Feedback/Notes

 

Latest Activity

Stephen commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and a World in which the Most Powerful Person is a Scump News
"The Worst Possible People are in Charge at the Worst Possible Time | George Monbiot on Coronavirus"
13 minutes ago
Stephen commented on Stephen's group Secularism in the UK and Europe.and all those lucky places that doesnt have Trump as its leader
"Charity regulator to look into sale of coronavirus ‘protection kits’The charity…"
4 hours ago
Doone commented on Michel's group The Daily Cosmos or Interesting Facts about the Universe
10 hours ago
Stephen left a comment for Steve Shear
"Hello Steve, (my namesake) welcome to AU."
13 hours ago
Stephen left a comment for Steve Shear
"Click to see today's hot content on Atheist Universe. Jump here to introduce yourself Or…"
13 hours ago
Steve Shear is now a member of Atheist Universe
13 hours ago
Stephen commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
"What a hip prime minister"
14 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
15 hours ago
Doone commented on Doone's group World History before that Idiot Took Power
"Etymology of Portuguese districts. http://dlvr.it/RTTdDM"
15 hours ago
Doone commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and a World in which the Most Powerful Person is a Scump News
"A male white-faced Scump monkey "
15 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and a World in which the Most Powerful Person is a Scump News
"Especially here in BC.....with Alaska being above to the northwest, as well as the lot south of us."
17 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and a World in which the Most Powerful Person is a Scump News
"I sooooooo wish the US wasn't so close to us!"
17 hours ago
Doone commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and a World in which the Most Powerful Person is a Scump News
"Bring out your Dead so that they may Praise my Greatness"
18 hours ago
Stephen commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and a World in which the Most Powerful Person is a Scump News
"For the life of me, I will never understand why in the 21st-century guns are still a thing."
22 hours ago
Onyango Makagutu commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and a World in which the Most Powerful Person is a Scump News
"How guns and ammuniton was declared essential service is beyond me"
yesterday
Mrs.B commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and a World in which the Most Powerful Person is a Scump News
"Exactly. Essential service.....my ass!!!!"
yesterday
Stephen commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and a World in which the Most Powerful Person is a Scump News
"It's the sane people who don't buy guns that would need the toilet paper."
yesterday
Mrs.B commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and a World in which the Most Powerful Person is a Scump News
"With no access to soap & water, I guess."
yesterday
Doone commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and a World in which the Most Powerful Person is a Scump News
"Maybe they think the people with the most guns get the most toilet paper?"
yesterday
Mrs.B commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and a World in which the Most Powerful Person is a Scump News
"The US answer to everything... No...they're not waiting for groceries...or hand…"
yesterday

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

I saw this on Slate 

the full link is here

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/07/atheists_the_origi...

Know Nothing

The true history of atheism.



Illustration by Eleanor Davis.

Illustration by Eleanor Davis


Nick Spencer begins his spirited history of atheism with a fairy tale. Once upon a time, people lived in ignorant superstition, offering sacrifices to monsters in the sky. Then some clever folks used special weapons called “science” and “reason” to show that the monsters had never really existed in the first place. Some of these clever folks were killed for daring to say this, but they persevered, and now only really stupid people believe in the monsters.

Spencer’s point, of course, is that this received wisdom is naive nonsense—it gets the history of science and the nature of religious belief wrong, setting up an opposition between reason and faith that the church fathers would have found rather puzzling. (Spencer focuses on Europe, whence modern atheism arose, and hence on Judeo-Christianity.) Few historians take this myth seriously, but it retains its hold on the vulgar atheist imagination. To believe it requires the misconception that religion exists primarily to provide explanations of natural phenomena. (“You seriously believe in God?” “Well, how do you explain thunder?”)

A formal definition of religion is notoriously difficult to formulate, but it must surely involve reference to a particular way of life, practices oriented toward a conception of how one should live. “You must change your life,” as the broken statue of the god Apollo seems to say in Rilke’s poem. Science does not—it isn’t designed to—recommend approaches to what Emerson calls “the conduct of life.” Nevertheless, Richard Dawkins claims that religion “is a scientific theory,” “a competing explanation for facts about the universe and life.” This is—if you’ll forgive my theological jargon—bullshit.

