See, this is what I didn't want to happen. I know OPs don't have the power to censor but this was meant to try to lay down ideological grounds, not bring up specific attacks/defenses of theism/atheism - there are plenty of spaces for those.
Printable View
See, this is what I didn't want to happen. I know OPs don't have the power to censor but this was meant to try to lay down ideological grounds, not bring up specific attacks/defenses of theism/atheism - there are plenty of spaces for those.
Sorry dude, but you made a thread asking if atheism was reactionary. It isn't, but anti-theism is. Ergo, discussion of anti-theism and it's distinction from atheism which leads to a defence of anti-theism. That's how it goes. It looks like it's impossible to keep people on the same topic and repeating the same arguments once a thread gets past the first page.
Also, did you seriously expect that you could make a thread about atheism being reationary without it turning into another religious debate? Religious debates are all the rage since StuntPickle came along, there are three other active ones as we speak.
The original context of the "hate" is not toward any action or evil deed, but it is being focused on particular groups. I concede that killing and denying human rights is an unavoidable biproduct of PEOPLE, not religions. Unless the said religion teaches to kill. However, denying human rights is too subjective to discuss in generalities. Just because a religion does not condone (or even speaks condemnation upon) a particular action, it doesn't mean that the religion is denying human rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Let me ask this: Is it evil to hate a group of people? It's been evident that particular people here on this site (and elsewhere) have shown behavior of hatred (not of ideology or philosophy, but) of people. So to answer your question...yes, hatred of this type is evil.
My response to this can be found here:Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
The horrors inflicted because of organized religion have been the dominant global events for my entire life. I don't think it's a coincidence, or a byproduct of "the human condition," that there has been so much pain caused by religion in the 23 years since my birth. You can't even call it "fanaticism" or "fundamentalism" when it's the friggin' pope himself causing so much death and disease.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Nope, it's the ideology and it's consequences that we hate. I don't hate you because you're religious. Pen ends all of his posts with "God Bless," and I don't mind, because he's not saying "God Bless unless you're a fag, and if you disagree with that you're going to suffer in hell for all eternity." I certainly don't hate Pendragon, I like him, and he's quite religious.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I agree. In my opinion fundamentalist Christianity is one the greatest threats to world peace. I just don't think that all Christians should be characterized according to the words and actions of these truly anti-Christian buffoons who shout down their more moderate brethren. Many Christians are out doing good work around the globe as we speak. Many strive to live up to the ideal set out in the sermon on the mount. I know Christians who consider Pat Robertson an absolutely repugnant human being. The problem is that Christianity has been high-jacked by these apocalyptic hate-mongering sheisters who wouldn't know Christ if they ran straight into him.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I totally agree about Pat Robertson and the like. In fact, I don't know of any televangelists that are a good representation of true Christianity, nor is the pope a representation of Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
The first thing that enters my mind at the mention of Christ is humility. The last thing that enters my mind at the mention of humility is the pope.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
And preaching against both abortion and condom use seems a little.... ridiculous, insane, stupid, mind-blowingly thoughtless and out of touch.
Come on, Darcy, tell us how you REALLY feel...don't hold back...Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
:lol:
That's right, you wouldn't want Bien to be here just talking to himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Got to keep him laughing! :lol:
The current atheism DOES have a philosophical grounding. The idea that one could state a position of atheism otherwise is absurd. Considering statements of truth is a capacity entailed in some variety of worldview; you must, after all, have a mechanism for judgment. To remain skeptical of some truth implies, at the very least, some variety of skepticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
The phenomenon of atheists not understanding their worldview owes to that the current atheism is a popular movement largely divorced from the philosophies that spawned it. If you look at what someone like Dawkins states, calling people "meat chunks", describing love and minds in terms of deterministic routines and suggesting that science is the primary arbiter of truth, you can see what sort of worldview underlies his thinking. Dawkins seems to be describing something like a blend of logical positivism and mereological nihilism, in which there are no true objects beyond particles, excepting perhaps biological structures. Daniel Dennett is an eliminative materialist, which essentially means he thinks human consciousness is an illusion and, consequently, that neither you nor I exist as anything more than a biological system.
I think you make the mistake of thinking that this iteration of atheism is just getting underway, when really the entire operation has already concluded. The movement probably owes to 9/11, which was perpetrated by Islamic fanatics; the ensuing Iraqi war prosecuted by what many saw as a fundamentalist administration in the White House; and an attempt to include intelligent design in science curricula in the US. The original goal of New Atheism was to institutionalize the ridicule of theists so that they could not properly engage in the public discourse.
The self-described four horsemen of the Apocalypse were Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who was widely considered to be the foremost among them. They all wrote books that quickly became popular and, soon thereafter, discovered academic opposition they hadn't anticipated.
