No rational case for God = increasingly desperate attacks on atheists

[Mudhammam]

This is a great (though lengthy) post by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne on the increasing desperation of believers who just can't seem to mount a substantial case for their deities and are now resorting to outright lies and smears (I also recommend you read the book review he's referring to--it would be funny if it wasn't so...actually it's still fucking hilarious).

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...sts-again/

[ManMachine]

This is a great (though lengthy) post by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne on the increasing desperation of believers who just can't seem to mount a substantial case for their deities and are now resorting to outright lies and smears (I also recommend you read the book review he's referring to--it would be funny if it wasn't so...actually it's still fucking hilarious).

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...sts-again/

What I find really interesting about this is how Mr Coyne behaves in exactly the way John Gray describes, in his article written for The Guardian, referenced by Coyne in the quote he uses in point number 1. - 'Atheists are a bunch of Morons.'

John Gray on secular fundamentalism

I find Gray one of the most compelling thinkers of the 21st century. His philosophy is difficult to swallow for most but provides a searing insight into the folly of what he quite justifiably calls 'evangelical atheism'.

There are many Christian values at the heart of contemporary Western atheism and it does not bode well that most atheists are ignorant of them. It is also worth noting that the arguments put forward by the scientific community against the body 'religion' (as opposed to their respective theologies and dogmas) are not actually scientific. Which, for me, kind of says it all.

I wouldn't want to read this book based on this article, it sounds typical 'evangelical atheist' in the sense Gray actually meant it.

MM

[Mudhammam]

I'm reading this Gray article right now but I have to make note of this statement that I just came across: "The US is no more secular today than it was 150 years ago." That's absolutely laughable.

Okay, I don't have the patience to read the entire article at the moment but I get the gist of his argument: People that are passionate about their secular philosophies are mirror images of their religious counterparts. Yeah, but no, that's complete bullshit.

[Esquilax]

There are many Christian values at the heart of contemporary Western atheism and it does not bode well that most atheists are ignorant of them.

No. There are many worthy values at the heart of contemporary western atheism. That christianity sees fit to take complete credit for them by fiat assertion and the observation that they, too, were smart enough to take advantage of them is not a problem, nor does it mean those values are inherently christian. They're values, attributes: the fact that they can be applied to christians doesn't automatically mean that they belong to christianity, or that they bear the christian curse and hence can't be utilized by atheists.

For example, all christians breathe air. Doesn't mean breathing air is a christian thing to do.

[Cato]

Gray comes across as someone who is miffed because his books didn't sell as well. Gray is simply trying to equivocate atheism and religion in order to continue his well known disgust of the human species without troubling himself with having to distinguish between groups of its members.

Which Christian values do you claim atheists are ignorant of? This sounds a bit like the 'atheists don't really understand religion canard.

Scientists' criticism of religion is largely a philosophical debate. Scientists, like many others, will however use scientific discovery to inform their opinion. Complaining that scientists don't use science in their criticism is similar to saying a plumber doesn't use plumbing to hang a ceiling fan.

[ManMachine]

I'm reading this Gray article right now but I have to make note of this statement that I just came across: "The US is no more secular today than it was 150 years ago." That's absolutely laughable.

Okay, I don't have the patience to read the entire article at the moment but I get the gist of his argument: People that are passionate about their secular philosophies are mirror images of their religious counterparts. Yeah, but no, that's complete bullshit.

I'm sure it fits your beliefs to say that the idea the U.S. is 'no more secular today that it was 150 years ago' is laughable. There has been a significant rise in the number of Americans claiming to be practicing Christians and also Muslims (which has doubled) since 9/11 [source]. This is hardly surprising to any of us. Statistical information does seem to suggest that today more Americans think religion is loosing its influence than 50 years ago (statistical study) but it's worth noting this is only a study of perceptions. We could go on but suffice it to say, as it stands without knowing what criteria Gray is basing his opinion on I'd be reticent to contradict so readily. He was a Professor of European Though at the London School of Economics before retirement, he is no intellectual lightweight and I would be inclined to check his sources before laughing at him, he has a tendency to be right.

Notwithstanding, what he is saying is some atheists (the ones he calls 'evangelical atheists') are increasingly relying on scientific arguments to counter religion in general. On religion, he says, ' Repressing it is like repressing sex...', a curious statement at first glance but a look at recent studies strongly suggests that a propensity to believe in supernatural entities is hardwired into our brains, which would seem to suggest it served a need that was an advantage to us for a period of our evolution long enough for it to become permanent feature among our neural structures. The predisposition to believe is deeply embedded in our neural architecture. Saying religion is 'unscientific' and is therefore a bad idea is an irrelevant and, I would suggest, redundant argument. Proto-religion certainly played a part in our evolution, the evidence is still in our brains.

