Embedded Files
( - previous issue - )
Apologia Report 15:29 (1,034)
August 4, 2010
Subject: An entire issue of AR on the New Atheism
In this issue:
THE NEW ATHEISM - Theme for Philosophy Now magazine's Apr/May 2010 issue: "Is God *really* Dead?"
+ Victor Stenger asks "What's New About the New Atheism?" and champions "the new forthrightness"
+ Why "the New Atheists have no good reason to treat their atheism differently from how they treat belief in the divine"
------
ATHEISM
"Meet the New Atheism / Same as the Old Atheism?" by Tim Madigan -- an introduction to the theme of Philosophy Now magazine's Apr/May 2010 issue (p4). The cover art apes "The most famous Time magazine cover [which] dates from April 8, 1966, consisting solely of the question 'Is God Dead?'" The PN cover reads: "Is God *really* Dead?" Madigan opens with a brief historical summary of modern atheism beginning with "the so-called 'Death-of-God' movement in the 1960s."
He continues with the understatement that "While atheism as an intellectual concern has been a time-honored aspect of philosophy, it has never been generally popular.... It should be noted that in 1985 [when Madigan began a 25-year stint on the editorial board of the secular humanist publication Free Inquiry (2)] one of the most common definitions given in dictionaries for 'atheism' was 'immoral'.... One of the facts I found remarkable during my fourteen years as an editor [with FI], was how many subscribers requested that the magazine be sent to them in a brown paper wrapper, so that their neighbors or family members wouldn't know they were receiving such a controversial publication. ...
"In this issue's symposium, our contributors address such themes as how to define 'atheism' (as Paul Edwards pointed out in his encyclopedia entry, this is no easy matter); the historical connections between present-day debates and the Victorian Crisis of Belief; the arguments over whether believers or nonbelievers have the burden of proof; and what, if anything, is really 'new' about the New Atheism other than its public prominence." <www.tinyurl.com/29h2642>
In "What's New About the New Atheism?" (pp12-15) Victor Stenger, who eventually comes to spew the bile for which atheists are stereotyped, begins by explaining that "New Atheism" is the name that was attached, "often pejoratively," to what Madigan (above) describes as "a spate of bestselling books" on the subject beginning in 2004. As background he reports that "While 87% of scientists accept evolution by unguided, purely natural processes, only 32% of the public does. Belief in unguided evolution among mainline Protestants and Catholics is about the same as among the general public, while only 10% of Evangelicals and 19% of fundamentalist Protestants acknowledge it. ...
"A 1998 survey of National Academy [of Sciences] members indicated that only 7% believe in a personal God.... Yet the Academy insists that science has nothing to say about God or the supernatural: 'Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.'" (This comes with the citation: "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy of Sciences, 1998, p58.")
From here, Stenger argues that "the efficacy of prayer in aiding healing" ought to be a major source of evidence on behalf of belief in God. Nevertheless, "The results so far have been negative...." Stenger is frustrated in still other ways. He likes the aggressive approach of the New Atheists. Yet, "From my reading of and contacts with both believing and nonbelieving scientists, I find that the majority are happy with [Stephen Jay] Gould's scheme" that science and religion be considered as two "non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). ...
"If any event triggered the New Atheist attitude it was 9/11. ...
"While in recent times Christians have not produced numerically comparable atrocities [as he feels Muslims have], individual cases can be found where murders by Christians have been committed 'under orders' from God." This line of reasoning further degenerates into political grousing.
Getting back on track, Stenger writes: "Faith is belief in the absence of empirical evidence, and often in the face of contrary evidence. The position of the New Atheists is that faith is the force behind both the malevolent deeds of extremist religious groups and the irrational acts of many political leaders. ...
"Here the New Atheists find themselves in conflict with many other atheists who prefer to accommodate religon and not challenge beliefs...." He then refers to "a storm of criticism, from both believers and nonbelievers" against the New Atheists. Examples are given from "theologian John Haught," "atheist philosopher Ron Aronson," and "geneticist Francis Collins."
At one point, Stenger, oblivious to the irony, complains: "The message of New Atheism has been terribly misunderstood as being exclusively negative. Yet for every negative we have an even greater positive. Irrational faith is absurd and dangerous, and we look forward to the day, no matter how distant, when the human race finally abandons it. Reason is a noble substitute, proven by its practical and intellectual success. Religion is an intellectual and moral sickness that cannot endure forever if human progress really is possible."
Nearing his conclusion, Stenger asks: "So where do Christians get their morality? The same way atheists do. They examine their consciences and choose from the alternatives life presents to them.
The issue of slavery in the nineteenth century provides a prime example. In the US, while southern preachers and politicians, almost all Christians, used the Bible to justify slavery, northern abolitionists, also mostly Christians, ignored the Bible or found more congenial passages, and decided for themselves that slavery was immoral." Any questions?
The above article is based on his 2009 book, The New Atheism [1]. For background on Stenger, see <www.tinyurl.com/3x8tch5>
Also in the Apr/May 2010 issue of Philosophy Now, with "Where's the Evidence?" (pp18-21) Michael Antony, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Haifa, Israel, "argues that the New Atheists miss the mark." His approach: "How can the New Atheists employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism? If the New Atheists' atheism is not evidence-based, ... doesn't evidentialism entail that atheism is itself irrational or epistemically unjustified? The answer is 'Yes'; at least if evidentialism is interpreted in the standard way. So it appears that the New Atheists need some fix for evidentialism - a kind of 'theoretical plug-in' - which legitimizes their atheism in the absence of evidence. They also seem to be aware of this, since they offer several reasons why atheism requires no evidential support. I will discuss five of the most commonly offered reasons, and argue that none of them succeed. At the end I will gesture toward what I believe is the right way to view matters." Those reasons: "1. Atheism Isn't a Belief," "2. You Can't Prove a Negative," "3. The Burden of Proof Is On the Believer," "4. Ockham's Razor," "5. Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence"
Antony concludes: "[O]n matters concerning evidence and justification, the New Atheists have no good reason to treat their atheism differently from how they treat belief in the divine." <www.tinyurl.com/23rexyr>
-------
SOURCES: Monographs
1 - The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, by Victor J. Stenger (Prometheus, 2009, paperback, 282 pages)
-----
( - next issue - )
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse