RE: A Small Census
March 10, 2013 at 1:37 pm
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2013 at 1:41 pm by jstrodel.)
Atheism as a movement does not owe its existence and its power to persuade in history is not from debates in religion, it is from political debates and political movements (Marxism, liberalism, etc). Very, very few atheists know enough about theology or philosophy to read academic journals of theology and most make very, very common mistakes in understanding the nature of Christian theology.
Atheism has its momentum not through debates in theology but through political debates. Gk Chesterton said "there is no philosophical case against theism". He is right, but that does not mean atheism can fit into a philosophical or political movement.
Atheist critiques of Christianity almost always make us of non-philosophical elements that cannot be proved but are related to political causes (see atheist critiques of Biblical morality). The atheist movement does not really want to advance a philosophically rigorous view of ethics and ground its critiques of Christianity in that, it is more interested in accepting the cultural norms of modernity and, without giving a defense, offering those cultural prejudices as absolute evidence against Christianity
The desire to define atheism as non-belief in God creates a situation in which that definition of atheism does not contain enough information to support atheist claims. That is no problem, because atheism is a political movement, not an intellectual movement. Atheism does not have to ground its claims in anything other than the ability to persuade people of the evils of Christianity, based on a large number of assumptions about the world and then simultaneously insist that atheism is a default position, a lack of belief in God's based on insufficient evidence.
Karl Rove would be proud.
Atheism has its momentum not through debates in theology but through political debates. Gk Chesterton said "there is no philosophical case against theism". He is right, but that does not mean atheism can fit into a philosophical or political movement.
Atheist critiques of Christianity almost always make us of non-philosophical elements that cannot be proved but are related to political causes (see atheist critiques of Biblical morality). The atheist movement does not really want to advance a philosophically rigorous view of ethics and ground its critiques of Christianity in that, it is more interested in accepting the cultural norms of modernity and, without giving a defense, offering those cultural prejudices as absolute evidence against Christianity
The desire to define atheism as non-belief in God creates a situation in which that definition of atheism does not contain enough information to support atheist claims. That is no problem, because atheism is a political movement, not an intellectual movement. Atheism does not have to ground its claims in anything other than the ability to persuade people of the evils of Christianity, based on a large number of assumptions about the world and then simultaneously insist that atheism is a default position, a lack of belief in God's based on insufficient evidence.
Karl Rove would be proud.
