Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[polymath257]

3.1 Chronological bigotry, i.e. the absurd belief that human beings who lived prior to (say) Richard Dawkins were one and all somehow mentally inferior to anyone living today, up to and including the greatest minds of the past. This would also include the belief that all human beings in the past were incapable of skepticism or critical thinking, or were somehow exceptionally gullible or credulous in a way we, the Enlightened Moderns, are not.

Chronological bigotry? This must be a very recent development as Google has no knowledge of it. And she accuses atheists of intellectual dishonesty???

Here's the problem. Those who lived before about a century ago were simply not well informed about things we have learned over the last century. And we have learned *a lot* over the past century concerning how the universe works.

So, yes, Aristotle was an intellectual giant. He was the first to consider many issues of great importance and created a scheme in which to understand an analyze a great many things. This was an immense intellectual achievement.

But Aristotle was also *wrong* about most things he talked about. This does not undermine his intelligence. But, but, being the first in an area of study means you are much more likely to be wrong in your speculations. There will be things you miss that later investigators will see. There will be guesses you make that don't pan out. And, it is likely that the system you create has fatal flaws. But *someone* needs to be the first and that someone deserves credit for opening the area to study.

But Aristotle was wrong in his physics. He was wrong in his metaphysics. He was abortive in his logic. ALL that means is that we have learned a few things in the 2300 years since Aristotle was alive.

So, no, those who lived in the past were not intellectually inferior than those alive today. But hose alive today have the huge benefit of standing on the shoulders of those who came in the past and hopefully can see a little bit farther. Arguments that seemed conclusive 500 years ago seem trite and clearly wrong now (ontological argument anyone?).  Ideas that were universally accepted in the past are known to be badly wrong today (alchemy). So, it isn't just 'gullibility' that is the issue: it is also access to the knowledge that has been discovered. And those in the past simply didn't have access to many of the things we know now.