[About the motivational poster: It's a double-entendre.]
I think about atheism more than probably most people, perhaps because I have friends who are atheists. I am interested in their motivations and thought processes. I also find some of the philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God somewhat intriguing, although I’m not one to hang my hat on any particular philosophical argument. For that matter, I don’t think many people do – including many who say they do. I suspect that on either side of the question, philosophical arguments are often merely comforting myths and bedtime stories, meant to put our minds to rest. (Real faith, on the other hand, is something much deeper.) For both of the above reasons, over the past few years I’ve read some of the top-selling atheist books (which I’ve reviewed here occasionally), and I’ve been subscribing to some of the better atheist blogs.
Overall, I’m quite disappointed in the state of modern atheism.
I had expected to find new and fresh thinking – after all, these are the self-proclaimed free-thinkers and intellectuals – but instead have found that there’s very little free-thinking or deep-thinking going on. An exception would be someone like Bradley Monton, who is perhaps more of a free-thinker than most atheists prefer. What I typically find are ad-hominems, straw-men (or straw-gods), false appeals to authority, question-begging, hand-waving, red herrings and a lot of bluster. Much of the time it seems atheists are merely trying to prove to themselves that they haven’t missed something; at least that’s how it often comes across.
Frankly, I’m bored with it. Real philosophy and theology are so much more interesting. Unless atheism starts going outside the “why evangelical Christianity and modernism don’t mix” box, it’s pretty much a waste of time (I would tend to agree that they don’t mix, anyway). Most “de-conversion” stories I’ve read seem to result from failed attempts to rationalize Christianity with modernism, which is in my opinion an exercise in futility.
I have a theory that if many of these deconverts had looked to a pre-modern faith – say, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism or even Anglicanism – they would not have deconverted. From reading various deconversion “testimonies,” it seems that most issues – when they weren’t simply moral issues – had to do with disillusionment with a Christianity that wanted badly to fit within a rather small modernist box. Exposure to a Christianity which disregards that box, or at least downplays its importance, may have actually opened their minds rather than closing them to anything spiritual. But, I could be wrong. If people were highly committed modernists, which many atheists seem to be, perhaps that is barrier enough to any sort of religious influence.
But I digress.
Atheistic arguments that target modern, redacted versions of Christianity are typically uninspiring and unproductive. Besides being bored with the repetitive atheistic responses, I have no desire to argue for a modernist version of Christianity. So, you see, I find most of the discussions rather inane. While some atheist blogs will do what they can to keep the dream alive, I probably won’t even bother to read or comment about them any longer (unless I run across anything out of the ordinary). If someone says something remarkable, feel free to let me know.
In the meantime, I’ll continue studying and writing on more substantial issues, such as continuing my series examining the differences between Western and Eastern Christianity, as well as tossing in the occasional post on atheism, because sometimes I just can’t help myself.
14 Comments
at 5:11 am - 17th December 2009 Permalink
First and foremost, atheism is a reactive statement against the assumption that we must have “faith” in order to be fully actualized people, it is a reaction to the institutionalized ideal that religion provides the framework or guidance for morals and ethics. We know that this isn’t so, and we must continually show why it isn’t so because of the harmful effects that moral absolutism has on society and individuals.
Whatever level of atheism one explores, underlying it all is s recognition that we just don’t believe in an overriding supernatural actor, whatever name that actor is given.
The popularized books of the New Atheists my disappoint you because you expect them to be written for a different audience than they are intended; and while some atheists such as Ruse and Pigliucci may look at them with disdain I am sure that you also look at disdain with the empty bromidism that makes up the books of such people like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen.
They have a larger audience than ever before, because of the fact that more and more, unbelievers are finding out they are not alone in their unbelief and if you find that the popular books are not intellectually satisfying keep in mind that the larger majority of Christians that we encounter are also continually re-treading such arguments on why we should be religious are very old and very weak and we need to be able to strengthen our defenses against them.
Like it or not, most Christians don’t wonder about the differences between Eastern Orthodox religions and the historical nature of the development of the liturgical churches. Most of the ones that I encounter just rest on the idea that since the world has such a strong appearance of “design” (because they really don’t understand how we know that design is not a demonstrated property of the universe and life,) and they don’t care to learn because it challenges their faith. These are the sorts of Christians we largely meet and interact with on a daily basis.
This is why Ruse is so wrong on resting on his laurels as a leading intellectual atheists who just wants to be buddy-buddy with the bishops and jesuits and all of the intellectual elites of religion, that he and his class should be the voices of atheism. He runs in different circles. He is not the one who on work breaks listens to people give shallow defenses of religion based on ideas that we just know are disproven. We deal with people in our every day lives who insist that DNA is like a computer program and that means that there had to be a programmer.
