The “New Atheists” have sold a lot of books and spun up a lot of media coverage; what they haven’t done, particularly, is make a very good case for atheism. Mostly, they preach to the converted and mock those who disagree with them; along the same lines as C. S. Lewis’ observation (in The Screwtape Letters) that not everyone can make a joke but anyone can talk about something as if it’s funny (which is how he defines flippancy), they’ve demonstrated that it’s easier to act as if something’s already been proven than it is to go out and prove it. Remove their assumption that atheism is the only intellectually respectable position, and there’s not a whole lot left.
Now, this wouldn’t matter if their assumption were correct; but it isn’t. In truth, as William Lane Craig notes in a recent article in Christianity Today, that point of view is behind the times. The relative weakness of the intellectual case for atheism was underscored when the world’s most important atheist philosopher, the man who first argued for “the presumption of atheism,” Dr. Antony Flew, abandoned atheism (a change of mind he discussed in interviews with Dr. Gary Habermas and Dr. Benjamin Wiker). Perhaps in part consequence, more and more of the younger generation of Christians have become interested in apologetics (the study of the defense of Christianity on rational grounds); as I’ve posted before, I wouldn’t be surprised if the primary long-term effect of the “New Atheists” and their work is not the growth of atheism but the growth of the church.
I am continually stymied at citations of Anthony Flew as validation that it Christianity is the more sensible position. If you read his book, right in the first chapter he clearly states that he moved from atheism to deism. Deism is light years away from belief in an active, involved, personal god (as is the purported Christian god). Deism, in any functional sense, if much closer to atheism than theism.
It seems Christian apologists simply grab at straws to try and find SOMEBODY of note that went from atheism to theism.
…and on the matter of being ‘of note’, I had never heard of him until his publicist labeled him “the world’s most notorious atheist”
No, it isn’t validation of Christianity as such; it is, rather, an indication that the arguments for atheism lack the intellectual strength and vigor that public atheists simply assume they have.
Also, you will note, I didn’t call him “notorious” or “famous,” because he wasn’t. What he was, however, was exactly what I said he was: “the world’s most important atheist philosopher.” If Dawkins abandoned atheism, it would be much more high-profile, but no less telling or significant.
It needs to be understood, then, that the strident atheists that you mention do NOT rule out a god; they merely find no evidence for one. I have heard Dawkins myself say that, technically, he can be considered agnostic on the god of Abraham. A common misconception is that the atheists says “there is no god”, but they (with rare exception) say, “I see no evidence for a god, but I would change my position if I saw evidence.”
If you understand why I (and likely you) are atheistic toward the gods Zeus, Wotan, Poseidon, Vishnu and Osiris, then you will fully understand why I am atheistic toward the god of Abraham.
Technically (if using language exactly properly), I am agnostic toward all those gods including the god of the Christian faith. Given the dearth of evidence, we can say we are atheistic toward them.
At points, they say that; at others, they don’t. To take Richard Dawkins for example, I actually put up a post a while ago asking if Dawkins is really an atheist, because there are times when he definitely doesn’t sound like one; but then at other points he pulls out the sort of language folks like Darwin, T. H. Huxley and Richard Lewontin have used about not allowing a divine foot in the door. (Or, for that matter, there was his statement to Ben Stein that he would accept an alien race as the designer of life on this planet, but not God.)
At this point, I believe the likes of Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are atheists because they want to be. That’s not an aspersion against them; most people believe what they want to believe, and lay out the reasons afterward. The key is, once we’ve done that, how willing are we to take those who disagree with us seriously? It’s on that score where folks like Hitchens and Sam Harris fail.
“because there are times when he definitely doesn’t sound like one;”
What you mean to say is that he doesn’t sound like what YOU think an atheist is. Which is fine. But if you really want to know what atheists are and what they believe, you should listen to them as opposed to taking the definitions of people who aren’t members of that group.
“it is, rather, an indication that the arguments for atheism lack the intellectual strength and vigor that public atheists simply assume they have.”
It’s not even that. It’s an indication that those arguments fail to convince a man who, sadly, is giving all indication (sadly) of going senile in his old age.
And the opinion of one man, no matter who he is, changes nothing about the evidence or lack thereof for a god or gods. Until there is evidence, the entire population of the world except for me could believe in a god. But that wouldn’t change my opinion by itself, nor should it. And neither should the opinion of Flew.
“At points, they say that; at others, they don’t.”
I suspect that the real issue here is the technical and practical use of terms. As I alluded previously; we all have no problem saying that “there is no Zeus”. After thousands of years of discussion, philosophy and research we find no evidence to think that Zeus is anything by mythology. Since argument theory shows that we cannot disprove a negative, we can never, really, unequivocally say Zeus does not exist. Hence; we are all, technically, agnostic toward the god Zeus. But in any practical sense, there is seldom a context that we cannot say “there is no Zeus” and have our meaning misconstrued.
You and I can say we are atheistic with regard to Zeus even though, technically, we are agnostic. We both have a list of gods that we say “don’t exist”. My list differs from yours by just one. Technically, I am agnostic with regards to every one of them. In any practical sense, though, we can say that they don’t exist.
(I shan’t even get into the confusion over metaphorical use of terms like “Einstein’s ‘God’ ” )
morsecode: when Dawkins starts sounding like a Christian, I consider it reasonable to say that he’s not sounding like an atheist. Also, as someone who knows a little bit about senility (from dealing with several family members), I would say that aside from intellectual bias, there’s no reason whatsoever to level such an accusation at Dr. Flew. Otherwise, as you will.
fvthinker: you’ve somewhat missed my contention here. I’m not talking about the ability or lack thereof to prove a negative; rather, my point is that on the evidence of their work, it seems clear to me that the “New Atheists” are atheists because they want to be, not because they’ve reluctantly come to that conclusion.
“the “New Atheists” are atheists because they want to be, not because they’ve reluctantly come to that conclusion.”
I think it is telling that would assume that one would only resort to atheism reluctantly. The reality is that, we eagerly go where the evidence takes us. Somewhere in your contention, I feel a tad offended. I dismiss the supernatural because there is no evidence for it. I do not dismiss Zeus reluctantly. I do not dismiss trolls reluctantly. I do not dismiss unicorns reluctantly. I eagerly consume real knowledge and it happens to lead me away from the supernatural…as it does virtually all other scientists:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
No, no, not my assumption; I don’t think you, or any other atheist, is the least bit reluctant. That’s simply the word picture painted by Dawkins et al. in some of their pronouncements. What I’m saying is, yes, they go to atheism gladly, but not because the evidence leads them there. Rather, I’m firmly convinced they’re atheists because they want to be atheists, and they offer the arguments that support the conclusions they want to hold. Some of those arguments are strong; some are weak; some aren’t even arguments. That’s not really the point.
Should I be reluctant? Should I give less credence to that which has empirical evidence in favor of that which has none?
Just to throw in my two cents, I’m not an atheist because I desire it. I’m an atheist because that’s the conclusion I came to.
I sat down and thought, and asked myself if I actually believed in god. When the answer was no, I went in search of evidence for god. I still search. I have yet to find a drop of evidence in favor of the existence of any god that has been presented to me.
Now, if we’re voting, I’m all for eternal life in a perfect garden with the people I love and an awesome deity.
But reality doesn’t care what my vote would be, and I want to accept reality as it truly is, not as I want it to be.
So Rob,
So you assert that the popular atheistic writers chose atheism up front and then built their arguments to support it. Can you demonstrate how this is so? …or is this just dogma.
morsecode, the question I have for you is this: what sort of evidence do you insist on, and do you think it’s reasonable to require proof on your terms? Because in order to truly say that you haven’t found any evidence, you’ve either been ruling a lot out a priori or you haven’t been looking very hard.
fvthinker: I dispute your contention that there is empirical evidence for one position and not the other. I’m not going to get into that argument with you in this comment thread, however, because a) it’s too cramped a forum and b) that’s not what my initial post was about. I’ll start working on a post on that subject; when I get it up, challenge me there and we can discuss it.
And might I say, btw, that I have been appreciating your willingness to do exactly that–discuss? That’s too rare around the blogosphere between folks who fundamentally disagree.
Also, re: Dawkins et al., that’s a conclusion, not an assertion, and you don’t precisely frame my point correctly, but that can rest for another day. For the moment, here are a few quotes that give me the sense that like most people, most atheists believe as they believe because they “prefer to believe what they prefer to be true” (to use Francis Bacon’s words):
“If I had to sum up my own atheism, I would have to say that it amounts to this: I have no interest in the supernatural.”
–Dr. Robert Todd Carroll
“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”
–Dr. Thomas Nagel
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist.”
–Dr. Richard Dawkins
“I have never, in all my life, not for one moment, been tempted toward religion of any kind. The fact is that I feel no spiritual void. I have my philosophy of life, which does not include any aspect of the supernatural and which I find totally satisfying.”
–Dr. Isaac Asimov
Interesting citations, but coming from the same mindset as most scientists, I read them quite differently.
It seems clear that you put some effort into quote-mining in support of your position. Even though what you cite is open to interpretation, I don’t see how you are doing anything different than what you accuse them of.
That said; I generally don’t pursue threads where ‘matters of interpretation’ are core…they have no end. I probably won’t return to this thread.
It seems clear that you put some effort into quote-mining in support of your position. Even though what you cite is open to interpretation, I don’t see how you are doing anything different than what you accuse them of.
One–no, not much effort. Two, I’m not accusing anyone of anything. Three, I haven’t said I’m doing anything different. What I said was, “like most people, most atheists believe as they believe because they ‘prefer to believe what they prefer to be true'”; I don’t exclude myself from that. In other words, how we approach the evidence and the arguments, which ones we admit and which we don’t, which we deem convincing and which we don’t, is all shaped by the person who approaches, who admits, who is convinced, and that person has predilections and preferences. To be convinced against our will is much less common, and much more difficult, than to be convinced to believe what we would already prefer to believe. That’s why, as I said earlier in this thread, the key is once we’ve come to hold a position, “how willing are we to take those who disagree with us seriously?” Do we defend our beliefs with an open mind, or with one that’s rusted shut? The former is the spirit of true inquiry; the latter is the spirit commonly called “fundamentalism.” And it’s precisely that spirit, expressed with truly presumptuous arrogance, to which I object in the “New Atheists.” I’m sure they’re reacting against advocates for Christianity who’ve gone after them in that same spirit, which is understandable–but two wrongs don’t make a right.
From the scientific perspective; assertions without evidence cannot sway the skeptical mind. These minds are not rusted shut. The theist simply cannot meet the higher standard of convincing evidence.
Ahh, but they aren’t without evidence. The fact that many atheists choose to assert that to be the case doesn’t make it so.
OK. I’ll bite. Give me the one piece of evidence for the god of Abraham that you think cannot be refuted.
[sound of crickets chirping]
Pingback: A thought on worship and atheism | Wholly Living