The first major bump in the road came in the form of The Dawkins Delusion, written by Oxford Professor of Historical Theology Alister McGrath. Of course, the New Atheists dismissed McGrath as just a "theologian." But then, soon after, John Lennox, Oxford professor of Mathematics, roundly defeated Dawkins in a debate in which, at times, Lennox even seemed to have to explain Dawkins's own position to him. Although the books written by the New Atheists were wildly popular, critical reception was poor, and the most vocal criticisms were from secularists and atheist philosophers who were trying to distance themselves from what were, after all, some fairly amateurish books.
What the New Atheists did not know, perhaps could not have known, was that, for the past several decades, a group of Christian scholars had been organizing an opposition to secularism and were represented in significant numbers at Oxford and a few universities in the US. For the sake of convenience, we will call these persons the New Christians. Their goal was to restore the intellectual reputation of Christianity, which had since the first half the 20th Century been considered parochial and intellectually vacant.
These New Christians were entirely unlike the apologists of old, who were country preachers convinced that dinosaurs and humans coexisted; the New Christians were PhD's, most of them entirely familiar with cosmology and theories of time, and many of them worked in academic positions entirely separated from churches. For decades, they were studying quietly, reading all about the opposition and looking for weakness. These were fairly serious intellectuals who were spoiling for a fight and had a robust tradition of debate. Of course, finding a proper public platform proved difficult for the New Christians; after all, no one took them seriously. But then the New Atheists offered them this platform.
The unlikely clash between these groups was rather interesting. First, the New Atheists never intended on picking a fight with the New Christians since they didn't even know the New Christians existed. But when atheism became the topic dujour in the presses, the media scrambled to find dissenting opinions. Thirty years ago they would have probably had to ask someone like Jerry Falwell, but now there were a number of university professors agitating against the New Atheists. The New Atheists had thought they were going to embarrass the fundamentalists with a few quick quips, but now they had this group of professors, who had been training their entire lives for this moment, screaming to debate the topic.
The major intellectual figures in the New Christian movement were probably Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen, both professors at Notre dame, but the preeminent instrument of the movement was definitely William Lane Craig, who, although having written a number of scholarly papers and books, was better described as the consummate debater. In commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the BBC'S broadcast of the debate between Copleston and Russell, the University of Wisconsin held a debate between Craig and Anthony Flew, who was, till the emergence of the New Atheists, the preeminent atheist in the public view. Flew seemed flustered and nearly senile during the debate, and most persons agree that Craig thoroughly savaged him. A couple years later, Flew converted to deism because of what he said were philosophical and scientific developments. Craig was, rightly or wrongly, credited with having defeated the most widely recognized atheist in a scholarly debate and perhaps having even converted him, and, more importantly, having avenged the defeat of the debate that was being commemorated.
After the New Atheists finished debating several theists on international speaking tours, they finally had to deal with William Lane Craig who many regarded as the most problematic opponent for them. Eventually Craig thoroughly trounced and, moreover, embarrassed Harris and Hitchens in public debates that were attended by so many that additional rooms had to broadcast the debate on closed circuit television. At a philosophy conference, Craig, who was sharing a stage with Daniel Dennett, thoroughly refuted what Dennett had earlier said so that even Dennett applauded him afterwards. Everyone was excited to see a debate between the foremost atheist Richard Dawkins and the foremost apologist William Lane Craig, but Dawkins flatly refused causing other prominent atheists to call him a coward. Dawkins further responded, in the Guardian, by saying he would never debate anyone who supported genocide and referred to the slaughters in the Old Testament. The Guardian ran another article condemning Dawkins. This I suspect will be regarded in the future as the end of the New Atheist movement.
Of course, the issue of whether God exists was hardly decided, but that was never the point. Both New Atheists and New Christians succeeded in some manner. First, the New Atheists failed to remove religion from public discourse, but they did succeed in creating a popular movement among students in the US and Britain. The New Christians vindicated the intellectual position of theism in both the academy and the eyes of the public and went so far as to put atheism on the intellectual defensive--a strange position for atheists since the early 20th Century.
My point is that the atheistic movement you're referring to isn't really in need of the agenda you're trying to give it. The practical and philosophical issues at stake all came to a head over the past ten years. Perhaps many of the students who converted to atheism during the movement can redeem atheism from the defeat of the New Atheists, but it will require the same sort of preparation that the New Christians had before engaging in this last ideological clash. Of course, what the New Christians won was not necessarily the argument, but rather they won a right to sit at the table, and frankly, they're probably interested in more of the table. The great irony of the clash was that although they were in part successful, the New Atheists, hand delivered the victory the New Christians wanted; essentially the New Atheists, rather than shutting the theists out of the discourse, actually worked to enlarge the respect of philosophical theism, which was the exact opposite of their goal.
