Feedback/Notes

 

Latest Activity

Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"The whole thing [religion] is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a…"
13 hours ago
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Ayumimori
""Happy Birthday!""
20 hours ago
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's blog post What Happens Next Time?
"Considering that the death toll at Pearl Harbor as a result of the Japanese attack was over 2,400,…"
yesterday
Onyango M commented on Loren Miller's blog post What Happens Next Time?
"was the attack on PH unexpected? Was it really a surprise? a provocation? or a response ?"
yesterday
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. -- Rosa Luxemburg It always seems to start out that…"
yesterday
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Amie Nicole
""Happy Birthday!"P.S:Personally I like the term dreamwalker myself."
yesterday
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's blog post What Happens Next Time?
"Very true, Randall.  The Missiles of October were more of a diplomatic and cold-war…"
Thursday
Randall Smith commented on Loren Miller's blog post What Happens Next Time?
"T What became known as the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was another such surprise. The result…"
Thursday
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"If you want your life to mean something, try making someone else's life meaningful. -- Aron Ra…"
Thursday
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Christine
""Happy Birthday!""
Thursday
Mrs.B commented on Neil Weightman's group Atheist Cat Servants
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"Katharine Hepburn. A grand lady"
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie commented on Loren Miller's blog post What Happens Next Time?
"Interesting Loren. Thank you"
Wednesday
Loren Miller posted a blog post

What Happens Next Time?

Surprises generally only work ONCE, especially if they are UNPLEASANT surprises or worse, hostile,…See More
Wednesday
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"How could any Lord have made this world?... there is no reason, order, justice: but suffering,…"
Wednesday
RichardtheRaelian left a comment for Hannah
""Happy Birthday!""
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"WOTMQ: It's Not In There"
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"WOTM: Walking On Water"
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"PragerFU: Young People Leaving Religion, Part I"
Wednesday
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"PragerFU: Young People Leaving Religion, Part II"
Wednesday

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: 207

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

© 2023   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

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