happy. Placebos makes people happy. People can believe in lies that make them happy. Better to look at the methods not the results lest you mistakenly endorse a method only because of the result


​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are name off benefits of religion which has nothing to do with the questions of the universe. You conflate questions about the universe with questions about purpose, self, morality.000/QUOTE]​

That's the whole point. Religion wears many hats. Science wears just one. When it comes to that one hat, science wears it better. But science simply doesn't even have those other hats. Myth #1 assumes that there is only one hat, or that at least that one hat is the only one that is valuable. Quite a myth.

 

[Yerda]

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.

There's this quote that pops up now and then that gets close to stating the unease I feel when (new) atheists talk about religious 'explanations' or the origins of religious belief.

...the whole business of approaching the struggle with religion as if it were a card game, or a horse race, or some kind of battle of wits, just feels all wrong...

- David Albert

‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss

Anyway, your posts in this thread were worth the read. Thanks.

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

If the world were made in total from mental stuff (or mind and matter were substantially different) then pythagoras' theorem about right angles triangles would no longer be true?

 

[Shad]

That's the whole point. Religion wears many hats. Science wears just one. When it comes to that one hat, science wears it better. But science simply doesn't even have those other hats. Myth #1 assumes that there is only one hat, or that at least that one hat is the only one that is valuable. Quite a myth.

This is a strawman response which missing the point of reliability of methods as a comparison. You are conflating scientism with science and atheism. Another theist dead horse

 

[loganonekenobi]

I have studied the "new atheism" movement and from what i can tell it's really only a more vocal form of the atheism that has already been. Due to its current popularity it has become a target for the religious organizations. Once this "movement" actually threatened to have half a chance to challenge the centuries long religious domination it is now labeled in the worst possible way.
This seems to be nothing more than an attack on this now effective communication against religion.
From what i see the only difference between "new atheism" and the old plane atheism is that now the atheists are active in trying to make change.
Hey i'd be glad to shut up if the religious did the same.
The religious believe that they are making change for the better however, so do the new atheists. Fair is fair. right? Not so to the religious apparently.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is a strawman response which missing the point of reliability of methods as a comparison. You are conflating scientism with science and atheism. Another theist dead horse

No, I'm associating scientism with the NEW atheism, which is a subgroupk, not atheism in general. Certainly not science -- I'm a great advocate of science.

 

[Shad]

No, I'm associating scientism with the NEW atheism, which is a subgroupk, not atheism in general. Certainly not science -- I'm a great advocate of science.

Harris, Dawkins, Krauss? Are you talking about those in the article or other people? Names would be helpful.

 

[Skwim]

I'm probably getting in on the tail end of this thread, and not having read all the post I may be repeating something already brought to your attention, but for what it's worth. . . . . .

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.

I would guess that what you feel to be hateful, unduly rude, obnoxious, and hypocritical is more an assemblage of terms gathered to express your exceeding displeasure with these atheists, and not words that literally apply. A displeasure that probably arises from their ability to meet and frustrate the faithful's arguments for religious "truth." In any case, I assume that the enumerated points that followed are the atheist assertions you disagree with. Problem is, IndigoChild5559, you haven't produced any evidence that what you assert here has been actually claimed by atheists. So while you may think you've put together an unassailable rebuke of these atheists, all you've done is set up an argument of four straw men, and because you've used it so liberally it's apparent you don't recognize it as the fallacious reasoning it is. So FYI, From softschools.com, a pre-K through high school educational help site.

Straw Man fallacy
A fallacy is an argument or belief based on erroneous reasoning.

a straw man argument occurs when someone argues that a person holds a view that is actually not what the other person believes. Instead, it is a distorted version of what the person believes. So, instead of attacking the person's actual statement or belief, it is the distorted version that is attacked.
​

.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Harris, Dawkins, Krauss? Are you talking about those in the article or other people? Names would be helpful.

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett are generally considered to be the "four horsemen" of the New Atheism. I'm famiiliar with the lectures and debates of the first three. I also enjoy a certain comradery for skepticism and science in atheism forums and have gotten to know New Atheists there, but I don't know their real names, and doubt you'd know them if I could tell y9u.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm probably getting in on the tail end of this thread, and not having read all the post I may be repeating something already brought to your attention, but for what it's worth. . . . . .



I would guess that what you feel to be hateful, unduly rude, obnoxious, and hypocritical is more an assemblage of terms gathered to express your exceeding displeasure with these atheists, and not words that literally apply. A displeasure that probably arises from their ability to meet and frustrate the faithful's arguments for religious "truth." In any case, I assume the enumerated points that followed are the atheist assertions you disagree with. Problem is, IndigoChild5559, you haven't produced any evidence that what you assert here has been actually claimed by atheists. So while you may think you've put together an unassailable rebuke of these atheists, all you've done is set up an argument of four straw men, and because you've used it so liberally it's apparent you don't recognize it as the fallacious reasoning it is. So FYI, From softschools.com, a pre-K through high school educational help site.

Straw Man fallacy
A fallacy is an argument or belief based on erroneous reasoning.

a straw man argument occurs when someone argues that a person holds a view that is actually not what the other person believes. Instead, it is a distorted version of what the person believes. So, instead of attacking the person's actual statement or belief, it is the distorted version that is attacked.
​

You're welcome.

.

I'm well acquainted with the rules of logic and i.e. the straw man fallacy.

My friend, we are just beginning to get to know each other, and I hope this will be a long and mutually beneficial friendship, where we can disagree but challenge each other to think and grow. As you come to know me better, you will find out that I am never intimidated by simple disagreement, and that in fact I find an easy going debate to be very pleasurable and a good way to learn. Although I argue my points vociferously, I never stop listening. In my mind, I *always* have a red flag up that says, "You may be wrong." LOL And indeed I have changed my mind on things from time to time in various forums, often enough to be open minded, but not so often as to be wishy washy. LOL Admitting I'm wrong on occasion may sting a little, but I'd much rather have the pleasure of finding some new truth -- it's worth the trade off.

What I believe I have done, and done with honesty, is read an article about the New Atheists that resonated with my own thinking. I took its main point, and gave examples from my experience with this subgroup, either untruths or unproven propositions that I've seen used over and over in the debates and lectures I've viewed.

That does not meet the definition of the straw man fallacy.

I think what you personally need would be for me to document the occasions where NA have employed those myths. Its not an unreasonable request, but it's far greater than what you can reasonably expect to find in a simple post. It's more likely a book, or at least a long chapter in a book.

I look forward to future discussions.

Shalom

 

[lukethethird]

There are indeed different forms that atheism can take

That's because atheists are shape shifters, you can never tell what form they will take next.

 

[ChristineM]

Christine, if you don't see subdivisions within atheism, it is only you fooling yourself. One of my closest friends is an older atheist who, among other things, spends his retirement years on an "free thinkers' (read atheist) email list. He shares with me all their interesting squabbles and little philosophical cliques. He'd be the first one to tell you that the New Atheists stand apart as a subgroup in many ways.

I've spent enough time on his with you. You don't want to see what's out there. Quite possibly you are sheltered. Or perhaps your philosophical views about atheism prevent you from seeing what is right before your eyes. I really don't care. It's not my job to bring you out of denial.

Shalom.

The definition is clear, what are you not understanding about it?

If you want to subdivide thats up to you.

So you are basing your view on one atheist? That explains much.

And please dont insult me with your ignorance. I am not a part of your confirmation bias. That is yours and yours alone.

 

[ChristineM]

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett are generally considered to be the "four horsemen" of the New Atheism. I'm famiiliar with the lectures and debates of the first three. I also enjoy a certain comradery for skepticism and science in atheism forums and have gotten to know New Atheists there, but I don't know their real names, and doubt you'd know them if I could tell y9u.

Dawkins does not consider himself atheist so your accusation falls over at the first name. And if, as you claim, you are familiar with his debates you would know this