Elevation of ignorance

[thegreypilgrim]

We've had numerous threads about this, so I don't mean to beat a dead horse but to inquire of what can be done about this present situation. What most of this is going to sound like is polemic. It's not intentional. What I'm trying to do here is share my own observations in the attempt to understand what is going on.

Atheists are quick to style themselves as the products of reason - indeed, some go so far as to lay claim to it as belonging solely to themselves. However, in my (albeit limited) experience, contemporary "internet atheists" (certainly not all atheists) have all but dropped the ivory tower pretentiousness that used to be characteristic of secularism. Of course, they are still wanting to define their position as the obvious conclusion a rational mind would draw from reflecting on the world, but what their "debate tactics" betray is more of a shockingly anti-intellectual attitude more than anything else.

The only body of knowledge that seems to matter to them is science...and even to say this is something of a misnomer. What really matters to them is a specific corpus of popular science literature that in all honesty seems to function very much as a religion in its own right. Scientism is their reigning orthodoxy, all other fields of academia are anathema. Especially philosophy. There isn't another field of the academy (apart from "non-subject" of theology) that receives more scorn and derision than philosophy. It is also something these neo-atheists are the most ignorant about. They don't understand even the most basic rules of logic, and even consider them irrelevant - as logic is the tool of the philosopher to "posture and obfuscate" and obscure the "real world" practical matters that are truly important. It's kind of like a corny "let's get real" attitude, except it's not about a do-nothing bureaucracy attempting to rationalize its existence (or failure to execute what it was created to do) but about the nature of reality itself and how we ought to reason about it.

What this approach leads to as far as religion is concerned, only the harshest most vindictive version of a poor-quality type of Protestantism or radical fringe group of Roman Catholicism is the "real deal" for Christianity. All else can be dismissed as "apologetics." There is something utterly remarkable about this. I mean, I wish I had a nifty word like "apologist" to refer to atheists who aren't nihilistic eliminative materialists so I could just dismiss them, but imagine the howling and storming about this would cause. How convenient would it be for to do so. Indeed it would, that's why I don't do it! Yet it seems perfectly legit for them to do this because they think the careful, subtle, and rigorous analysis of contemporary analytic philosophers of religion is just "posturing and obfuscation." It's an attempt to make Christianity (which has always been literalistic, legalistic, anti-science, and full of hellfire and brimstone vindictiveness) more palatable to modern sensibilities. So, it's really a concession that we (secularists) have won.

I have quite literally had atheists tell me that the liberal "warm and fuzzy" intellectual version of Christianity I espouse "really isn't any different" from the fundamentalists because it's all part of the same delusion. This, then - in a class of utterly perverse reasoning - is justification for them not having to respond to my particular arguments and interpretation of the faith but to just continue on arguing against fundie-type Christianity by proxy. I am simply at a loss for how to respond to this sort of strategy. I mean it's quite ingenious on their part rhetorically - just be as bull-headed and uncompromising as possible and sooner or later the other guy literally just won't know what to say. So, it looks like you've won - especially if you can string together the long Teutonic screeds referencing the unenlightened parts of scripture or some type of "Sins of the Church" episode qua Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion to accompany it.

It seems the days of having an atheist to really go toe-to-toe with who actually abides by the rules of logic (and even the principle of charity! Imagine that!), is knowledgeable of philosophy, and sees its value as an intellectual pursuit in and of itself are gone. All we're left with are these neo-atheists who have an approach to thinking that brings to mind the kind of kid we all knew in high school (or secondary school as you Europeans call it) we can still hear saying, "You think too much." Unless of course it's holy science we're talking about, because it has "practical applications" so it above all is worthy of admiration.

I really wonder, what are we to make of this and how in the world are theists to respond to this elevation of ignorance? It's like going to a great deal of trouble to explain where you're coming from only to get, "So what?" in response ad infinitum. Soon it becomes readily apparent that you're the only one really doing any arguing. To the neo-atheist nothing you say really matters, they can just dismiss it as apologetics, and then once you address the initial criticism they merely pull the "Oh yeah, what about this?" card without a moment's hesitation and change the subject without addressing your counterargument. So, it's starting to seem like a waste of time to me. When I can't get a reasonable answer as to why Jerry Falwell gets to set the standard for the starting point of all discussions of Christianity rather than Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Jacques Maritain, Hilaire Belloc, Étienne Gilson, Henri de Lubac, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Vladimir Lossky, Kallistos Ware, Jürgen Moltmann, or Wolfhart Pannenberg what's the point? (Sorry for all the name-dropping )

[unkleE]

they are still wanting to define their position as the obvious conclusion a rational mind would draw from reflecting on the world, but what their "debate tactics" betray is more of a shockingly anti-intellectual attitude more than anything else

I thought I'd give this gem from a new website, as an example, before I respond to your questions. From Is God real?:

"Is there a god?

This is a question that shouldn't even need to be asked.

We are all born atheists (shouldn't that tell us something right there?) then the majority of us are immediately brainwashed to believe in a certain god and religion (usually depending on what part of the world we were born in). But luckily we are all born with a brain... use it! Logical thinking and common sense should tell you that religions and gods are not real.

I'll try to make this as simple and short as possible... People can not come back from the dead or walk on water. Forget about all the other ridiculous supernatural fairy tales in the bible, just the fact that Jesus supposedly came back from the dead should tell you that the story of Jesus is not real, it was made up by humans just like all the other religions and gods in the world. It's that simple.

Religions are big business and they will do everything they can to keep you believing in their gods. Unless you don't mind spending your life brainwashed to believe in a fairy tale I suggest you study/research science and evolution to learn the true history of our planet and how life started. I posted links on the top-left of this page to some really good vidoes I hope you take the time to watch. And like I said before "you have a brain... use it!"

Now back to the question "Is there a god?"

You should know the answer..."

That is the only text on the site, so far, plus some links to some videos. If I was an atheist, I would be embarrassed.

[thegreypilgrim]

I thought I'd give this gem from a new website, as an example, before I respond to your questions. From Is God real?

Yeah, this is a prime example of what I'm talking about. We start with fundamentalism, and then when someone who's not a fundie comes along to whom none of these criticisms apply then well they're just trying to alter the faith to make it more palatable to modern, enlightened people. It's all ad hoc apologetics. Thankfully we have such paragons of scholarship as the author of Is God Real? to help steer us through the fog of those pesky apologists' "philosophizing" right? Right guys?

[unkleE]

G'day Grey,

I've experienced much of the same, and felt the same frustrations. I don't have an answer, but I have a few ideas .....

It seems the days of having an atheist to really go toe-to-toe with who actually abides by the rules of logic (and even the principle of charity! Imagine that!), is knowledgeable of philosophy, and sees its value as an intellectual pursuit in and of itself are gone.

I don't think that's totally true of course. William Lane Craig seems to be debating atheists at every turn, and while some are not worthy opponents, some at least try. On the internet forums, I have found a few who are reasonable, especially if we can discuss privately, away from the crowd (most forums have a personal message function). But I agree, most argue fairly thoughtlessly from what has become atheist dogma so that their responses are often quite predictable:

• mention an expert as a reference and someone will say "argument from authority" as if that settles it - and are then quite nonplussed if I point out that "argument from authority" is a logical fallacy in philosophy, whereas quoting an expert in science or history is the way knowledge advances;
  
• mention anything related to the importance of getting to the truth and someone will mention Pascal's Wager as if that settles it;
  
• the flying spaghetti monster and Russell's teapot are always worth a snigger to support the statement that there's no evidence for belief in God, but few are willing to make an argument as to why that argument from analogy might work;
  
• the "burden of proof" is on theists, even though my understanding of logic is that anyone asserting a proposition is required to support it.

Scientism is their reigning orthodoxy, all other fields of academia are anathema. Especially philosophy.

This is common and really scary. I usually try to suggest that even having a discussion involves philosophy (logic, metaphysics, epistemology, etc), so they can't avoid it. But scorning philosophy only means they are more likely to do bad logic and bad philosophy.

I have tried recently to challenge fuzzy thinking by using formal logic (which I studied for one year 45 years ago, but have almost forgotten).

• I present my argument as a series of propositions, and ask them to show where the logic fails.
  
• I also ask them to present their argument in more formal terms. Recently in such a discussion I had people rise to this challenge and I found formal logic errors in the 4 arguments presented (once the conclusion was contained in the premise, once a rule of logic was violated, and twice two different propositions contradicted each other).
  
• If they are unwilling to present their arguments in this form, I sometimes try to do it for them, as honestly as I can. Sometimes the mere statement of the argument in that form shows how silly it is.

I have further found that if I persist in this, they are inclined to drop out of the discussion.

The only body of knowledge that seems to matter to them is science...and even to say this is something of a misnomer. What really matters to them is a specific corpus of popular science literature that in all honesty seems to function very much as a religion in its own right.

I have tried here to contrast the utopian hopes that heralded the beginning of the age of science with the awful 20th century reality where science brought us many advancements, but also the atomic bomb, scientific experiments on people by the Nazis (Lou Reed's terrible line, "you can't depend on the goodly hearted, the goodly hearted made lampshades and soap" is telling), and worse wars and greater killing than ever before. I have an honest quote by an atheist:

"The history of the past one hundred years shows us that atheistic ideologies can sanctify more and bigger atrocities that Christianity or Islam ever did. The casualties inflicted by Communism and National Socialism vastly exceed - many hundredfold - the casualties inflicted by theocracies. In some cases (Mexico in the 1930s, Soviet Russia, and the People's Republic of China) there has been appalling persecution of theistic belief by politically empowered atheists, exceeding any historical atrocities against unbelievers and heretics." (Atheist) David Ramsay Steele, "Atheism Explained".

