Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,219 Location: Sydney Australia Karma: 27
Re: Michael Ruse in the Grauniad « Reply #1 on Nov 5, 2009, 8:26pm »
Interesting article, thanks. I can really respect and appreciate that guy! No-one who upsets Dawkins, Dennett, Coyne and Myers can be all bad!!! And the atheists ought to appreciate him too, because he is a better advertisement for their viewpoint than most.
It would be interesting to conduct an experiment. Pose the question, on an atheist forum, of the characteristics of christian fundamentalism - perhaps things like: following dogma over reason, unwillingness to re-examine own position, unwillingness to see any merit in opposing viewpoint, etc. Then pick out which ones can be assessed more or less objectively (many cannot be) and then see if they apply to the new atheists. I would think they would, but it would be interesting to do the exercise.
Re: Michael Ruse in the Grauniad « Reply #2 on Nov 5, 2009, 10:53pm »
It was exactly this sort of thing which made me realise I wanted nothing whatsoever to do with contemporary atheism (back when I was leaning that way myself). The way the celebrity unbelievers pile in on sensible people like Ruse and Andrew Brown who are capable of having strong but respectful differences of opinion is, frankly, disgusting. Do you suppose they genuinely believe that any form of religion is so dangerous that even those who suggest talking about reconciliation and cooperation become irreversibly contaminated by it? Or is it all rhetoric? I sincerely hope it's the latter.
Re: Michael Ruse in the Grauniad « Reply #3 on Nov 6, 2009, 3:55am »
The blog linked off the Swinburne in the Lion's Den post has a couple of posts on Ruse. This one lists a few pro- and anti- Ruse blogs including Myers, Dawkins and Coyne:
I suppose I did at least learn a new word: Faitheist. An atheist who is soft on religious belief. Unsurprisingly a google search led straight back to Myers and Coyne.
Do you suppose they genuinely believe that any form of religion is so dangerous that even those who suggest talking about reconciliation and cooperation become irreversibly contaminated by it? Or is it all rhetoric? I sincerely hope it's the latter.
I may sound pessimistic, but I am afraid they really mean it -- at least in the sense that any kind of religion inhibits rational thinking, not necessarily that all religion is dangerous (though many believe that too). The attack by religious fundamentalists on the Western world that happened on 9/11 has brought out the hidden fundamentalist streaks of many atheists (if they weren't visible before already). To themselves, this fundamentalism is covered up under the mantle of 'reason', 'enlightenment' and 'scientific thinking', so that they do not notice it. To outside observers it is glaringly obvious. The question is then indeed, is it just show or is it real? From discussing with many atheists on the web, I am afraid it is real.
PB: How does the "New Atheism" differ from the concept of atheism that we know?
VS: Many atheists and agnostics take a benign view of religion and think it provides some useful benefits to society. They also seek to find common ground with moderate believers in order to obtain their support for science, especially in the battle between evolutionists and creationists. New atheists view the battle between reason and superstition to be more important. They regard all faith as folly since it is not based on evidence, and the irrational faith of moderate churchgoers provide support for more fanatical believers.
Yeah, you must be kidding. Problem with Stenger, he isn't.
knowingthomas Bachelor of the Arts member is offline
Joined: Apr 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 86 Karma: 0
Re: Michael Ruse in the Grauniad « Reply #6 on Nov 7, 2009, 3:37am »
"To themselves, this fundamentalism is covered up under the mantle of 'reason', 'enlightenment' and 'scientific thinking', so that they do not notice it. To outside observers it is glaringly obvious. The question is then indeed, is it just show or is it real? From discussing with many atheists on the web, I am afraid it is real." As an apostate of 21st century anti-theism, this is too true.
Here from an interview with Victor Stenger, posted at Debunking Christianity:
VS: ..... the irrational faith of moderate churchgoers provide support for more fanatical believers.
I have observed a number of statements that appear to have become new atheist dogma (I am making a collection). This is one of them. Does anyone understand it? Does any christian here "provide support" for "more fanatical believers"? How does any moderate christian provide such support? Do they somehow think christians are all highly supportive of and loving towards each other, and never ever criticise each other? (Would that it were so!)
Unfortunately I think I do. They seem to think that reasonable/moderate/liberal/sophisticated (and so on) believers protect fanatics simply by existing. They apparently prevent extremists from being criticised by making belief in God (or gods) "respectable" in society. They, of course, would presumably rather that anyone who believes "unscientific myths" should have their children confiscated and "re-educated" (or be treated for mental illness). I find this desire to destroy the middle ground deeply disturbing.
