Are the prophets of "New Atheism" missing the point?
So asks There are many important questions to be asked about the role of religion in the world today, and about the philosophical integrity of the claim the God exists. But ...
This isn't the kind of debate that the New Atheists are interested in (with the possible exception of Dennett, who in an interview last year was far more open to discussion than his book would indicate); theirs is a political battle, not an attempt to advance human understanding. But even on the political front, one has to question whether all the aggression isn't counterproductive.
Comments
Their behaviour is fine by me. If they're not crippled by the time they stop shooting themselves in the feet then perhaps they should realise that they are fast becoming an irrelevance.
SG
Hmm, I didn't know that there are so many vocal atheists around in America. And here I thought I was among the few really annoyed about the inroads religion is making into the public arena of our everyday lives not to mention jeopardizing the teaching of science in public schools. I think religion should go back in the closet where it belongs, something between each individual and whatever. But religion has always been a part of American public life whether we like it or not. It was all they could do to get those tamborine banging sheet garbed beggar Krishners out of the airports. We are bombarded by speech against abortion, for prayer in the school, government vouchers for parents to send their children to private schools including religious schools, government working throught private religion based charities. Of course the debate has entered politics, the Christian right has put it there. Frankly I think less than 10% of Americans admit to being atheists, they have a losing cause. So why so much sudden interest? National mental health week must be coming up soon or something.
Agression isn't something I generally associate with atheists.
I don't see Dawkins, Harris et al as radical atheists, they are just engaging in a a lively debate. A reasonable considered debate - not a shouting match.
DP: is this aggressive or is it just lively, reasoned and considered debate?
""some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them".
SG
Stephen. It's important that people should be aware of the context of this Sam Harris quote.
But Alonzo Fyfe does a much better job than I could.
I am aware of the context dp...It's not quite so obvious that all he meant was that if someone believes something and acts on it to harm you then you have a right to defend yourself. Moreover, to put it the way Harris did was obviously provocative as he could have made that point in any number of ways that wouldn't imply what he claims not to have implied. Maybe he's just a bad writer.
SG
Oh dear, how deep must religious people have their head in the sand when they write something like (quoted from the Bunting article)
"In recent years, research has thrown up some remarkable benefits - the faithful live longer, recover from surgery quicker"
This seems much like geocentricity, disproven so many times yet some will happily go on repeating the nonsense.
Perhaps Madeleine Bunting (or anyone else here) would like to quote some decent quality research to support that old canard? Anything in a peer-reviewed journal to show that the effect of praying exceeds that of a placebo will do.
Peter:
I remember reading psychological research that did indeed suggest similar things to that. I would need to look it up again.
But, what does it matter? Would that show theism to be true. I'm a theist and I can see that that conclusion doesn't follow at all.
SG
Hello Stephen G,
It would be interesting if you could get me the reference for the research.
I didn't mean my post to state that the faster recovery from surgery would prove theism. Or that lack of any such evidence would disprove theism. Although it certainly would be an astonishing finding in my view (the view of a pretty strong non-theist) if a verifyable and reproducible correlation were to be shown. I'm assume you would think so too?
I think Bunting is missing the point herself. Richard Dawkins wrote a pretty strident book about why he thinkis beleif in God is a Delusion. So What?? Thats what he thinks and I enjoyed reading it even though I didnt agree with a lot of it. But Richard Dawkins isnt the spokesman for all atheists or non believers. Neither is Dennett, Harris or Grayling. Why does everybook written have to be non aggressive and moderate? Polemical writting is a genre in itself.
To say that the 'New Atheists' (again I think this is a BS term) are not engaging in a debate to further human understanding, what happened at the Beyond Belief conference early last year? That was engaging in debate, with anthropologists and sociologists who disagreed with their opinions.
Religious leaders the world over dont seem to be involved much in the quest for human understanding. They often tackle matters while begging the question over Gods existence. They are involved all the time in political movements. Now that some atheists are staring to become politically assertive, Bunting is complaining that they should be working on furthering understanding? I want to see her reaction the next time some Religious goon tries to ban stem cell research etc etc. Tell them to get back to furthering understanding about Gods existence.
Hello Stephen G,
I hope the reference to the info source showing that prayer helped is still on your radar. When I asked about it in post 7 there was something in the back of my mind about an article of a comprehensive study that didn't show any positive effect from prayer. After searching a bit (may the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless Google) I found the following:
The article about the study is published in The American Heart Journal and can be accessed (after free registration) from
I registered and read a bit. The study was conducted by someone who admitted that he was out to prove a positive relation between patients conditions and prayer. He did have the honesty to admit he had failed to do so. I don't know the statistical significance, but the group of patients that was prayed for actually did worse. But again, I don't know if that was more than just statistical noise.
I qoute from the abstract:
-------------------------------------
Results: In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups.
Conclusions: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.
-------------------------------------
The study claims to be the most comprehensive ever done, covering 1802 patients in six different hospitals. And as I said, it was carried out by someone who was out to show a positive effect from prayer.
I thoroughly suspect that the research quoted by Bunting is a ton of crap, made up by people whose minds have been so poisoned by religion that they'll come up with anything. I would like to politely ask again for something in support of what Bunting says of equal or better credibility than the study I quote above (i. e. published in a peer-reviewed journal, sufficient number of patients involved to obtain good statitics, etc).