I’m looking to read responses to the New Atheists, whether they be articles or books.
Two questions:
-
What are the most popular responses?
-
In your opinion, what are some of the best responses?
I think you meant to say “Uppity Atheists”, unless you mean those who are newborn.
Maybe Bpelta means born again atheists?
I presume he or she means this:
I’m doing fine. How are you?
Thank you. More info here.
“New Atheism” is just a group of people who don’t feel the need to shamefully hide their atheism and who don’t view religion as unquestionable.
Religion gets an undeserved special status in our society because of its ubiquity and historical significance. People think that even though its views might be unverifiable, downright wrong, ignorant, even harmful - well, it’s religion, and no one can question religion.
“New atheists” feel like religion should be given the same critical scrutiny that we’d give to conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, UFOs, what have you. Since it makes specific claims about the world, it should be subject to evidence and logical evaluation. So there’s no different response that you’d give to the “new atheists” than you’d give to atheists.
Which means you make weaselly arguments. You’ll proclaim a very specific god and here’s his holy book and here are his rules, but when people call you on it and ask for evidence for this god, you’ll switch to suddenly believing in a very hard to pin down, non-interventional, maybe-he-started-the-universe-who-knows, you-can’t-prove-a-negative god. You play silly logical games like the ontological argument, etc. You know, same old same old.
I’m a stone cold atheist, so take these with a grain of salt:
Be a deist and do not claim God actually does anything. You know him by feeling him spiritually. If he asks what that means just say that it’s in a separate realm than science and is not available for empirical study. Do a couple rounds of this and he’ll throw up his hands and leave you alone.
You could say that humans are by their nature religious, therefore trying to convert people to atheism is an impossible task. If he points out that some countries are almost 2/3 non-religious you are SOL.
You could say that religions make people happy and taking that happiness away is immoral.
The fine tuning of the universe is the most respectable argument IMO. If he brings up a multiverse ask him for evidence of that (there’s none). The anthropic principle is a tautology. But if he asks for evidence that God did it you are SOL.
You could point out that all of science is based on a logical fallacy. This will be much less impressive if you use a computer to communicate this information.
The main problem is the positive God claim. There’s no evidence for it. The best you could do is make him do it old school – let him meditate in a cave by himself for a couple months while also being dehydrated, hungry, and high on 'shrooms. Note that he may establish a new religion instead of finding Christ, so be careful with this.
<Two priests are hiding behind a wall. In the background is a robed figure chanting in front of an altar while huge tentacles rise out of a pit before the altar>
“OK, he’s not an atheist anymore. I hope you’re satisfied!”
I’m pretty sure none of those guys will be impressed by any response from Bpelta.
You could always try not broaching the subject. Live and let live. Rarely do even the newest of new atheists start the discussion on their own.
Which isn’t relevant because I was asking for others’ responses. :smack: I like the books of theirs which I’ve read so far; I don’t believe in god, gods, woo, religion, etc.
There have been a few lame attempts to respond to them. Here is a book review of a typical attempt (The Dawkins Delusion.
There are no responses to “new atheists” that are any different from the age old responses to reguar atheists (who are, in fact, exactly the same as “new atheists”). From what I’ve seen, though, they generally try to avoid defending supernatural beliefs on substance, but resort to arguments from absence (you still can’t prove there’s NOT a God) and spend a lot of time trying to redirect the discussion to defending organized religion as an institution (we’re not all dangerous or violent) which is much safer ground for them.
There’s also a healthy dose of butthurt whining about being called “delusional,” which reallly rebuts nothing.
The ones I’ve seen in negative reviews of Dawkins’ or Hitchens’ book or positive reviews of books written in response are very similar to what we see here - an accusation that they are addressing extreme religious views, which no one who the authors of the responses know would ever hold. There are not atheists in foxholes, apparently there are no fundamentalists in Canada. None of the responses I’ve seen even try to address the minor issue of giving evidence or reasons for the existence of a god. The writers are almost as atheistic as Dawkins, they are just more polite about it, and believe because there must be a reason for all this.
If one accepts the burden of proof for proving that there is or is not a God, there is no conclusive proof either way. Existence itself is a proof of God to a believer, and the lack of scientific proof that there is a God is proof enough for an atheist. Humans will tend to find human-like patterns in nature and human behavior. Believers will cite that as evidence of God, atheists will cite it as part of evolutionary psychology. This is an argument that has been going on for thousands of years. If you apply science to it rigorously, then you cannot scientifically describe God. If you do not believe that science is the one and only universal tool, you may find God and spirituality in your life.
As useful as I find science, it is not useful to me in many aspects of my life. I find friendship, art, family and belief satisfy me in those aspects.
Flailing ineffectually. Stubbornly refusing to admit defeat. Doublethink in the form of dropping indefensible beliefs only for as long as pressure is applied.
To understand why atheists believe there is no God, and to stop believing in God if you think those arguments are valid.
However, it also puts God in exactly the same category as a child’s imaginary friend or a madman’s claims of hearing voices in his head. While this is where He belongs, I doubt a theist would like that idea.
The best book I’ve read recently in defense of Christianity/belief in God is The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller. While it’s not specifically a response to the New Atheists, it does mention and address points made by Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. Part 1 addresses the most common reasons for rejecting theism/Christianity; Part 2 presents the case for theism/Christianity.
I recently read an excellent response by Michael Novak: No One Sees God, by Michael Novak. It’s a well-written and succinct run-through of the philosophical background that Dawkins & Co. try desperately to avoid dealing with, including theory of knowledge, the idea of probability and so forth. It also deals with a lot of history and introduces some fascinating personal stories. Highly recommend.
If you’d prefer something a lot less thorough and intelligent, search for a series of threads I started in response to Dawkins and Harris a couple years back. To me, the most noticable characteristic of those two guys is how much of what they say is flat lies. Dawkins is fond of saying untrue things such as:
“The four Gospels that made it into the official canon were chosen, more or less arbitrarily, our of a larger sample of at least a dozen including the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Nicodemus, Phillip, Bathelomew and Mary Magdelen.”
or that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., “may be counted among those whose religion was incidental.” (King himself begs to differ.)
Dawkins also repeats the old urban legend about James Watt using the rapture as justification for environmental desturction. And so forth.
Harris is even worse in this category, littering his books with stinkers like: “No Pope can criticize the actions of his predecessor because the Catholic Church teaches that the Popes are infallible.” He also makes up statistics.
Their defenders, when confronted with these errors, have two general approaches. One is to get angry and start lobbing insults at the person who points out the error. The other is to insist that Dawkins & Co. aren’t lying, just making innocent mistakes. (Perhaps and editor should be employed to catch those innocent mistakes.) This usual comes coupled with a claim that Christians are obsessing about minor details while not tackling the big claims about God’s existence. I created a thread to do exactly that, and nobody really had much interest in defending the preposterous argument Dawkins uses to prove that “God almost certainly does not exist.”
The only sane response would be “I agree with you.”
Thank you for the recommendation. I doubt that after reading it I’ll agree with your assessment of the quality of the response, but I will pick it up and give it a fair reading.