|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 04/22/2010 : 08:06:23
|
Believe It or Not
by David B. Hart
Here Hart presents us with a scathing review of new atheist writings. Specifically he attacks the essays offered by atheists in the book, 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists
by Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk. I thought it was interesting enough for us to take a look-see anyhow, if only to consider the writers arguments. The faithful will love this attack on modern atheism but is there really anything of substance here? Is there anything of substance that rises above the lack of substance that he alleges that the contributors of 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists are engaging in?
Here is an excerpt from the review:
To be fair, the shallowness is not evenly distributed. Some of the writers exhibit a measure of wholesome tentativeness in making their cases, and as a rule the quality of the essays is inversely proportionate to the air of authority their authors affect. For this reason, the philosophers—who are no better than their fellow contributors at reasoning, but who have better training in giving even specious arguments some appearance of systematic form—tend to come off as the most insufferable contributors. Nicholas Everitt and Stephen Law recycle the old (and incorrigibly impressionistic) argument that claims of God’s omnipotence seem incompatible with claims of his goodness. Michael Tooley does not like the picture of Jesus that emerges from the gospels, at least as he reads them. Christine Overall notes that her prayers as a child were never answered; ergo, there is no God. A.C. Grayling flings a few of his favorite papier-mâché caricatures around. Laura Purdy mistakes hysterical fear of the religious right for a rational argument. Graham Oppy simply provides a précis of his personal creed, which I assume is supposed to be compelling because its paragraphs are numbered. J.J.C. Smart finds miracles scientifically implausible (gosh, who could have seen that coming?). And so on. Adèle Mercier comes closest to making an interesting argument—that believers do not really believe what they think they believe—but it soon collapses under the weight of its own baseless presuppositions.
The scientists fare almost as poorly. Among these, Victor Stenger is the most recklessly self-confident, but his inability to differentiate the physical distinction between something and nothing (in the sense of “not anything as such”) from the logical distinction between existence and nonexistence renders his argument empty. The contributors drawn from other fields offer nothing better. The Amazing Randi, being a magician, knows that there is quite a lot of credulity out there. The historian of science Michael Shermer notes that there are many, many different and even contradictory systems of belief. The journalist Emma Tom had a psychotic scripture teacher when she was a girl. Et, as they say, cetera. The whole project probably reaches its reductio ad absurdum when the science-fiction writer Sean Williams explains that he learned to reject supernaturalism in large part from having grown up watching Doctor Who.
So it goes. In the end the book as a whole adds up to absolutely nothing—as, frankly, do all the books in this new genre—and I have to say I find this all somewhat depressing. For one thing, it seems obvious to me that the peculiar vapidity of New Atheist literature is simply a reflection of the more general vapidity of all public religious discourse these days, believing and unbelieving alike. In part, of course, this is because the modern media encourage only fragmentary, sloganeering, and emotive debates, but it is also because centuries of the incremental secularization of society have left us with a shared grammar that is perhaps no longer adequate to the kinds of claims that either reflective faith or reflective faithlessness makes.
The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).
But how long can any soul delight in victories of that sort? And how long should we waste our time with the sheer banality of the New Atheists—with, that is, their childishly Manichean view of history, their lack of any tragic sense, their indifference to the cultural contingency of moral “truths,” their wanton incuriosity, their vague babblings about “religion” in the abstract, and their absurd optimism regarding the future they long for? |
You get the idea, but read it all.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 08:44:01 [Permalink]
|
| I thought it was interesting enough for us to take a look-see anyhow, if only to consider the writers arguments. The faithful will love this attack on modern atheism but is there really anything of substance here? |
I must admit I only made it about half-way through the article before the pressure in my skull began bursting through my eyes. I have also not read the book he is condemning yet. He is one hell of a salesman though. I'm going to run right out and buy it!
I saw no specific arguments against any of the ideas he was condemning. I can't see how this article passes as an actual critique. It seems more like propaganda.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
 |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 10:36:21 [Permalink]
|
???
David B. Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian.....why should I care what he has to say? I could have told you his answer before he even got started.
lol @ theologians |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 10:44:02 [Permalink]
|
| One thing I really like about this article is how Hart uses all those fancy schmancy words to further confuse his audience. Maybe if he uses a lot of 4 syllable words then his audience will overlook his flawed reasoning. (not that I noticed anything that could be considered reasoning) |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 18:46:54 [Permalink]
|
Same old, same old. After Dawkins' The God Delusion came out, it was criticized for only taking on the less-nuanced versions of theism. He basically asked for the more-nuanced versions, so he could take them apart, too. Last I heard, he'd gotten no replies after years of asking. That which they think the atheists should be targeting doesn't exist.
In other words, complaining that atheists only challenge unsophisticated or easy religious targets is analogous to complaining that wild game hunters don't ever bring home the heads of invisible pink unicorns. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An attempt to dismiss modern atheist writtings...
