An agnostic and an atheist critique "popular athiesm"

[SeattleUte]

I enjoyed the two articles linked below. Apparently Evangelicals' higher profile in government with the Bush administration, and the increasing importance of radical Islam, have spawned various books some have begun to call "popular atheism." Both of these articles critique popular atheism on the grund that its critique of religion is nearly as lacking in systematic philosophical approach and empericism, and/or rife with chauvenism, as the very religions that they decry.

There are also some interesting subtleties in the articles. They demonstrate or confirm my point that there is not much if any difference between an avowed athiest and a self-proclaimed agnostic. Both groups primarily reject the Judeo-Christian God as absurd and wholly lacking in rational or evidentiary basis. But that is all they essentially reject--the Judeo Christian God. Note that Sam Harris, author of "Letter to a Christian Nation" and "The End of Faith," turns out to be a Buddhist. James Wood, the author of the second linked article, calls this Harris' "dirty little secret." Wood has quite a lot of fun critiquing Harris' assertion that Buddhism, in contrast to Judeo-Christianity, is thoruoghly supported by science and reason.

My favorite passage in the two articles is the point made by H. Allen Orr, author of the first linked article, that in analyzing whether we'd be "better off" if there were no religions, famed evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Dellusion," ignores that much of what Dawkins (an Oxford don) defines as "better of" in the first instance has in fact been shaped by our Judeo-Christian tradition (Orr is the professed agnostic).

But as the atheist James Wood concedes, no atheist can know what occurred before the Big Bang, just as and for the very reason that atheists are convinced that no Christian--indeed no one--can know such a thing. And so all (thoughtful) atheists and agnostics seem to have these two hallmarks in common: rejection of the Judeo-Christian god as patently fanciful, and acknowledged ignorance about what preceded the Big Bang. As I said, Atheism is more a mindset, a refusal to conjecture about what can't be experienced with the (carnal) senses. It is most emphatically not a faith like conviction in the absense of God. It is a dicipline (materialism, essentially) refusing to ackowledge the possibility of what can't be seen, touched, etc. But Atheism, like homosexuality, is a scary word, giving rise to stigma, apparently as a practical matter even disqualifying anyone calling themselves such a thing from ever being elected president. So more often than not such people call themselves agnostics.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775?email

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061218&s=wood121806

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting post. Thanks for that.

Two minor points:

1) "acknowledged ignorance about what preceded the Big Bang". I doubt you meant it this way, but it almost implies that everything after the Big Bang is discoverable. Not by a long shot.

2) You said: "It is most emphatically not a faith like conviction in the absense of God. It is a dicipline (materialism, essentially) refusing to ackowledge the possibility of what can't be seen, touched, etc." Do you not see any irony in the juxtapositioning of those two sentences? I still see classical atheism as a form of arrogance. I.e., "I refuse to acknowledge the possibility of something I personally have not experienced."

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Interesting post. Thanks for that.

Two minor points:

1) "acknowledged ignorance about what preceded the Big Bang". I doubt you meant it this way, but it almost implies that everything after the Big Bang is discoverable. Not by a long shot.

2) You said: "It is most emphatically not a faith like conviction in the absense of God. It is a dicipline (materialism, essentially) refusing to ackowledge the possibility of what can't be seen, touched, etc." Do you not see any irony in the juxtapositioning of those two sentences? I still see classical atheism as a form of arrogance. I.e., "I refuse to acknowledge the possibility of something I personally have not experienced."

I don't really see irony because saying all you know is what you can physically sense is the antithesis of faith.

[BarbaraGordon]

Yeah, the atheists and humanists have been spurred into action by the sweeping evangelical movement.

The husband and I have been reading quite a bit of the material coming out of this counter-movement.

Really quite fascinating intellectually.


Incidentally, I have never seen or heard any indication that Harris is Buddhist, although he does practice transcendental meditation and embrace certain elements of Buddhist morality.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just finished reading the articles.

Your first link requires a subscription, so we can only see the intro.

Your second link (by Orr) was indeed a fascinating article. I highly recommend it to other CG readers.

[BarbaraGordon]

JL:

Here is full article, sans subscription.


http://www.powells.com/review/2006_12_14

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Just finished reading the articles.

Your first link requires a subscription, so we can only see the intro.

Your second link (by Orr) was indeed a fascinating article. I highly recommend it to other CG readers.

Speaking of irony here it is on Sam Harris' we site (he's a good sport, apparently):

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_t...estial-teapot/

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Interesting post. Thanks for that.

Two minor points:

1) "acknowledged ignorance about what preceded the Big Bang". I doubt you meant it this way, but it almost implies that everything after the Big Bang is discoverable. Not by a long shot."

I agre with this but reason tells us that God or any eternal being must reside outside the ambit of the Big Bang. As I've stated, the idea of God residing on a planet seems parocial to me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't really see irony because saying all you know is what you can physically sense is the antithesis of faith.

True, but that's not my point (Lebowski pauses here to wonder why he ever gets into discussions with attorneys who can easily kick his ass in any argument). My point is: it seems like one of the first things a rational person would concede is that there are countless things that are beyond one's direct experience. It just seem odd to me to conclude that "if I can't see it, it can't be." I still maintain that the agnostic viewpoint seems more defensible intellectually. To me, anyway.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

True, but that's not my point (Lebowski pauses here to wonder why he ever gets into discussions with attorneys who can easily kick his ass in any argument). My point is: it seems like one of the first things a rational person would concede is that there are countless things that are beyond one's direct experience. It just seem odd to me to conclude that "if I can't see it, it can't be." I still maintain that the agnostic viewpoint seems more defensible intellectually. To me, anyway.

I believe you are correct. Many of the well-known atheists will not claim that there cannot be a god. The just claim that they see no scientific evidence and therefore they do not believe there is a god.

The difference with Harris and Dawkins and a few select others is that they honestly believe religion/theism is a scourge to be eliminated.