Here from an interview with Victor Stenger, posted at Debunking Christianity:
VS: ..... the irrational faith of moderate churchgoers provide support for more fanatical believers.
I have observed a number of statements that appear to have become new atheist dogma (I am making a collection). This is one of them. Does anyone understand it? Does any christian here "provide support" for "more fanatical believers"? How does any moderate christian provide such support? Do they somehow think christians are all highly supportive of and loving towards each other, and never ever criticise each other? (Would that it were so!)
Does anyone have any answers?
I think it is all about an epistemology not explained or argued for.
The reasoning seems to go something like
"Faith equals blind faith and blindness is No Good Thing. No faith is supported by evidence, whether fundamentalistic or moderate.
Making it acceptable to build anything on faith is deadly dangerous as there are no rational criteria for distinguishing between "moderate" and "fundamentalist" faith".
I think we just have to take it on faith that it is so.
Re: Michael Ruse in the Grauniad « Reply #11 on Nov 7, 2009, 1:39pm »
I think that sums it up much better than I did.
Interesting, though, that there would still be utilitarian reasons for distinguishing between varieties of religion (which is presumably the only moral logic available from such a viewpoint). Hence, I guess, the segue into dogmatic insistence that it's all the same.
Still, perhaps we should give that Strenger guy some credit at least. Out of all of them he's the only one who tries to present positive evidence that God doesn't exist. Sure, it fails spectacularly ("something is more stable than nothing, etc.") but at least it's better than taking an unfounded assumption that God doesn't exist and constructing your arguments on that.
Unfortunately I think I do. They seem to think that reasonable/moderate/liberal/sophisticated (and so on) believers protect fanatics simply by existing. They apparently prevent extremists from being criticised by making belief in God (or gods) "respectable" in society. They, of course, would presumably rather that anyone who believes "unscientific myths" should have their children confiscated and "re-educated" (or be treated for mental illness). I find this desire to destroy the middle ground deeply disturbing.
This is, I think, a fundamentally totalitarian mindset. If we applied the same "logic" to politics, we might say that Dawkins-like liberals protect stalinists just by existing as they made the idea of social progress respectable and thus unquestionable. I guess Dawkins and his friends would find the idea appaling, and rightly so. It has been implemented in the United States in the Fifties and we know the results. So why can't our supposedly enlightened friends see where their aggressive stance leads?
Re: Michael Ruse in the Grauniad « Reply #13 on Nov 7, 2009, 9:58pm »
Bjorn says about the atheist stance:
"Faith equals blind faith and blindness is No Good Thing. No faith is supported by evidence, whether fundamentalistic or moderate."
Yes, but here comes the ultimate atheistic show stopper: the claim that atheism is not a belief, but "simply a lack of belief." That exempts their own position from their accusations against faith. It also exempts them from the need to provide evidence for atheism, even though atheists demand evidence for other faith, evidence they think does not exist.
All this while experience shows that the vast majority of atheists are convinced materialists, or take materialism as the default position -- instead of the position of "I don't know" of true agnosticism. So where then is the evidence that materialism is true?
But when you point out that it is a fact that atheism entails positive beliefs (I can count on the fingers of one hand the atheists that I know to whom this does not apply), you get strong reactions ranging from indignation to outright fury. It is like the red rag to a bull. Mostly, when you arrive at this point, any rational discussion becomes virtually impossible.
The 'lack of belief' stance seems the ultimate defense mechanism of atheism. It functions both as an excuse to shift the burden of proof to theists, and as a pretense to hold the more 'rational' position. How dare you try to take away that defense shield!
The interesting thing is that not just theists, but also the agnostics that I have discussed with (who were philosophically much better informed than the average atheist), do not buy the 'lack of belief' stance for one moment. That position is only believed by atheists themselves.
Reading that interview, I came across these two statements by Stenger:
"..... for the good of society irrational faith should not be tolerated ....."
"Atheists have higher moral standards than believers, who do not hesitate to force their beliefs on others. Freedom of thought is the easiest aspect of atheism to embrace."
Is it only me, or do you find a slight inconsistency there?
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u504/unklee99/f075d7d4.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1663/78733086.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.shmoop.com/media/covers/literature/lit00223.jpg "[avatar]")