Well, is that so. I’ve never mixed with them. If the New Atheists help some of those types, then more strength to them.

In the 90’s, there was a Dinosaurs in Genesis billboard on a route I used to drive regularly. I was amused to learn that that guy, Ken Ham, had to re-locate to Kentucky to get an audience. Sure wasn’t going to get one in Sydney.

But this is a philosophy forum, and the New Atheists have poor understanding of philosophy generally, and philosophy of religion in particular. I could go through it all line by line, but life’s too short.

think the alleged New Atheists were brash and strident and unacademic and pithy and polemical and for the most part they got their pitch right. — Tom Storm

They were just a rehash of Comte's tired positivism. Their pitch was wrong in the sense that it was an ineffective caricature. I am not against caricatures. They have a role to play when well crafted and effective in a "truer than truth" kind of way. But a contempt-drooling caricature is rarely effective. Not a single Muslim fundamentalist, or Jewish or Christian for that matter, was ever deterred or convinced by their pro domo arguments. On the contrary, I suspect that their aggressive form of no-godism put off quite a few well-meaning folks among their audience.

More importantly, there are political consequences to the death of the god(s): the French revolutionary terror, Stalin, Hitler, are reminders that men need ethics and that historically their ethics was derived from religion. So once religion is dead (at least for the West, it is), whence come ethics?

Clue: certainly not from constant bashing of religion. More from learning a thing or two from religion.

I could go through it all line by line, but life’s too short. — Wayfarer

No one has time. I know that basic atheist arguments have helped a lot of people so I don't think we can write these guys off, even if you and others think the work is beneath you intellectually. I think of it as a reasonable starting point if someone wants to explore further. Most of it is just footnotes to Russell's Why I am Not A Christian from the late 1920's. Gave a lot of people their start in ideas.

I personally wouldn't give a toss about belief systems but certain theists keep trying to change laws and politics to suit their unfounded beliefs and I don't much care for this.

"What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists," Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. "Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind."

He agreed with some of Dawkins' thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief, but he was unhappy with the evolutionary biologist's approach to dealing with believers and said he agreed with those who found Dawkins' approach "embarrassing". — Peter Higgs, quoted in The Guardian

once religion is dead (at least for the West, it is), whence come ethics? — Olivier5

That’s the salient point. When I did interact on the Dawkins forum, I asked them, OK what do you have to replace it? Evolutionary biology? What are the implications of that? Even Dawkins, when asked, agrees that Darwinian principles are a terrible basis for any kind of morals philosophy. (When I saw him acknowledge that on a TV debate my respect for him went up a notch.)

The unfortunate fact in Western culture is that much of the best of ‘pagan philosophy’ was incorporated into Christian theology by the Greek-speaking, early Christian theologians. So the rejection of Christianity often amounts, in effect, to the rejection of many elements of traditional philosophy along with it. Replaced with a vague acceptance that ‘whatever helps us exist’ comprises some kind of moral compass.

They were just a rehash of Comte's tired positivism. Their pitch was wrong in the sense that it was an ineffective caricature. I am not against caricatures. — Olivier5

The arguments presented are actually pretty much those of Bertrand Russell as I stated above.

Not a single Muslim fundamentalist, or Jewish or Christian for that matter, was ever deterred or convinced by their pro domo arguments. On the contrary, I suspect that their aggressive form of no-godism put off quite a few well-meaning folks among their audience. — Olivier5

Untrue. If you talk to the counsellors at Recovering From Religion many people actually come to them via abusive fundamentalism because of Dawkins and Co's arguments. I've met a number of people who were fundamentalists and de-converted following exposure to Hitchens, Harris and co, amongst other things.

More importantly, there are political consequences to the death of the god(s): the French revolutionary terror, Stalin, Hitler, are reminders that men need ethics and that historically their ethics was derived from religion. So once religion is dead (at least for the West, it is), whence come ethics? — Olivier5

Nonsense. This has been addressed in other threads. Religion's consequences: witch-trials, shunning of gay people, anti-semitism, pogroms, Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of men of learning, slavery and numerous wars. The Nazi's had significant support from Christians and even had 'God with Us' on army belt buckles.

