• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Salon.com Article on "The New Atheists"

Furious Coder

Student
F
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
45
There's an article on Salon.com today ( Filter won't let me post URL yet ) that is an interview with John Haught, exploring his opinions of what's wrong with modern atheists like Dawkins. He seems to trot out a lot of the same old misgivings, that Science itself is a kind of faith, and so on. At the end of the article, he has some thoughts about how only religion can give mankind hope, and how stories like the Ressurection are myths but are there to cause us to rethink our own lives, and that is incredibly valuable and the same function cannot be performed by scientific reasoning.

Has anyone else read this article? I'm interested in other thoughts.
 
And beneath that assumption, there's the deeper worldview -- it's a kind of dogma -- that science is the only reliable way to truth. But that itself is a faith statement.
Click to expand...

I need not read any more.
 
tsg said:
I need not read any more.
Click to expand...


Ha. I was just about to post the same thing.

Unfortunately, I did read further. I read the whole thing. Glutton for punishment and all that.
 
Phil said:
Ha. I was just about to post the same thing.

Unfortunately, I did read further. I read the whole thing. Glutton for punishment and all that.
Click to expand...

I got through the first page and a half. And I was ready to quit after the first page.
 
And beneath that assumption, there's the deeper worldview -- it's a kind of dogma -- that science is the only reliable way to truth. But that itself is a faith statement.
Click to expand...

And yet, I bet he travels by plane from time to time.
 
And beneath that assumption, there's the deeper worldview -- it's a kind of dogma -- that science is the only reliable way to truth. But that itself is a faith statement.
Click to expand...

In fairness, we don't know that science is the only reliable way to truth - just that it's one. And that none of the other ways we've tried so far are.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
In fairness, we don't know that science is the only reliable way to truth - just that it's one. And that none of the other ways we've tried so far are.
Click to expand...

Based on the number of other misrepresentations he has made, fairness is not his highest priority.
 
tsg said:
I need not read any more.
Click to expand...

Ah. The Faith Statement. 'Nuff said.

It's a very defensive tactic, which weirdly enough says a lot about the poverty of their own faith. The only reason that secularists such as Dawkins are ragging on these guys is that they invaded our patch. Clutching the Bible as an alternative text-book.

To my mind, these people are as secular in their attitudes as any scientist. A faith that's threatened by evolution is a very poor thing.
 
sol invictus said:
In fairness, we don't know that science is the only reliable way to truth - just that it's one. And that none of the other ways we've tried so far are.
Click to expand...

Stealing other people's science works :).

Science exists to explain the observable and to tie it all together. That can only be done by observing, hypothesising, checking-out, and gradually building a coherent base from which to learn more. The truth of observable reality - the only show in the only town we spend our brief span in - can be discovered in no other way.
 
Jeff Corey said:
I quit halfway down the third. Nothing new.
Click to expand...

Well, New Atheists apparently, which for all I know is a new epithet. OK, atheist activism is new, but who was it summoned it up? Who provoked the counter-attacks they're now whining about? A bunch of losers, that's who. Types that don't understand the difference between faith and thinking you're, like, a really special person, y'know? Big fish in a very small pond, and the Universe scares the crap out of them, let alone the idea they might really die.
 
CapelDodger said:
Stealing other people's science works :).

Science exists to explain the observable and to tie it all together. That can only be done by observing, hypothesising, checking-out, and gradually building a coherent base from which to learn more. The truth of observable reality - the only show in the only town we spend our brief span in - can be discovered in no other way.
Click to expand...

And the reality that isn't observable, if there even is one, we can't, by definition, know anything about. And neither can they.
 
Any conception of God that does not contradict science is inconsistent with the Bible being literally true.

The same is true of all the other magic books written by neolithic sheep herders.

I don't have any problem with people who believe in God; I have a problem with people who believe in books by neolithic sheep herders. Problem is, most people who believe in God believe in such books as well, and they keep trying to stuff it up my nose. There are a significant number of them who would abandon me in peril, or even actively try to kill me, if I told them that I don't believe in God, because it says they may, or even should, in their magic book. I think that's unethical. When that stops being true, perhaps I'll be a little more accepting of religion. Until then, I reject it as evil based on its lack of ethics.
 
Last edited:
tracer said:
Naw, it's not new -- you young whippersnappers just don't remember Madalyn Murray O'Hair in her heyday.
Click to expand...

I think he means "new" as in "since we could no longer get away with burning people at the stake for doing it".
 
CapelDodger said:
It's a very defensive tactic, which weirdly enough says a lot about the poverty of their own faith. The only reason that secularists such as Dawkins are ragging on these guys is that they invaded our patch. Clutching the Bible as an alternative text-book.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised at some of these comments. I certainly didn't agree with many of his conclusions or views, but I thought he made some intelligent points and is certainly more reasonable than a typical fundie.

If you actually read the article he is against teaching ID in the schools. He testified at the Dover trial- against the IDer's.

CapelDodger said:
To my mind, these people are as secular in their attitudes as any scientist. A faith that's threatened by evolution is a very poor thing.
Click to expand...

He obviously isn't threatened by evolution. He thinks evolution is correct and should be taught in science class without the ID crap thrown in.

Really, you can disagree with anything you want. But to make statements implying that he's threatened by evolution when he clearly isn't you're not being any more intelligent than an IDer claiming that "evolution is just a theory".
 
Last edited:
tsg said:
I think he means "new" as in "since we could no longer get away with burning people at the stake for doing it".
Click to expand...

Nice!

Actually it's just another misnomer, of course. There's no way that an absence of something can have anything new. One can't say, "I have a lot more absence of belief" or "I now have a different absence of belief".

There's no such thing as "new atheists". There is no such thing as "new poor people". And to use a common analogy, there is no such thing as "new non-stamp collectors".

Atheism is the same old thing it ever was. The "new" in this case actually refers to the "new critics" of the various religious philosophies. Their atheism should not really come into play when they're being labeled. It's like calling latter day equal rights activists --- those fighting for equal job opportunities and equal pay, instead of the right to vote --- as the "new blacks" or the "new women".
 
tsg said:
And the reality that isn't observable, if there even is one, we can't, by definition, know anything about. And neither can they.
Click to expand...

What they can do is show us the intruments of torture, auto da fe, and their willingness to apply them. Things to observe and take account of. It's not a power that established religion surrenders voluntarily, and it's never surrendered unequivocally. At best it bides its time.

Eternal vigilance is called for, along with regular kickings just to keep the message fresh. It's a dirty job that needs doing. Can we help it if we love it :)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom