The so-called "New Atheism" has spread through the media like wildfire. Some of the major players currently in the limelight, such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, have major publications out that are selling like hotcakes. They are selling their atheist paraphernalia on the web, debating theists all over the country, creating YouTube videos, creating marketing campaigns and discussion groups, and more or less working evangelists up into a defensive frenzy.
Furthermore, to fortify this intellectual army against faith and superstition, ex-Christians, such Dan Barker (former evangelical preacher), John Loftus (former preacher with degrees in philosophy, theology, and philosophy of religion), William Lobdell (former Protestant evangelist), and Jeffrey Mark (former devout Christian), are adding different perspectives to the debate, in which they reject religion not from the perspective of the armchair philosopher, but from their past, deeply rooted and sincere devotion to religion and subsequent irreconcilable issues with theism, faith, and the supernatural. The faithful no doubt have their explanations for these ex-believers, yet these writers have added a new level of credibility to the ongoing debate.
Following the wake of these new atheists are the thousands of hobbyist atheists and freethinkers who promote their own websites, blogs, newsletters, Facebook and Myspace pages, and online articles (like the one you are reading). And we can't neglect to mention some of the more astute and hard-to-pin-down critical
writers, such as Terry Eagleton, who has depicted Dawkins and Hitchens as atheist schoolyard bullies and has charged them with grossly over-simplifying and misrepresenting the multifarious human understandings of God or arguing from the standpoint of science with no authority (see "Tragic hero: Laurie Taylor interviews Terry Eagleton" for a drill down on this).As with any new movement, the "New Atheism" is not without its blemishes. More to the point, atheists are not all equally as effective in positioning their viewpoints and generating credibility with their arguments. Some let their emotions, their anger or resentment toward religion, interfere with their reasoning. Some bight off more than they can chew (claim more than they can support or explain) or do not provide valid arguments for their ideas. Some present themselves as condescending and disrespectful with their attacks on theism, which lessens their credibility and reinforces the stereotype that atheists are bad people or lack good character. Some over-simplify, generalize, or misrepresent the theist worldview, so as to effortlessly refute it. And some atheists fail to recognize the diversity and complexity in how human beings define and understand the concept of God, but rather choose to focus on the more simple-minded concepts that are also the most vulnerable. Interestingly, many atheists come across more as anti-theists. If they simply don't believe in God, why devote so much effort in attempting to show that God does not exist?
In contrast, some atheists are brilliant, well read, and develop very concise arguments that pose legitimate and formidable challenges to theists and those of faith. Some are polite, courteous, and respectful in their critiques of theism. Some define "God" before they deconstruct it, leaving other viewpoints open to debate or discussion. And some clearly understand the limits of human reason and the precarious intersection of objectivity and subjectivity in light of theological beliefs, or any beliefs for that matter. We can suggest the same for theists. Their approaches and styles come in all forms and shapes, with varying degrees of credibility, validity, and understanding of the nuances of the debate.
Moreover, it may come across as odd that some atheists and anti-theists spend an unusual amount of time and energy talking about God. There is that old saying that "The trouble with atheists is that all they talk about is God." There is a kernel of truth in this humorous assertion. Why are so many atheists seemingly obsessed with formulating arguments against the existence of God? Why are they so infatuated with the non-existence of God? Is nothing sacred to them? Just Google "Does God exist" and you will find thousands of pages of old and tired debates, the same arguments re-hashed over and over again for and against the existence of God. These debates have been occurring for over 2000 years. Theologians, philosophers, and philosophers of religion have analyzed the issues down to the subtle details, complete with thorny semantics, hair splicing, and complex stipulations. As evident by the lack of consensus, the case has not been settled, and it will probably never be settled given the nature of the question and its metaphysical and epistemological implications.
We may be able to provide a strong case that empirical evidence and scientific reasoning does not support believe in God, and scientists like Victor Stenger in his "God: The Failed Hypothesis" have provided some very compelling arguments for how we can reject one particular definition of "God" based on scientific reasoning. However, when push comes to shove, believers can ultimately profess reliance on faith and can posit that belief in God is not the type of thing that requires empirical data to support it. And it is very difficult, if not inappropriate to tell a person that their feelings and emotions associated with the idea of a supreme being are invalid. We can easily argue that faith is a poor and inconsistent way of grounding beliefs by pointing out its contradictory results, but in the end this does not stop believers from using it or coming back to the point that reasoning, empirical data, logic, etc, are not necessary to justify their personal belief in God.
Yet atheists continue to hammer away at the same method of using reason and empirical evidence in their arguments against belief in God, when these methods may be completely inapplicable. Could they be using the right tool for the wrong job? Einstein allegedly stated that “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”? Why would atheists and anti-theists continue to use the same methods when debating with theists, without ever suspecting that belief in God is not the type of thing that requires any evidence? Do we need to provide empirical evidence and a logical argument for why we like a particular flavor of ice-cream, or why we have a favorite color? Conversely, this is not to say that there are good reasons to believe in God; rather, it is to say that there are no reasons to belief or disbelief in God, only the pure and basic will to do so based on psychological dispositions, feelings, moods, etc. That's just one way of looking at it, of course.
Perhaps it is time for atheists and anti-theists to take a break from the God arguments. In a way, by continuing the debates, they also continue to reinforce belief in God by theists, because the more they argue against it, the more their opponents lash back with their vehement responses for it. Why? Because they are using the right tool for the wrong job, like using cold reason to sympathize with a person in duress. It is like a self-fueling fire, where atheists (and theists) continue to reinforce each other's beliefs and push an insolvable debate to absurdity. Therefore, by continuing to debate about God, atheists and anti-theists reinforce an "either/or" scenario, rather than rejecting it with a "none of the above."
In summary, perhaps a more productive approach for atheists is to reject the terms of the debate all together, reject the whole set of terminology related to God, and collapse it into a non-issue. In other words, stop talking about God, and start talking about what the evidence does suggest. Stop talking about negative facts (the non-existence of some thing - nothing), and start promoting the positive. Leave God out of the equation all together. Atheism and anti-theism move to non-theism, which then moves to a completely different and more interesting discussion and set of debates all together.
Comments
One reason I feel compelled to continue talking about/disproving god is that many of the people I interact with (especially on campus) have never actually spoken to an 'out' atheist and simply haven't spent much time examining their own beliefs.
While the debates may be ancient and the scholars may be bored with them on a day to day level most people really haven't given it much thought. So long as talking about god all the time continues to get people to reexamine their motivations, I'll keep doing it.
If there's no reason to believe in gods, that in itself is plenty of reason to disbelieve.
And while gods and religion have a privileged position of "respect" and unquestionability, there's plenty of reason to discuss that too. All that's required for lies to triumph is for truth to remain silent.
The problem with being an atheist is that God invades society. For some reason, clergymen are offered a special position as a voice of authority when it comes to decision making, so often on issues of morality. Why is that? Can't we have a debate about big issues without invoking whatever version of a particular deity an individual believes in? It would seem not.
If religion was truly a private affair, then there would be no reason to speak out against it. But it intrudes into every aspect of society. The "new atheist" movement is riding on a wave of anti-theism while positing an alternative to the religious way of thinking. It's no good just to say "There's no god" and be done with it, one needs to show how morality, meaning, meteaphysics, and explain how it all came about. For the first time in history, one can be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist because one can have a solid understanding of how the universe works and what it means to be human.
Theism is not deserving of respect. The price of ridiculous beliefs is ridicule. Get used to it.
If religion stayed in homes, churches, or even street corners, then I would never feel the need to talk about gods. It is only when people of faith demand that their dogma be required in science classes, court rooms, school boards, work places, public events, ad infinitum, that I feel the need to defend my way of life. I feel as though I am being pushed into a corner and the longer I remain silent, the smaller my corner becomes. To those who want merely to remain in their faith, to worship in their churches and homes, you are perfectly free to do so, and I would never think of interferring. To those who think that their faith entitles them to push their faith onto every one, you have another think coming.
Uh,I just stopped believing in the lord,and a 3 headed dog showed up at muh door. What do I do nowAYEEEEEEEEEEH!GHKKKK*Ghurlkkkk*...
How about this for a head line. Theists who don't like to have their unsubstantiated beliefs challenged can go cry to their imaginary sky friend.
See where that gets you.
The atheists who've already posted have already said anything else I can say on the matter.
Hi Kris .
Doesnt your theory depend a whole lot on peoples beliefs in gods not actually effecting us all.
If this was a fact we might have no good reason to worry of peoples faith beliefs, but thats really not the case is it.Peoples faith beliefs often effect many of us whether we enjoy it or not.
Isnt what you are arguing for a bit biased and narrow minded in vision
As a follow up to that silly note..