First off, great post! Alright....I have seen and heard some of the debates you refer to, and they are fascinating. Still, my initial reaction was "these are just highly academic forms of the same debates you find everywhere else" that is, Atheists trying to root out theists and "New Christians" standing their ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
As an aside, in my initial contemplation I was referring to contemporary Atheism. I am aware that atheism is nothing new - that you can call Buddhism, Tau, and Deism (sort of) forms of atheism.
After some reflection I began to consider that I might indeed be looking at this the wrong way.
Imagine if you will in some sci-fi scenario, someone came by and removed from our minds all knowledge of God or organized religions. There are many places in countries such as Canada, US, Britain, France in which life would just continue on as normal. Even Christmas would progress as it is now.
And as prevalent as theism seems to be (prompting Atheist reactions) - this prevalence has been relegated to intellectual spheres such as these debates. That is why the "New Christians" had to build up their academic defense, as you say, to try to reclaim religion's place in society which is lost.
So is theism indeed reacting to atheism now?
The obvious counter to this is that there are still policies that exist (particularly in the US) that are rooted in Christianity. But even these are losing their ground.
Going back to what Juniper wrote earlier....the negatives of Christianity outweigh the positives...I tend to agree with this. And here is why.
The spreading of material via the Internet tends to force every little act of religious fundamentalism into the media and we are constantly bombarded with examples of "why Christianity is counter to human rights" in a way that we were not exposed to 10-20 years ago. And then of course, there is 9/11 which spurred on the anti-fundamentalist movement. And then you have certain persons vying for high office of a certain country who releases an ad publicly denouncing gay rights on religious grounds.....the reaction that appeared to this horrible ad demonstrates that we may exist not in the "atheism is reactionary to theism" but now "theism has become reactionary to atheism."
I think this represents a slight misunderstanding. Belief in God will never go out of style while people must face death. And even if genetics can radically extend the lives of humans, immortality will never be achieved since there will always exist circumstances conducive to the annihilation of humans. In perhaps one of the greatest ironies of history, Evangelical Christianity, brewed in the great western power founded explicitly on having no state religion, is being exported across the Atlantic. Islam, because of immigration, and Evangelical Christianity are the fastest growing religions in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
The recent ideological conflict between Christians and atheists is probably better described as a clash between rationalists and skeptics/sophists. We are finally emerging from the inanities of post modernism, and these New Christians are more than simply apologists. A hundred years ago science suggested an eternal universe and evolved creatures. Today science suggests a beginning of the universe and evolved creatures possessing DNA with a startling level of complexity. The great ideological struggle is yet to come. These New Christians never intended to fight atheists, but rather secularists. The atheists simply enhanced their prestige.
Supreme Court Justice Roberts has suggested that Roe v. Wade is incompatible with the double homicide of a pregnant woman and that stare decisis can be overlooked if the case in question is more problematic than beneficial.
Relativism is over, and the culture war is just getting started.
Einstenian relativism is over. It was over before it started. The undercurrent of today, where science is at work full force is Newtonian. The quacks and the entanglements will go on inconsequential. Religion is unavoidable. But there will never occur a unified church other than in the imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuntpickle
Personally, any objection I have to religion is political and ethical, I just don't agree with the ethics of most religious institutions. I also have issues with the conception of revealed authoritative morality, which is the cornerstone of "fundamentalist" and Islamic morality but also plays a prominent role in most religious ethical systems. I think moral arguments can only be debated off of the principle of mutually accepted basic statements: such as, "it is wrong to harm other human beings." A body of people who accept the same basic statements can then debate and arrive at a mutually agreed upon moral standard. Even if one believes murder is wrong in some transcendent objective sense, it doesn't really mean much when it comes to getting a society to agree on that point.
My atheism is easy enough to explain, I grew up in a religious household that failed to convince me of why I should believe, and I have since seen no reason to believe in any specific religious doctrine. There are moderately convincing deistic arguments, but I think they are meaningless when it comes to how I live my life, so why bother with them.
The arguments for God do not intend to tell you how to live, but I think the New Testament does. At some point, Pip, everyone has to make a decision about something. Atheism is the great negation. My decision was more optimistic. I don't think religious upbringing is ever convincing. Real Christianity is essentially a relationship with a book and, if he exists, the God it talks about. I see my conversion to Christianity as artistic triumph rather than a moral one. Atheism, for me, is the worst sort of literalism and antithetical to everything I love. You might be interested to know that Jesus, himself, never mentions homosexuality. Anyone who uses Christianity to indict other persons has missed the entire point of Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
The great beauty of Christianity is that it is about a God who has impossible demands for humanity and an impossible love for it, and He can only reconcile these things by punishing himself. It's a wonderful tragedy.