What is needed to combat the overwhelming level of belief in God?

[Longhorn]

[Whateverist]

[quote='SteveII' pid='1139222' dateline='1449868247']

In the past, Atheists were content to live and let live, and they did not go out of their way to evangelize folks to their way of thinking.

This all changed after September 11, and was spearheaded by the "four horsemen" - Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Add in the popularity of books by people like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier, and you have the makings of a groundswell.

I can only comment on what I've observed in the US, but my take is that the churches in America were unprepared for this sudden assault on the nation's core religious values. But that is changing rapidly, and the interest you're seeing in apologetics does not bode well for the skeptics. 

They landed a few good sucker punches, but the result may only be that a sleeping giant has been awakened. It will be interesting to see how the skeptics react as more and more believers begin to shift resources from a focus on generalized "evangelism" to the more specific arguments of atheism more directly.

Oh lord! What hath we wrought? Imagine the unassailable arguments such a behemoth may wield against us? Can our un-belief stand against such a one? Lordy, lordy, lordy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Does anyone else find it slightly encouraging that there is a "HUGE upswing" in the study of apologetics, "almost every church" having a class devoted to making their silly beliefs appear less silly to themselves and others? 

I would find it encouraging, if there was even the slightest possibility that Steve could muster up a single ounce of honesty in these posts..but since he can't...I don't.

[SteveII]

I think that naturalism has been embraced by many because of either 1) the misunderstanding that it can account for everything we see or 2) if not now, it will.

As it relates to enlightening the masses, what happens if we do not figure out the origin of life and irreducible complexity? Isn't it logical that, with the overwhelming propensity for people to believe in a god, that naturalism will lose appeal when promised answers are not forthcoming? With 50% or so of scientist believing in god or higher power now, wouldn't that number just increase as time passes--further supporting a trend away from naturalism?

I embrace it because it works.  If we never find the origins of life we never find them (there is no such thing as irreducible complexity, you should respect yourself and your own posts enough not to shittify them).  Those believing scientists of yours -also- embrace naturalism, in case you were unaware...it's a necessary position, if you don't hold it you can't do science.  This, to me, -is- the best case scenario.  Even the religious now defer to science and naturalism rather than magic.  God is no longer a sky wizard, and it;s important for the religious to be able to feel that science somehow validates their faith.  That's a sea change for your religion, change for the better, imo.  Sure, there are those cases where two disparate things (science/religion) mix and produce idiocy...such as in yourself with your id nonsense, but by and large I don't see that as a permanent situation.  ID couldn't even get the support required for permanence in the place of it's birth..that's society saying "no, fuck you, go away".   The people who -do- believe in it don't believe strongly enough to compel them to action, and those few that are compelled have been shown to be completely ineffective at every level.  Here you are, running your mouth on an internet message board rather than doing the science to establish your own theory.  This is the periapsis of commitment to ID, this is all there is.  

Christianity is steadily becoming a religion of scientism here in the US.......lol.  You're evidence of that yourself as an IDer...what are you...going to do..about that?

I should have distinguished  between ontological/philosophical and methodological naturalism. My post referred to the former. Theists have been practicing methodological naturalism for a millennium. 

If scientism is the view that we should only believe what we can prove scientifically, then it is incoherent to think that Christianity or theistic scientists hold this view. 

Your rant against ID does not answer the question what happens when science cannot explain the origin of life? The longer they fail to do that, isn't logical to assume that people will begin to questions scientism?

[SteveII]

I have seen first hand, that apologetics in the last 10 years is on a HUGE upswing in churches.

You report this as positive; however, I'd like to present a different perspective. For two thousand years religious authority supported by societal pressure has ensured unquestioned belief. The focus of belief has largely been a function of one's family specifically and geography generally; perpetual indoctrination. Only the very brave had previously had enough conviction to openly question the prevailing dogma. Have you asked yourself why in the last ten years has it been important for religious institutions to increase engagement of the more reasoning side of its adherents; i.e., apologetics? This not so strangely coincides with the phenomenon of what's now called new-atheism, a very vocal manifestation of what's always existed...skeptical inquiry into the existence of God and religious claims.

Let's be honest about apologetics. Despite how fresh and new the arguments seem when one is first made aware of them, most have been around for hundreds of years; they were also promptly refuted. Apologetics only serves to drag out the inevitable given the dearth of evidence for god and religious claims. You put a lot of stock into atheist population statistics when you should be much more alarmed about the rapidly increasing ranks of nones. Apologetics is the clapper ringing hell's bells.

The truth is that the cat not only escaped the bag, but promptly turned around and shredded it.

EDIT: Sorry, this post was more for Nestors reply.

Your view that apologetics will have the opposite effect that the church intends is interesting. However, I have seen that it just makes smarter Christians (long overdue). The arguments are not promptly refuted if you allow for the possibility of God (which enough people do in the world). I will grant that some long-held positions might change. You might move from a 6-day creation to some other position. You might move from a 6000 year old earth to another position. HOWEVER, there is nothing new the atheists are throwing our way that has not be dissected and answered a dozen different way for decades to millennium. There still continues to be more Christians each year in the US and the world. If there was a fatal flaw that would cause the whole house of cards to fall if pointed out, do you think we would see that?