Bob in Portland says it all. You want to believe? Fine, just DON'T PUSH IT ON ME. Evangelicals have pushed and pushed and PUSHED Christianity for years, and when those who have chosen NOT to believe push back, you beg for a reprieve? Really?
I'll stop when you stop.
I like to avoid the issue to some extent. I mean, I like the related subjects, however I am not open about my unbelief, and even have some people who think that I am a conservative Christian. The issue though, is also that religious people, will push their worldview. They have to be right, and even have schools dedicated to this. Because of this, I think atheists are compelled to present their case. This isn't a matter of being coldly rational jerks, but rather just a defense, an apologetic. Not only that, but to the non-religious, some religious doctrines and actions can seem utterly repugnant, a moral affront and so the anger and argumentation can result from this as well.
In addition, to an atheist, this isn't an insoluble debate, and in the long run, it is unlikely that people will continue to believe in that which has been proven absurd, for the psyches can adapt, but being wrong is hard to accept.
As such, I have to disagree with the author. Reason is a needed tool.
when it's off our money and out of our constitution and out of our courts and out of our laws and not defining our national holidays and not in our face with crosses where every drunk fool died or killed someone on the roadside and when kooks quit trying to get it into my kids' science classes, when it stops being such a pervasive part of our culture blindly followed with little analytical or skeptical thought, then we can stop ranting against it. if we ignore it,it will creep bigger and instead, it needs to shrink. it does not matter how defensive we make them, their arguments hold not more water than an 8 year old trying to convince his school pals that santa DOES exist, he DOES. i am gonna keep talkin' and yellin' and rantin' until easter and christmas are not longer national holidays. THEN when they are just optional days off like other religious holidays, then i will take a break and shut up.
I think you raise a valid point; atheism has itself become a religion of sorts, adding to the clamour of an already cacophonous arena of war-primed theologists. I think that this development was only to be expected, as noted by many of the people who commented you; after the pressing force of theists to convert atheists, it's only natural that they begin to radically push back.
That being said, I agree full-heartedly that it has gotten quite out of control, and the whole lot of people involved in the mess are foolhardy.
Atheist or not, religion serves a purpose. It is the 'Great Comforter' of mankind. As a hardy atheist myself, I oft miss the comfort that belief and faith held. Perhaps this near-violent attack upon religion is a response to the phantom-pains of we atheists? It's quite possible that we simply want everyone to be equally miserable in the 'truth.'
'working evangelists up into a defensive frenzy'
The stated aim of Christian dominionists is to take over the USA. The stated aim of Islam is to take over the World. Doesn't sound very defensive to me.
Lots of words. I can summarize the whole thing easily:
Atheists: Have you got any evidence at all for your preposterous claims?
Theists: No.
I think actually the problem is not the belief or disbelief in God because that is unprovable any way. The problem is the doctrine of the organised religions which often seems to lack morality, ethics and support for goodness and from observation in daily life I would say it is those who are spiritual but are not attached to the organised religion who are the most supportive of goodness and the law of the land. After all there are some 40 written up creation stories, many more credible than the Abraham versions, which anyway look to have been derived from the epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish. Don't take me on faith, look it up.
I urge you to start a conversation on Non-theism and see where it gets you. You might be silently omitted from the debate with all the ranting coming from the atheist and theist camps drowning out your message. The thing I like most about the never ending noise, which some people call conversation on the topic, is that every now and then out of left field comes a point that I had not thought of. A twist on an old argument that makes me really stop and think. Reexamine my position.
This could be thought of as an evolution of sorts to the debate. Slowly changing over time into something quite different from what it was before. Just as the Precambrian explosion was a biological event of importance, so now is the explosion of interest in a new atheism. Personally I'm glad that I'm along for the ride.
When I excised religion from my life, cut it out with the sharp blade of logical rationalism, I was left with a hole in my psyche that yearned to be filled. The joy of the holidays, the comfort of talking to a g-d when I was troubled, the feeling of community all seemed to be gone. But, as I realized that there were flesh-and-blood substitutes, I found that my ideas about what religion was supposed to do for me were wrong. I still look forward to the religious holidays, not for the mythological stories, but for the time I spend appreciating those closest to me. Instead of commiserating with an invisible friend, I took my concerns to people who could help and guide me, my friends and family. This is the real community I needed. I see now that I was being foolish to think that g-d mattered at all to me, when I was already supported in all my needs by the people around me, who are much better at helping and comforting me than an imaginary g-d ever could.