The books of the popularizers help on the level for which they are intended.
Finally, I am not super impressed by your disdain for popular atheism because I have areas of experience and knowledge in which you make pronouncements indicating that you have decided that things are a certain way based on sadly incomplete information and you have not demonstrated a willingness to further your understanding, seeing the issues through the lens of legal argumentation rather than through processing from a scientific or skeptical viewpoint.
You think that Intelligent Design has merit, but are not willing to find out why it is so vapid; and instead merely decided that while micro-evolution is acceptable macro-evolution is not without bothering to find a demonstration or even a hypothesis on why this is so.
You think that the conspiracy-theorists who are behind climate change denialism have merit because they found a bunch of e-mails that they were then able to broadcast out of context and think that “hide the decline” is a proof of some sort of grab for power by climatologists when I pointed to you the full explanation of the issue behind the tree ring data discussed in that.
But to follow that would invite too much intellectual rigor on your part, and you can’t be bothered because it also involves that easily dismissed “modernism.”
So in the areas in which you wander and have no expertise, you show and wallow in a profound level of happy ignorance. And because of this I welcome you to pursue your interest in the theological histories of the church and you can leave the inane to us intellectual lightweights.
Just don’t be surprised if I write stuff that attacks the “inane” level of Christianity that you don’t think that I run into. ALL THE TIME.
at 6:52 am - 17th December 2009 Permalink
I feel terribly sad for atheists.
They are correct, though.
For them, there is no God, and the darkness of a nothingness imagined will be their reality.
at 9:24 am - 17th December 2009 Permalink
According to the Random House Dictionary, atheism is “the doctrine or belief that there is no God.” You can make it into a cause if you want, but I’m just sticking to the basic belief that there is no God.
Interesting that you always tie science to atheism.
But, the point remains that no matter what the audience, most atheists I’ve read simply have nothing to say. I wouldn’t mind if they merely spoke from personal experience (or lack thereof), but when they claim to be experts, I expect at least a well-reasoned position.
And by the way, I happen to be a big Joel Osteen fan…
at 12:15 pm - 17th December 2009 Permalink
First, Steve, thanks but no thanks on your sympathy. I am much happier as an atheist than somebody who feels like they need to be “perfected.”
Hope you picked the right religion, btw, out of the thousands that claim to be the only true one. Pascal invented the roulette wheel.
Alden, you don’t even understand what the Old Atheists write about, so why should anybody care if you like the new ones?
I deal with idiots like Steve on a regular basis, people who really have no clue. And I know better about atheism than what you can find in a dictionary.
at 1:27 pm - 17th December 2009 Permalink
Does “FCD” stand for “Ferociously Condescending Dilbert,” “Funny Cognitive Disability,” or “Finally Crapped his Drawers”?
at 2:09 pm - 17th December 2009 Permalink
An example of what I’m talking about here.
at 2:15 pm - 17th December 2009 Permalink
No Fred, it stands for don’t condescend to me, and then take offense when I am condescending in return. Atheist accommodationists want us to be nicey-nicey with religious folks but I see no reason to be nice to the likes of idiots like Steve Martin.
at 9:48 pm - 17th December 2009 Permalink
I’ll feel sad for whom I’ll feel sad for, Mike.
My feelings are really none of your business.
at 6:02 am - 18th December 2009 Permalink
Well, I feel sad for you, then, wasting your time on misguided concerns.
at 7:28 am - 18th December 2009 Permalink
So be it, Mike.
at 9:10 am - 18th December 2009 Permalink
Does this mean the show’s over? Dang.
I guess there’s always roller derby.
at 9:14 am - 18th December 2009 Permalink
Or this?
at 2:52 pm - 28th January 2010 Permalink
Don’t believe a word Mike Haubrich says, he’s a pathological liar, a sadistic, twisted human being, and a know it all jerk. His opinions aren’t worth a thing. Believe me, I’m unfortunately to know this first hand. You don’t have to worry about his soul, he doesn’t have one.
at 4:37 pm - 28th January 2010 Permalink
Terry, I don’t know who you are, but I’ve known Mike for many, many years. We’ve debated a number of issues, and while we disagree much of the time, his opinions are valid and worthwhile. I know Mike to be a caring, sensitive human being.
I typically don’t allow ad hominems on my site, and won’t allow any more from you. I allowed this one only so I could support Mike. If you’d like to discuss the issues at hand, fine. If you’re just going to bash my friends, I can suggest a few things for you to do instead.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks 2
[...] aldenswan.com » Blog Archive » Atheism: nothing new under the sun [...]
[...] but I ran across this post and I felt that it met the criteria to warrant a mention here, and as I said, sometimes I just can’t help myself, even on Christmas morning (at [...]
Post a Comment