[athrock]

Does anyone else find it slightly encouraging that there is a "HUGE upswing" in the study of apologetics, "almost every church" having a class devoted to making their silly beliefs appear less silly to themselves and others? For many atheists, apologetics was the first door upon leaving religion because it forces you to confront rational arguments. I can only imagine the numbers who will continue to leave the church as a result of efforts to conceal the absurd with superfluous reason and evidence. Further, what would you think if other ideas were getting the same kind of attention as the "defense of faith" is apparently receiving in religious communities? Might you perhaps wonder why there is all of this emphasis on its defense, as it implies some uncomfortable questions about its inherent credibility (i.e. the reason and evidence that is readily available must be pretty fucking shitty to require such extraneous efforts)? Of course, the OP is right that religion is surging, but I think he also inadvertantly concedes us a silver lining: that religion as an intellectually respectable exercise is in its death throes.

No offense, Nestor, but this has to be one of the most blatant attempts at making lemonade out of lemons ever made.

A couple of billion people with virtually unlimited resources begin to turn their attention to how to dismantle atheism's arguments, and you consider this a good thing?

Regardless of your personal opinions of the arguments made by believers, having more people working to learn and to improve them does NOT advance your cause in the least.

And despite the wishful thinking of some here, really smart, educated atheists do sometimes convert as a result of well-crafted philosophical arguments. 

Google don't lie.

[Cecelia]

No offense, Nestor, but this has to be one of the most blatant attempts at making lemonade out of lemons ever made.

A couple of billion people with virtually unlimited resources begin to turn their attention to how to dismantle atheism's arguments, and you consider this a good thing?

Regardless of your personal opinions of the arguments made by believers, having more people working to learn and to improve them does NOT advance your cause in the least.

And despite the wishful thinking of some here, really smart, educated atheists do sometimes convert as a result of well-crafted philosophical arguments. 

Google don't lie.

Here's why there being more apologetics is a good thing:

#1. It signals the rise of skepticism.  More and more people are openly questioning God, rather than sitting quietly and believing.  They have started having to answer the questions.  Soon people will stop accepting their stupid answers.  

#2. No matter how much money they put into it, they aren't going to make better arguments than they have been.   They're arguing for a 2000 year old book written by a bunch of guys who had no better idea of how the world works than a newborn baby.  It's impossible to defend too many things in the bible without using bad science.  And Atheists are capable of combating bad science fairly easily.  You can't manufacture evidence of there having been ten plagues of Egypt, you can't manufacture evidence of the tower of babel.  You can try, but people are starting to see through all the bullshit.

#3. It doesn't matter how much they waste on apologetics, because society is moving on.  Gays and Lesbians are becoming accepted at an astounding rate.  Contraception, decried by the church, is seen as a solution to the aids crisis.   The younger generation is becoming harder and harder to indoctrinate.  The age of the internet has helped 'kill' god.  It's given Atheists a voice, and their voice is the voice of reason.

[KevinM1]

Wake me up when, in the US, the majority of churchgoers aren't middle aged and older, and when the instant gratification denomination of prosperity gospel isn't the only one not hemorrhaging members.

[The Grand Nudger]

I should have distinguished  between ontological/philosophical and methodological naturalism. My post referred to the former. Theists have been practicing methodological naturalism for a millennium. 

-and that's what matters the most, to me.  People can "believe" in whatever they like..so long as when they go about doing work..they run with something a little less fanciful, a little less fraudulent..something that works.  

If scientism is the view that we should only believe what we can prove scientifically, then it is incoherent to think that Christianity or theistic scientists hold this view. 

Hardly, when confronted with people who feel that god has been or can be proven by ID. You're being co-opted from within by the very position you abhor, and the only thing that makes this more delicious to me..is that the "science" they've hung their christian hats on is nonsense.

Your rant against ID does not answer the question what happens when science cannot explain the origin of life? The longer they fail to do that, isn't logical to assume that people will begin to questions scientism?

I already answered that question.  If we don't find the origin of life we don't find it.   I hope people question science constantly -even if we do find that origin-....that's kind of the point. I know, I know, you asked me about "scientism", but...to you...it's "science" when it concludes god and "scientism" when it doesn't.

@Ath, "dismantling atheism's arguments" is a monumental waste of effort and resources. At best it would lead to pyrrhic victory...but whats it's been leading to, instead..here in the US - is atheism. Atheism does not require an argument in the first place...and dismantling any argument offered would not establish the truth of a god. What must be done, as always, is for the god believers to either hang their hats on belief -no argument required- or make -their own case- for a god of knowledge or evidence. I'm not holding my breath on the later, and never understood why the former has become so dirty to the faithful.

[Athene]

Strict monitoring of adherence to dosage schedules. Other than that, I've got nothing.