Kris, I agree that new debate tactics or even a different "tone" can be very helpful in progressing the atheist position.
But to flat out stop talking about god?
Are you suggesting the argument change to a pro-science discussion? They will argue intelligent design or creationsism;or that their god uses evolution. A pro-reason discussion? They will argue their religion is reasonable. Try to show that religion is destructive? They will point out the ways it has been helpful.
Theists don't have the high ground with god. Don't concede god to them in this debate. With god the playing field is leveled for all of us. Is that confrontational? Maybe, but only because they have held that ground, unchallenged, for thousands of years.
Don't ask us to tie one hand behind our back.
New tactics and arguments, yes. But being silent about god, no.
The horrors suffered by the Iraqi people because George W. Bush took his marching orders from one of those multifarious Christian gods, instigated my loudly going public about my atheism.
In 2012 the US could elect, as keeper of the nuclear keys, Sarah Palin who by faith in her version of a Christian god dreams of the end of the world, and she would be ideally placed to help bring it about.
Normally moral people are rendered powerless by religion and must stand idly by as Christian Scientists let their children die from easily cured afflictions.
Recently, many Pentecostal parents, their minds so horribly corrupted by religion, have burnt, blinded, cut off hands and limbs, and beaten to death their own children, believing them to be witches or demon-possessed.
Can any moral person stand by and allow religion go unchecked when it constitutes such a strong threat to mankind? Nothing should be allowed to survive that justifies inhumanity, and, far too often religion does just
Unfortunately, you can't just ignore a problem and assume it'll go away. God is the justification for a lot of ugly actions, so it's logical to try and kill that justification.
What I've considered a better tactic is to promote rational, critical thinking. That should seriously devalue the use of god for justifying ugly actions. It's no answer for ugly actions of course, but it means people have to work a hell of a lot harder to justify them.
Philadelphia Critical Thinking Examiner
We have to talk about god because god told his people to stop stem cell research, not let loving gays and lesbians get married, kill abortion doctors, forgive politicians when they mess up weekly, stop me on the street when I'm walking somewhere, wake me up in the morning and fill the news with scandals and wars.
Why do atheist talk about god all of the time, or get angry, because Christians are not secular and that makes us angry. We are only human, if someone makes us angry, we have every right to be angry. Good luck to you sir.
K.T.S.A.
Atheists will stop talking about "god" when theists stop letting their "god" dictate on how immoral atheists are and on how atheists should live their lives. Theists chooose to follow the laws of their scriptures, atheists don't and that is what really gets up theists' noses' If theists did not want an afterlife - their "god" is of no value to them.
just the fact that theists believe in more than 1 life makes them delusional...that's a problem.
btw, tell the guys with white collared shirts, ties, and name tags to stop knocking on my door...hypocrites!
As it were, there is some truth to that - we atheists do spend an awful lot of time talking about God. This is likely because theists shove their belief in our faces, whether they realize it or not. When public meetings are opened with a prayer, people knock on my door and ask what I know about the apocalypse, the masses are greeted with "people of faith," and Christianity is pushed as "the right thing to do," and when religion trumps natural law and reason, then we rightfully protest. We would not give such a response unless a push was there.
["The Atheist's Key to Salvation" -- arguments for a god which might appeal to atheists, but not theists.]
These works: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, which refute the claim that there is any logical foundation for belief in the God of scripture are very well conceived and constructed and their Oxford eloquence endows the message with an undeniable but possibly undeserved credibility...
It may be possible however, using these same arguments and perspectives, to justify to some degree the basic tenets of the major religions and even to make way for the possibility of the existence of a god of sorts. Our problem is that, as human beings, we have the utmost difficulty seeing the cosmos, our earth, our existence, our concept of god, in anything but the severely tainted and very imperfect light of human perception. (For more, Google: "the atheist's key to salvation")
As others have commented better, I will only say that it appears to me that atheistic talk about God is in proportion to theistic demands that such beliefs be taken seriously.
"stop talking about God"
I'll stop when you stop. And remember who started it and where it's gotten us.
I know this for sure. One day, we'll end it.
sorry but not talking about god is just not a well though out strategy.
Not talking will maintain a status quo of a world that is being subjugated by ancient doctrines brought about because of a lack of mental institutions in Palestine 2000 years ago.
The only agreement possible is a ' you pray for me and i will think for you' type of arrangement.
Also you need to read up on the scientific method when you criticize 'negative facts' . It so happens that the scientific method concerns falsification which involves making and assuming hypothesis and then trying to prove them wrong.