That’s the salient point. When I did interact on the Dawkins forum, I asked them, OK what do you have to replace it? Evolutionary biology? What are the implications of that? Even Dawkins, when asked, agrees that Darwinian principles are a terrible basis for any kind of morals philosophy. (When I saw him acknowledge that on a TV debate my respect for him went up a notch.) — Wayfarer

Dawkins has made many different comments on ethics over the years. He generally does not recommend Darwinism when it comes to ethics. Usually a simple minded utilitarianism.

The point is what religious ethical system do you recommend and why?

Religious ethics are generally based on subjective interpretations made by the believer or upon the views of particular sect/school. Hence the often hateful sectarian divisions and many schisms and isms. There's not a problem faced by secular ethics that religious ethics doesn't share.

How do people come to agreement about matters like capital punishment, abortion, gun ownership, the role of women, gay rights, human rights, etc? Religions disagree about these matters very much. Many advocate nasty prejudicial world views. Looks to me that our primary tool is reason to sort this one out.

As the progressives have lost their vision for the future, and turned into managers of the status quo, — Echarmion

I'm not sure they ever had a vision for the future except improving their own bank balance. Liberalism was started by the commercial classes that wanted more profit for themselves and less for the clergy and aristocracy.

[Dawkins] generally does not recommend Darwinism when it comes to ethics. Usually a simple minded utilitarianism. — Tom Storm

But one implies the other. The morality that is implicit in Darwinian theory is always best described by what Herbert Spencer says - 'survival of the fittest'. How can it be anything other than utilitarian? (I know that phrase wasn't in the first edition of OoS but Darwin approved it and it was in later editions.)

The point is what religious ethical system do you recommend and why? — Tom Storm

I recommend that individuals deeply scrutinise that question and try and come to the best possible decision.

How do people come to agreement about matters like capital punishment, abortion, gun ownership, the role of women, gay rights, human rights, etc? — Tom Storm

With great difficulty, and in the full knowledge that not everyone can be right.

certain theists keep trying to change laws and politics to suit their unfounded beliefs — Tom Storm

'Unfounded' according to what criterion? That no double-blind, peer-reviewed papers exist on them? Don't fall for positivism, that only what can be validated according to scientific criteria ought to be considered real.

Of course it is a painful truth that religious delusions exist, and that there are religious believers who are profoundly and tragically mistaken in their beliefs. But as the critics of the new atheists point out, many of the greatest crimes against humanity of the twentieth century were committed by atheists.

But one implies the other. — Wayfarer

Only if you derive an ought from an is.

'Unfounded' according to what criterion? That no double-blind, peer-reviewed papers exist on them? — Wayfarer

I'm talking about Bible believing literalist Christians and infallible word of God Koran believing Muslims. Plenty of evidence that their beliefs are unfounded. Mere archeology will do for that.

But as the critics of the new atheists point out, many of the greatest crimes against humanity of the twentieth century were committed by atheists. — Wayfarer

Well the Christians were responsible for the crimes of a dozen or more centuries or so before that.

I recommend that individuals deeply scrutinise that question and try and come to the best possible decision. — Wayfarer

Sensible. But as soon as someone responds via a guru or a pastor or a mullah the trouble begins.

But for the most part we agree. Except that silly stuff about the hyperuranion... :joke:

thanks! Never heard that word before.

45% think it is necessary to have faith in a God in order to be moral. — Banno

God has nothing to do with morals, its only the religous teachings of morals that were made by humans.
I call post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Even if God exists it has no meaning to how we or any other living thing lives.