Atheists weren’t always as intellectually lazy as Dawkins and his ilk.


To be sure, several scriptures offer, for instance, their own accounts of creation. But Christians have recognized the allegorical nature of these accounts since the very beginnings of Christianity. Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine—they all assumed that God’s creation was eternal, not something that unfolded in six days or any other temporal frame. In the third century Origen of Alexandria wrote:

To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a “first day” and a “second” and “third,” in which also “evening” and “morning” are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven (Gen. 1:5-13)? …. Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point toward certain mysteries.

Well, no one but Richard Dawkins. As Marilynne Robinson writes:

The notion that religion is intrinsically a crude explanatory strategy that should be dispelled and supplanted by science is based on a highly selective or tendentious reading of the literatures of religion. In some cases it is certainly fair to conclude that it is based on no reading of them at all.

Science and religion ask different questions about different things. Where religion addresses ontology, science is concerned with ontic description. Indeed, it is what Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart calls their “austere abdication of metaphysical pretensions” that enables the sciences to do their work. So when, for instance, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne and pop-cosmologist Lawrence Krauss dismiss the (metaphysical) problem of how something could emerge from nothing by pointing to the Big Bang or quantum fluctuation, it is difficult to be kind: Quantum fluctuations, the uncertainty principle, the laws of quantum physics themselves—these are something. Nothing is not quantum anything. It is nothing. Nonbeing. This, not empty space, is what “nothing” signifies for Plato and Aquinas and Heidegger, no matter what Krauss believes. No particles, no fluctuation, no laws, no principles, no potentialities, no states, no space, no time. No thing at all.

Atheists: The Origin of the Species seems to have been born out of frustration with these and other confusions perpetuated by the so-called “New Atheists” and their allies, who can’t be bothered to familiarize themselves with the traditions they traduce. Several thoughtful writers have already laid bare the slapdash know-nothingism of today’s mod-ish atheism, but Spencer’s not beating a dead horse—he’s beating a live one, in the hope that Nietzsche might rush to embrace it. Several critics have noted that if evangelical atheists (as the philosopher John Gray calls them) are ignorant of religion, as they usually are, then they aren’t truly atheists. “The knowledge of contraries is one and the same,” as Aristotle said. If your idea of God is not one that most theistic traditions would recognize, you’re not talking about God (at most, the New Atheists’ arguments are relevant to the low-hanging god of fundamentalism and deism). But even more damning is that such atheists appear ignorant of atheism as well.

For atheists weren’t always as intellectually lazy as Dawkins and his ilk. (Nor, to be sure, are many atheists today—Coyne accused me of “atheist-bashing” the last time I wrote about religion for Slate, but I really only bashed evangelical atheists like him. My father and sister, most of my friends, and many of the writers I most admire are nonbelievers. They’re also unlikely to mistake the creation myth recounted above for anything more than the dreariest parascientific thinking.) What Spencer recounts is the true history of atheism, which

had only a limited amount to do with reason and even less with science. The creation myth in which a few brave souls forged weapons made of a previously unknown material, to which the religious were relentlessly opposed, is an invention of the later nineteenth century, albeit one with ongoing popular appeal. In reality … modern atheism was primarily a political and social cause, its development in Europe having rather more to do with the (ab)use of theologically legitimized political authority than it does with developments in science or philosophy.

Views: 188

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think the author of this article must live in a theology department where he has no contact with many religious people. I know several people who believe in 6 day creation as told in the bible. To say only Dawkins believes it is to betray his ignorance.

David Hard talks of a god that am certain most christians will not be able to recognize.

Deism developed as aresult of abuse of political power. Atheism, if anyone is to look at the earliest tracks like those of Messlier had a lot to do with philosophy and reason than politics. This fellow is truly ignorant. Sadly he calls atheists ignorant.

RSS

© 2020   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service