Thousands of years of human civilization have shown the effectiveness of the scientific method, why abandon it when faced with the biggest question of them all ?
I apologize for the previous post which was more presumptuous than i intended.
I just wanted to say that whenever there is a problem, not talking about it always makes things worse. We must always discuss, argue and come to the truth.
As an agnostic in a religious family, not talking would be the easy thing to do. I choose to manifest my doubt because it is right not because it is easy. I think the same applies to general society.
Toran says.. "Atheist or not, religion serves a purpose. It is the 'Great Comforter' of mankind"
Try telling that to some parent losing their kids to some mad as a meat axe religious christian bible reading cult or something.The same type maybe that was once also seen in Jonestown where obviously no body said enough!, and so many people ended up committing suicide.
What is a humanist if suggesting these type things should simply be forgotten?.
Maybe this type of humanist would have suggested the black slaves should maybe also have just tried to keep as quiet as possible too when slightly unhappy about certain matters?
So what! maybe many christian folk do feel they are sitting in a bit of a hot seat and maybe its a bit uncomfortable for their likings.But whether faithful folk wish to see it or not many things are actually relative in this world,and dislike of these beliefs are relative to the many troubles they cause.
The author argues that reason and evidence are not the proper tools for the argument. I guess it's not surprising that he doesn't back this up with any evidence.
If you browse the de-conversion stories that atheist invariably post on blogs and forums, you'll see that many people left the faith because there was no evidence for the existence of a diety. That may not be the only reason they left, but very frequently it's in the mix.
Its a little hard to justify abandoning the method that worked on so many of us.
Most theists have hit a ceiling in their life and intellectual capacity as things will continue on an even keel, which is comforting. To me, being an Atheist, I am more interested in breaking through that ceiling and thinking outside of 'the box.' I can't get enough knowledge.
Actually, people haven't been debating the existence of god for the past 2000 years. You seem to forget that it was considered heresy to even question the existence of god and that you would be executed for doing so, particularly during a period known as the dark ages.
I will if Kris will.
Interesting and well written. You make your point by talking about God. If you were really serious about your thesis, you would have submitted a blank page.
Most atheists I know have an almost childlike oversimplification of religion, or are what some call "enlightenment fundamentalists" who start, not by limiting the notion of God, but by limiting whatever it is we mean by reality to whatever can be probed by a scientific experiment. They remind me of some natives in Latin American jungles whose eyes can see only three colors and so they view their world within that poverty-stricken palette.
So, Ignosticism or non-cognitivism?
No. Religion causes and excuses genocide, war, murder, needless deaths, persecution, oppression, hatred, bigotry, senseless guilt, etc., etc., and I for one will not stand by and watch all that happen. You could find all these things abhorrent, but if you stand up to be counted as a theist, you are a part, however minor, of the above.
I would stop talking about gods if I did not hear it every day from people around me!!!!
There is not a single day that I hear the following:
How are you? Thanks to god, great!!! And you?
Thank god I already had lunch!!!
He was accepted in school, thank god….
Ahhhhh. Unless people stop giving credit to their own magical puppet master for trivial things that only devalue the notion of a powerful god…. Pathetic that supposedly was able to create a universe and now is thanked for finding the car keys, ordering lunch, or daily well being…
Gods have a monopoly in conversations…. It’s boring to hear them, and it’s absurd to listen to ridiculous claims about their own version of magic man.
When society brings back their personal ideas of gods to their own private spaces and stops sharing their unrequested views, then I won´t have the need to answer back with my own atheist response.
The main point is to make it clear that theists do not occupy the moral high ground. Believing in a god does not make you a better person than the rest of us, on the contrary you have made it clear that you are unable to think straight. God belief is a kind of mental disability on a par with belief in astrology, that the rest of us are obliged to tolerate but not respect. Too many people have been bullied into believing that bible-bashers are entitled to a status for their nonsense which it hasn't earned and doesn't deserve and as a result they have got away with far too much.
Theists are free to believe what they like but not to foist it on the rest of us. Unfortunately they don't see it that way. When they stop trying to inflict their beliefs on the rest of us we'll stop telling them they're fools.
Janet Holmes missed the point of this entire article.
Atheism is the belief in... nothing
Let atheists keep believing in ... nothing, eventually the boredom will force them to all go unconscious or extinct.
The belief in...nothing, is the most uninteresting worldview...ever!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!