Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.
The New Atheists have been drawing a bunch of media attention that last few years and the responses from a variety of theists have continued to come in. In the video below Philip Clayton discusses why, as a philosopher of science, the New Atheists aren’t that new. Primarily he points out that the science they (and Dawkins in particular) found their movement on is out dated. Any way, I may post more on this later. I want to read David Bentley Hart’s new book on the topic.
I agree with Danny. It's not especially shocking that an appellation like "the New Atheism" that comes from popular media would not be literally correct. Given that the authors collected under this umbrella term are popularizers, it should be no surprise that their arguments are not especially new. Yes, there's lots of Voltaire here. Yes, it's mostly the problem of evil, but that's the best argument against theism, so that's expected. Also, I'm not so sure why Dawkins' genetics being out of date discredits his arguments against theism. In any case, naturalism has NOT been discredited and has proven to be a powerful interpretive lens upon which 200 years of scientific progress has been based. What's "new" about the New Atheism is not any particular philosophical argument but the rising popularity and acceptance of non-belief in the United States and the West more broadly (e.g., the new Pew Forum survey showing religiously unaffiliated people being the fastest growing group in the U.S.). The New Atheism is basically a sociological phenomenon, and I'm not sure Clayton quite grasps this.
meh. Is New Atheism a term that these people are claiming for themselves? I've never heard any of them claiming to be saying something new. And you thinks it's unfair to do science with a materialistic prejudice? How the hell can you do science if you have to spend time considering the possibility that fairies might be pushing the moon around the sun and holding atomic nuclei together? We have to look for natural explanations for things. If there's any evidence that "god did it" is a better explanation than a natural one, then you should produce it. The "New" atheism is just continuing to point out that there's no evidence for anything supernatural happening at any place or at any time in the history of humanity.
p.s. This clip rocks.
Were you drunk when you posted the links in this diary? Quite random in your linkage. :-)
The problem of evil certainly devastating to theism, but for my money the best argument against theism is the fact that there's no evidence for it. Absent any evidence for its claims, Christian theism seems to be a man-made religion just like all the rest.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like