The unfortunate fact in Western culture is that much of the best of ‘pagan philosophy’ was incorporated into Christian theology by the Greek-speaking, early Christian theologians. So the rejection of Christianity often amounts, in effect, to the rejection of many elements of traditional philosophy along with it. — Wayfarer

Interesting observation. I suppose one could say something similar about al-Fārābī, Avicenna and Maimonides, two Muslims and one Jew among many many others who built upon Aristotle and Plato within their own religious framework. Note that the Greek philosophers were often monotheist, at least in the way they wrote about God, so their incorporation into a monotheist faith is not particularly problematic from that standpoint.

Context matters. The "New Atheists" ascended briefly to prominence in the wake of "9-11" and rhetorical climate of the "Axis of Evil" and then enjoyed extended life with the advent "God debate" videos on YouTube and social media forums. I was a fan of Hitchens and Dennett before they kicked off this "movement" (not so much Dawkins since I had preferred SJ Gould & EO Wilson years before); Sam Harris was new to me (I immediately loathed him and still do) but Victor Stenger was, in a manner of speaking, a godsend.

It was clear to me right from the beginning that these media-branded "New Atheists" are mostly polemical irreligionists (or militant secularists) who were occasionally amusing, rarely insightful, outrageously rhetorical, theologically shallow sophists (hucksters?). Dennett knew better, shamefully tongue-in-cheek exploited the Islamophobic anti-fundie moment, mostly I think, to pump sales of his philosophical back-catalogue, which was disappointingly crass. FTG. Hitchens remained true to form: a sing-for-his-supper contrarian performer and master phrase-turner with a singular wit (I do miss him).

Stenger, though, was the only one of them who rose to the occasion with masterful philosophical critiques of religious theism and woo-of-the-gaps misuses of science (& pseudo-scientific abuses) informed by contemporary physics which was his day job. I owe my giant step up from weak atheism to strong atheism almost two decades ago to Stenger's pre-2000 (pre-"New Atheism") essays and books. (My current antitheist atheism is also Stengerian too.) Btw, he (the particle physicist emeritus) was the only one of that 'angry gang of anti-religion hustlers' to wholeheartedly embrace the "New Atheist" branding.

Another godless troubadour from the naughty aughts who I grew to esteem for his intellectual care and humility, as well as his eminently witty charm, was the late great, physician comedian and stage director Jonathan Miller. His six-part documentary "A Rough History of Disbelief" has none of that hustling, facile, whiff of "New Atheism" and so I recommend it to those less inclined to read arguments for / against theism whenever it's appropriate to do so. (For instance, my devoutly and principled Catholic mother actually appreciated Miller's presentation, and for the first time in 30 years (then, a decade ago) told me Miller's documentary showed her that my disbelief was not arbitrary as she'd thought)

I do not defend "New Atheism" or decry its partisans' unfortunate lapses into bloviating sophistry; like @Tom Storm, I note that in some quarters here in America as a social phenomenon, or movement, it has been of positive use to many young people struggling to free themselves of toxic, blinkered, religious upbringing and dogmatic ignorance of contemporary science, ethics, cultural and cosmopolity. I, for one, don't mind "believers" and "woo woo-thumpers" strawmanning me with the poorly thought-through arguments made by Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens; I always give back as least as good as I get in these running "god skirmishes", and the notional exercises are often worth the laughs.

I've met a number of people who were fundamentalists and de-converted following exposure to Hitchens, Harris and co, amongst other things. — Tom Storm

That's news to me, and I would like to read some testimonials if you know of any.

Religion's consequences: witch-trials, shunning of gay people, anti-semitism, pogroms, Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of men of learning, slavery and numerous wars. The Nazi's had significant support from Christians and even had 'God with Us' on army belt buckles. — Tom Storm

That's a tangent. My point is rather that, now that "God is dead", we need a secular form (or several) of ethics. This point is not nonsense. It is essential to our civilization's survival. And it has zilch to do with a comparison between the crimes committed by atheists vs those committed by religious folks.

The rejection of the judeo-christian tradition by the Nazis is what allowed them to do what they did. I am not rooting for a return of the inquisition, just flagging that during the 20th century the freedom from religious tradition afforded by Marx and Nietzsche, combined with the immense powers generated by science and technology lead to both positive and negative consequences.

We have yet to learn how to use our new powers, before we blow ourselves off this planet misusing them. A new ethics is what we need. It needs to be rooted in some respect for the human person. In some respect for life, including non-human life. And no materialist philosophy will ever explain to you why a bee, a flower, or a child are inherently far more worthy of love and respect than any machine, however sophisticated.

Nice. I discovered Stenger way too late in all this.

The morality that is implicit in Darwinian theory is always best described by what Herbert Spencer says - 'survival of the fittest'. — Wayfarer

Scentistic category error, Wayf. C'mon, even you know better ...

'Evolution' applies to groups, not individuals -  genes, species & ecologies (Darwin), not organisms & persons (Spenser) - the latter merely expressing traits adapted to proliferating the former. — 180 Proof

The rejection of the judeo-christian tradition by the Nazis is what allowed them to do what they did — Olivier5

I don't see how you can argue that when the Nazi's drew on centuries of Christianity's antisemitism even Martin Luther's well known fulminations against Jews. Not to mention a 99% Christian nation supported Hitler. Of course, anti-communism and nationalism played a role too.

From Article 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform:
The Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit at home and abroad and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only be achieved from within on the basis of the common good before individual good."

:sweat: Great minds, huh ... :up:

The rejection of the judeo-christian tradition by the Nazis is what allowed them to do what they did. — Olivier5

GOTT MIT UNS on the belt buckles of the Wehrmacht forces convincingly suggests otherwise. And Austro-Bavaria, which was the heartland of Nazism – was then, as it still is today, conservatively Catholic – and contributed a very great share of its sons brothers & fathers to the Nazi cause. Considered in historical context, fascism means nothing if not right-wing Catholicism (e.g. Franco's Falange, Mussolini's Fasci, Greek National Union, Belgian Christus Rex, etc). Let's forget the several centuries old bloody legacy of the very "judeo-christian" Holy Inquisition, antisemitic pogroms, forced conversions, slave trade ... all with the blessing and instigation of Holy Mother Church for "the greater glory of Our Lord". Deus fuckin' volt.

don't see how you can argue that when the Nazi's drew on centuries of Christianity's antisemitism even Martin Luther's well known fulminations against Jews. — Tom Storm

Centuries during which the Church was more often than not trying to protect Jews from the greed of the powerful and the prejudice of the masses.

Not to mention a 99% Christian nation supported Hitler.

So, since China is in majority atheist and their people support a ruthless and racist dictatorship, it reflects poorly on atheism?

even Martin Luther's well known fulminations against Jews

Just because warmongers often brandish religious reasons does not mean they are motivated by religion. The Nazis used Martin Luther to rally the masses, instrumentally, like they used Darwin or Wagner. It does not follow that their ideology was inherently Lutheran, Darwinian or Wagnerian.

GOTT MIT UNS on the belt buckles of the Wehrmacht forces convincingly suggests otherwise. — 180 Proof

Are you sure this detail was introduced by the Nazis? It could just as well be a pre-existing German tradition.

Edit (from Wiki):

At the time of the completion of German unification in 1871, the imperial standard bore the motto Gott mit uns on the arms of an Iron Cross.[4] Imperial German 3 and 5 mark silver and 20 mark gold coins had Gott mit uns inscribed on their edge.