I then point out that it is for these reasons that social scientists are tending to talk of a post modern age where people are "over" science, scientism, and atheism. I don't think these arguments prove anything, but they hopefully give people cause to think.

Yet it seems perfectly legit for them to do this because they think the careful, subtle, and rigorous analysis of contemporary analytic philosophers of religion is just "posturing and obfuscation." It's an attempt to make Christianity (which has always been literalistic, legalistic, anti-science, and full of hellfire and brimstone vindictiveness) more palatable to modern sensibilities. So, it's really a concession that we (secularists) have won.

I have tried a range of ideas here, including:

• I mention Augustine (there are references on this site) taking a less than literal view of Genesis and Bible interpretation generally 1600 years ago! It's no new thing.
  
• I say (truthfully) that I have been a believer for 45 years, and I have thought most of these issues through as part of my own approach to faith, long before I ever discussed with an atheist. I'm simply responding out of what I've long believed to be true.
  
• Sometimes I say that it appears they are trying to press me to change my view to one neither of us holds, so they can then vehemently dismiss that view. How honest is that?
  
• I also sometimes say, what I have long believed as a generalisation, and believe in this case, that when the christian community gets out of line and won't listen to God, he uses the secular world to teach us a lesson. So I say I believe the polemic of the new atheists is leading to some changes, and they are all good. God is using them to refine us!

I really wonder, what are we to make of this and how in the world are theists to respond to this elevation of ignorance?

Having given some of my tactics, I have to say that I am still at a loss, because little of it seems to work. I think we need to ask what our objectives are. If we want to win an argument, then I think we have the wrong objective - I think I'd rather make a friend, challenge them to think, and hope they turn to God. And our secondary aim might be to show others watching the debate that there are answers.

Therefore, I believe we need two things above all:

(1) to be polite and unprovocative, and try to make friends and establish good relationships - I don't always succeed myself, but I try - I think JP Holding et al have it all wrong; and
(2) I believe we should pray for our "opponents - while this is an intellectual "battle", I also believe it is a spiritual battle, and I have sometimes neglected prayer, to my shame. Let's not forget the main game.

I have seen three tactics effective on these forums:

(1) A couple of quakers I know only argue sporadically and peacefully, and mostly simply express their own love and experience of God and their warmth towards their opponents. In the end, that tends to silence their critics and win respect (though not argument).

(2) Some people simply good humouredly maintain their faith without worrying about winning arguments or beating their heads against brick walls.

(3) I tend to give up after a while and take a break, and return to a different forum. The breaks keep getting longer, because I doubt whether it's worth the effort.

So not much of an answer, but that's how I see it just now. Best wishes.

[humphreyclarke]

Of course we must be careful not to tar everyone with the same brush. There are many fair and intelligent people on the other side of the debate. That being said, the new atheism is an anti intellectual and intolerant movement. It considers the opposing argument to be completely irrational, immoral and not even worthy of debate. The same was also true of other secular religions such as Marxism. There is a good interview here from Peter S Williams:

www.epsociety.org/blog/2009/03/interview-with-peter-s-williams.asp

'Another factor is the way in which the new atheism offers an apparently meaningful and purposeful existence to its converts. Materialism is the metaphysics of nihilism par excellence (cf. my book I Wish I Could Believe in Meaning: A Response to Nihilism) but the new atheism dresses itself up in fake robes of meaning and purpose, like the fairy-tale about the Emperor’s New Clothes. The fake meaning comes in the guise of moral outrage at the (generalised) behaviour of theists. The fake purpose comes in the form of an intellectual-cum-socio-political crusade against theistic belief and for a metaphysically naturalistic worldview. The ‘new atheism’ thus offers an apparently valuable meaning and purpose to people’s lives, a daring intellectual identity and a community of like-minded fellow-pilgrims. And the Emperor’s new tailor appeared to offer him the finest new robes…'

There does seem to be an unwillingness to confront nihilism which I find immensely irritating. The thought of Nietzsche or Sartre should be the starting point, then we would hear less about 'flying spaghetti monsters'.

He does make a great point at the end of the interview

If there’s one thing to be said for the new atheism it is that antipathy towards Christianity is better than apathy; and the new atheism means Christians will meet more antipathy, albeit an intellectually under-resourced antipathy.

There is a sense that such a movement will 'Separate the wheat from the chaff' so to speak. Putting the morally insane versions of theistic belief under pressure whilst exposing the undecided to versions they might not have otherwise encountered.

[hawkinthesnow]

I don't think that the "new" atheists are prepared to take metaphysics seriously. This they appear to have inherited from Bertand Russell. The striking feature of the debate between Russell and Coplestone is that Russell simply seemed not to attempt to get to grips with metaphysics, which is the realm in which any serious debate about God's existence needs to take place, at least in my view.

Dawkins, Harris et.al. appear to me to be philosophically naive, and do not seem at all to understand that their scientific evidentialism is not self supporting, but requires philosophical justification.