One of the examples Gray uses (and I can't stress enough that this is just an example and not the entire basis for his argument) is Dawkins' use of the concept of memes to explain the appeal of religion. As Gray has appropriately stated, this is nonsense. There is nothing wrong with Dawkins' Scientific work, it is without question exemplary, but Dawkins as a philosopher is another matter, and he is a very poor philosopher. He relies on levering unscientific ideas such as his 'memetic theory of religion', which has no scientific basis, on his well-earned reputation as a evolutionary geneticist. It's cheap and unbecoming, not to mention misleading (in his use of the word 'theory' to describe what is really just a work of poor philosophical reasoning).

I'm only scratching the surface here, but I hope you can begin to see why I reject your position on this article.

MM

[Dystopia]

Believers are angry that more and more people are becoming atheists, agnostics or deists, they can't cope to the fact religious institutions will be out of people in the future. And they get really angry when an atheist says 'you can't believe in god without committing logical fallacies' so they come with the argument of 'god is not about logic it's about belief I don't need evidence bla bla bla'

[ManMachine]

There are many Christian values at the heart of contemporary Western atheism and it does not bode well that most atheists are ignorant of them.

No. There are many worthy values at the heart of contemporary western atheism. That christianity sees fit to take complete credit for them by fiat assertion and the observation that they, too, were smart enough to take advantage of them is not a problem, nor does it mean those values are inherently christian. They're values, attributes: the fact that they can be applied to christians doesn't automatically mean that they belong to christianity, or that they bear the christian curse and hence can't be utilized by atheists.

For example, all christians breathe air. Doesn't mean breathing air is a christian thing to do.

Breathing air is not exactly a value.

I appreciate it is not mentioned in this article but Gray talks about it in his book, 'Straw Dogs', which I appreciate not everyone has read. He does go into detail about the kinds of specifically Christian values that have been adopted or can be found at the heart of western thought, and by inference, western atheist thought.

You only have to recognise how different Native Americans structure their thinking to see how different it is from the Americanised version of European thought.

I am talking about subsumed values, deep rooted structures that frame how we think. As an example (and as I said above, my argument is not predicated on this example, it's just one example) most contemporary western thought is predicated on a particular kind of anthropocentrism, which is Judaeo/Christian in origin. This is sharply juxtaposed to another great pillar of western though, Greek philosophy, which is nothing like as anthropocentric. It is uniquely Judaeo/Christian in origin, it has nothing to do with Christians taking credit for it, its biblical origin is a matter of historical fact.

MM

[Jenny A]

I just finished The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, 2007. I included the copyright date, because the McGraths make essentially all of the same arguments.

1. Dawkins doesn't understand the nounced view of most Christians. Therefore Dawkin's book is really an attack on a strawman.
2. Since he hasn't taken the time to read theology, he has no business talking with any authority about whether god exists or not.
3. Some scientists believe in god (including himself--he's a neurophysiology who went on to study theology), therefore, belief in god is rational.
4. Science is not really at odds with religion, because religion and science answer such very different questions.
5. Dawkins fails to see that religion and god are not the same thing. God exists, but religions change.
6. Dawkins has failed to account for religion. Yet religion exists. Therefore god exists. ----In other words you have a god sized hole in your head.
7. If religion is evil, so is atheism, just look at the former Soviet.
8. Jesus was very moral.
9. Properly followed, religion is very good for you.
10. Religion is making a comeback.

And the finale? Atheism is a faith.

He tells this little anecdote in the first chapter:

After [a lecture]. I was confronted by a very angry young man. The lecture had not been particularly remarkable. I had simply demonstrated, by rigorous use of scientific, historical and philosophical arguments, that Dawkins's intellectual case against God didn't stand up to critical examination. But this man was angry--in fact, I would say he was furious. Why? Because, he told me, I had "destroyed his faith." His atheism rested on the authority of Richard Dawkins, and I had totally undermined his faith. He would have to go away and rethink everything. How dare I do such a thing!

(Italics in the original)

I'm not sure I believe in this angry young man.

[ManMachine]

Believers are angry that more and more people are becoming atheists, agnostics or deists, they can't cope to the fact religious institutions will be out of people in the future. And they get really angry when an atheist says 'you can't believe in god without committing logical fallacies' so they come with the argument of 'god is not about logic it's about belief I don't need evidence bla bla bla'

Logic is not a value system, it is only a framework on which we hang facts about our world.

Religious institutions have survived for thousands of years, it's true that they are significantly different, of that I'm sure, Christianity today is nothing like Christianity of the 5 century BCE, but they will never be 'out of people'. They will be different, but they will persist, you can bet you eyes on that.

MM