An unusual view of the neo-atheists

[The Dude]

PTB,

When asked why someone believes something, do you think it's reasonable to respond with something along the lines of "I have faith God exists, and you can't prove he doesn't?"

I have the general impression that you have specific reasons to think the Bible is legitimate evidence, and that's very different than saying "you can't prove the Bible isn't god's word." I'm firmly convinced you're wrong, but that's beside the point.

I am open and eager to have discussions with people about evidence and logic, but if someone falls back on the "you can't prove I'm wrong" defense, or says "because I have faith," the conversation is over. Until they abandon that ridiculous position there's nowhere else to go.

In this passage Sam Harris isn't claiming that everyone who seeks evidence and uses logic is going to come to all the same conclusions he is. He is simply saying we should all condemn the idea that faith is enough, and we don't need to seek evidence or think about things logically.

Do you really disagree with this?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
When asked why someone believes something, do you think it's reasonable to respond with something along the lines of "I have faith God exists, and you can't prove he doesn't?"


[/ QUOTE ]

It is not less reasonable or more reasonable than responding along the lines of "I have faith that the red herring, [Santa Claus, unicorns, fairies, etc..] exists and you can't prove they don't?"

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
Especially by their tone, the neo-atheists are making at least one "assumption of certainty where there is none." They assume that religion's existential value cannot outweigh its cost in impaired rationality. But, for many people, they are simply wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I didn't see Dalrymple make this point specifically, I find it at the center of my own objection to neo-atheism. I am unable to point to the culture that is successful and atheistic. I believe that such a culture won't come to be and has never existed for long. When religion is purged from the elites and then the common man, failure of the society follows.

All the arguments of bootstrapping morality and such fall flat in the absence of a successful atheist culture, not to mention some very spectacular failures.

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
Harris and Dawkins - and I - are as close to certain as is reasonably possible. So close that it's reasonable to act in such a way we have no doubt whatsoever. To say that we proceed with "the assumption of certainty where there is none" is a gross misrepresentation of both the evidence and the authors' claims. Remember, they're claiming certainty against all specific religions, not the generalities of theism and deism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an interesting asymmetry. I can imagine a fantastic event that could very likely convert Dawkins, Harris or yourself to theism in a day. I can construct no such event that would work the reverse on the Pope.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harris and Dawkins - and I - are as close to certain as is reasonably possible. So close that it's reasonable to act in such a way we have no doubt whatsoever. To say that we proceed with "the assumption of certainty where there is none" is a gross misrepresentation of both the evidence and the authors' claims. Remember, they're claiming certainty against all specific religions, not the generalities of theism and deism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an interesting asymmetry. I can imagine a fantastic event that could very likely convert Dawkins, Harris or yourself to theism in a day. I can construct no such event that would work the reverse on the Pope.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's why " It's true because I say it's true."

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
When asked why someone believes something, do you think it's reasonable to respond with something along the lines of "I have faith God exists, and you can't prove he doesn't?"

[/ QUOTE ]

to be fair-
PTB isn't one of those "I can prove it to you logically". He's a "I have special powers/knowledge" guy.
It still ends up at the "you can't prove I'm wrong" as the 'blind faith' people but the route is different.

luckyme

[Splendour]

Quote: I am unable to point to the culture that is successful and atheistic

I guess you would have to do a study of all time to see if there's every been a sucessful one. I can't point to one either.

Also the atheists never seem to have done an exhaustive study of history, anthropology, psychology and sociology where they were able to definitively point to religion as the root cause for all of society's evils. They are scientists and these multidiscipline studies seem to be outside their sphere. Have they done any cross comparison studies between religions to see if there are any inherent good things about one religion versus another that are manifested in the society in which the religion is present?

For a short time I worked in a field that handled domestic violence and abused children's issues. The social workers used to look for signs of religious life in the homes among other things that they looked for when assessing the child's family situation. Usually when they found it in the families they considered it a positive/hopeful sign. They actually went in and studied particular families, the family dynamics and the problems that families face. If they found any kind of religious base then there was a value base to work off of with the family. This is just one of the bases they looked at, of course.

Are we suppose to be guinea pigs and just blindly trust Dawkins, Harris et al's personal sweeping statement that they have the solution so we should just abandon all faith and institutions? Dawkins and Harris may not even be in agreement with the majority of all atheists' opinions. Hence we now have neo-atheists.

Is atheism sectarian then? If atheism came to be dominant in society would we see a division among atheists along different lines?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The social workers used to look for signs of religious life in the homes among other things that they looked for when assessing the child's family situation. Usually when they found it in the families they considered it a positive/hopeful sign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah that helps explain why there is such a lop-sided percentage of theists in prison compared to percentage of atheists - the social workers switch to 'hope' when they find religion and when they find atheists they must work through the actual problem.

thanks, luckyme

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The social workers used to look for signs of religious life in the homes among other things that they looked for when assessing the child's family situation. Usually when they found it in the families they considered it a positive/hopeful sign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah that helps explain why there is such a lop-sided percentage of theists in prison compared to percentage of atheists - the social workers switch to 'hope' when they find religion and when they find atheists they must work through the actual problem.

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Really more theists in prison? Where do you get your statistics from in support of this statement? Is it from Christian countries where theists outnumber non-theists. If so then it would be natural for more theists to be in jail because they would make up a larger percentage of the population.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Especially by their tone, the neo-atheists are making at least one "assumption of certainty where there is none." They assume that religion's existential value cannot outweigh its cost in impaired rationality. But, for many people, they are simply wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I didn't see Dalrymple make this point specifically, I find it at the center of my own objection to neo-atheism. I am unable to point to the culture that is successful and atheistic. I believe that such a culture won't come to be and has never existed for long. When religion is purged from the elites and then the common man, failure of the society follows.

All the arguments of bootstrapping morality and such fall flat in the absence of a successful atheist culture, not to mention some very spectacular failures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, just _maybe_ this is because only 15% of the world's population doesn't believe in a god and only 3% claim to be atheist.

Or instead of basing ourselves on the lack of probability of having enough atheists in one spot to form a large culture - we could go with some uneducated guesswork about the fallacies of large atheist cultures based on speculation and coloured by belief.

And please don't say Soviet or anything silly like that, practicing religion and being religious was common there too.