German soldiers had Gott mit uns inscribed on their belt buckles in the First World War.[5] The slogan entered the mindset on both sides; in 1916 a cartoon was printed in the New York Tribune captioned "Gott Mit Uns!", showing "a German officer in spiked helmet holding a smoking revolver as he stood over the bleeding form of a nurse. It symbolized the rising popular demand that the United States shed its neutrality".[6]

In June 1920 George Grosz produced a lithographic collection in three editions entitled Gott mit uns. A satire on German society and the counterrevolution, the collection was swiftly banned. Grosz was charged with insulting the army, which resulted in a 300 German Mark fine and the destruction of the collection.[7]

During the Second World War Wehrmacht soldiers once again wore this slogan on their belt buckles,[8] as opposed to members of the Waffen SS, who wore the motto Meine Ehre heißt Treue ('My honour is loyalty').[9] After the war the motto was also used by the Bundeswehr and German police. It was replaced with "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" ("Unity and Justice and Freedom") in 1962 (police within the 1970s),

Stenger, though, was only one of them who rose to the occasion with masterful philosophical critiques of religious theism — 180 Proof

Luke Barnes vs Victor Stenger for those interested.

It's an old German tradition which acknowledges the judeo-christian tradition of "just war" that was adopted by the Nazis (re: "destiny" in Mein Kampf).

:rofl:

This whole thread is a straw man. What respectable moral philosopher has ever argued that belief in God is necessary for doing good? It's just stupid. You might as well have a thread 'belief in God as necessary for eating cheese'. Just silly. Really silly.

Of course it was an existing Prussian tradition from the 1800s.

"Imperial Germany had come via war and political intrigue to creation in 1871 after a successful Prussian conflict with France. Like all other countries involved in the conflict, they believed that God was on their side, hence “Gott Mit Uns” (“God is with us”) stamped on the belt buckle of every Prussian (but not German) infantryman. Prussia was the biggest state of this Empire and had a majority of people who were rather militant Protestants"

http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/religion/gott-mit-uns/

I think you read too much into it. The old uniforms had it and the Nazis didn't order the army to change it to a new model. That's all there is.

My point remains that it is harder to imagine, plan and implement the murder of millions of people on an industrial scale -- e.g. the Holocaust -- within a traditional Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim) context than it is to do so within a secular context.

You might as well have a thread 'belief in God as necessary for eating cheese'. — Bartricks

Blessed are the Cheesemakers, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Meine Ehre heißt Treue

"My honour is called expensive", direct translation. They assimilated some things from the Jews whom they aimed to eradicate: they bought Ehre (honour) wholesale, and sold it retail. Unfortunately for Hitler, the wholesale price was high when the SS bought theirs, so they could not get rid of it at a profit. Hence, total economic, military and moral collapse of the Third Reich.

My point is rather that, now that "God is dead", we need a secular form (or several) of ethics. — Olivier5

Why? Law in an orderly country like the USA takes care of the lost religious ethics.

In communist countries the ethic dictates of religion were uprooted. There was a lot of fornication throughout the land. Abortions were legalized. Divorces became easy to get. Theft was rampant, almost to the tune of being a national sport.

Interestingly, lying was not encouraged, and so was not murder. Greed was curtailed much more stringently than in the most religious countries. Charity and the binding up of the broken was de-privatized and put in the hand of the state.

So in retrospect, they enforced about the same number of so-called "christian" ethics there as they freed up from needing to heed to; and they were the negative imprint of the Western, American model. In America people don't cheat on their spouses, and single people refrain from being overly promiscuous. They don't steal, and they don't commit fetus murders. But post partum murder rate is 14 times that of what it used to be in Hungary in communist time. Charity is almost non-existent in the USA, when it comes to healing the sick. Everyone lies in America, from the last one-man self-employed businessman, to the largest insurance companies, to the organized media big time, and since Nixon, the presidents don't shy away from it either.

So don't give me that fucking bullshit that god is needed for morality. America is fucking goddamned christian, and their jails are more full of criminals (immorally acting people) than jails in any other country.

Fucking Christian God-enforced goddamned morals... my ass.

1) you need a conscience to be good

2) God is your conscience

3) you need God to good

There are good people in the world.

Why? Law in an orderly country like the USA takes care of the lost religious ethics. — god must be atheist

For instance, to justify the need for the rule of law, its importance and value.