Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1 I finally figured out the major flaw with the New Atheists 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,974
    I have always thought that the New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, were missing something logically in their arguments. I finally figured it out tonight.

    Both Dawkins and Hitchens want an end to religion, which they see as pathological. Hitchens himself once said that it was time for humans to let go of these "stone age myths" and evolve. The problem for me is that I thought I had heard that argument before. And I had--in the work of the 18th century philosophes. (I'll get to that in a minute.)

    Here's the problem: the New Atheists believe that moral behavior comes from human evolution, not religious training (or the God represented in that training). The idea is that certain human traits, like empathy or cooperativeness (or even philosophical logic), are part of the genetic inheritance and lead to moral behavior on their own, without the training of religion. However, the problem is that these traits will vary in human beings. Science has made it clear that humans differ in the amount and distribution of their traits, and that these are chemical phenomena. Studies have shown that traits like risk taking vary across genders, for example.

    If we assume that genetic traits like empathy and cooperativeness are related to moral or ethical behavior, we then have a problem. Traits differ in people, and, like everything else in the natural world, they most likely fall along a Gaussian distribution--a normal curve. Some people will be very empathetic, for example, while, at the other end of the scale, you'll have your sociopaths. In between will be the rest of us with varying degrees of empathy, with some more empathetic and some a great deal less. If this trait is related to moral behavior, then relying strictly on the genetic endowment does not offer a stable outcome for a moral society, or even a halfway moral one.

    In other words, evolution, based on the genetic endowment, is not a reasonable substitute for religious/moral training in childhood. Yet, the New Atheists speak as if religion just needs to be removed from society and everyone will be much better people. Of course, these atheists completely disregard the moral training provided by parents--especially mothers--on an hourly basis to their children. But I realized that the New Atheists remind me of Jean Jacques Rousseau. an 18th century philosophe. Remember his "man is born free, but is everywhere in chains"? The New Atheists feel that religion is the chains, that, if removed, would immediately let out the good person (via genetic endowment). However, Rousseau's Enlightenment era argument that the removal of cultural constraints would lead to the pure, good human being--the noble savage--was shown to be greatly mistaken. If you remember the Wolf Boy from Aveyron France (1799), the finding of this young pre-teen greatly challenged the idea of the noble savage. Put out by his parents, the baby boy was picked up by a wolf pack and was raised by them. When researchers found the boy, he was biologically human but culturally a wolf. He was not some superior human, but an animal with no language or recognizably human behaviors.

    The New Atheists have the same problem as the Enlightenment philosophes: if they take away religion, they will not get a more noble human with more moral behavior. They will get a human trained by something other than religion: the public school, the media, the internet, etc. (our 21st century wolves). In other words, if the New Atheists get what they want, they will be replacing God the Father with god the state/popular culture. Perhaps that is their end goal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    I have always thought that the New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, were missing something logically in their arguments. I finally figured it out tonight.

    Both Dawkins and Hitchens want an end to religion, which they see as pathological. Hitchens himself once said that it was time for humans to let go of these "stone age myths" and evolve. The problem for me is that I thought I had heard that argument before. And I had--in the work of the 18th century philosophes. (I'll get to that in a minute.)

    Here's the problem: the New Atheists believe that moral behavior comes from human evolution, not religious training (or the God represented in that training). The idea is that certain human traits, like empathy or cooperativeness (or even philosophical logic), are part of the genetic inheritance and lead to moral behavior on their own, without the training of religion. However, the problem is that these traits will vary in human beings. Science has made it clear that humans differ in the amount and distribution of their traits, and that these are chemical phenomena. Studies have shown that traits like risk taking vary across genders, for example.

    If we assume that genetic traits like empathy and cooperativeness are related to moral or ethical behavior, we then have a problem. Traits differ in people, and, like everything else in the natural world, they most likely fall along a Gaussian distribution--a normal curve. Some people will be very empathetic, for example, while, at the other end of the scale, you'll have your sociopaths. In between will be the rest of us with varying degrees of empathy, with some more empathetic and some a great deal less. If this trait is related to moral behavior, then relying strictly on the genetic endowment does not offer a stable outcome for a moral society, or even a halfway moral one.

    In other words, evolution, based on the genetic endowment, is not a reasonable substitute for religious/moral training in childhood. Yet, the New Atheists speak as if religion just needs to be removed from society and everyone will be much better people. Of course, these atheists completely disregard the moral training provided by parents--especially mothers--on an hourly basis to their children. But I realized that the New Atheists remind me of Jean Jacques Rousseau. an 18th century philosophe. Remember his "man is born free, but is everywhere in chains"? The New Atheists feel that religion is the chains, that, if removed, would immediately let out the good person (via genetic endowment). However, Rousseau's Enlightenment era argument that the removal of cultural constraints would lead to the pure, good human being--the noble savage--was shown to be greatly mistaken. If you remember the Wolf Boy from Aveyron France (1799), the finding of this young pre-teen greatly challenged the idea of the noble savage. Put out by his parents, the baby boy was picked up by a wolf pack and was raised by them. When researchers found the boy, he was biologically human but culturally a wolf. He was not some superior human, but an animal with no language or recognizably human behaviors.

    The New Atheists have the same problem as the Enlightenment philosophes: if they take away religion, they will not get a more noble human with more moral behavior. They will get a human trained by something other than religion: the public school, the media, the internet, etc. (our 21st century wolves). In other words, if the New Atheists get what they want, they will be replacing God the Father with god the state/popular culture. Perhaps that is their end goal.
    That last line is the critical insight, but everything else is superbly thought out. Bravo.
    Last edited by Odysseus; 06-10-2013 at 09:04 AM.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,695
    I always figured most atheists were once, even if as children, believers. Then, Santa Jesus didn't save their dog/Grandpa/get them the Red Power Ranger they prayed for, and they got angry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    That last line is the critical insight, but everything else is superbly thought out. Bravo.
    Thank you.

    The New Atheists are very slippery and very entertaining. They also make it sound so easy to replace religion with evolutionary theory. I wish that, when people questioned them at speeches and debates, they would take them through the scientific argument against relying on evolution for moral behavior.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Eupher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mizz-uhr-ah
    Posts
    538
    There have been entire political ideologies that have tried to destroy religion.

    It hasn't worked then, and it won't work with these critters.

    But I guess they keep on trying. *sigh*
    U.S. Army, Retired
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    SEAduced SuperMod Hawkgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    4,061
    Atheism is a church...with a cult following.

    My best friend told me she became an atheist about 10 years ago...she never wanted to tell me because I am a practicing Catholic (though not really, as I don't do Mass every Sunday), but she's not "evangelical" about it. She believes what she believes and doesn't talk about. Most atheists I know like to get in your face, and consider themselves superior intellectuals who "know the truth". Penn Jillette is one of those. That's why I was so happy when he lost Celebrity Apprentice to Trace Adkins.

    This one atheist I worked with got a tattoo of a devil on his bicep, he's a real bad-ass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    I'd say that the error to atheist thinking in our time is that if the current set of myths are put to death and added to a mass grave of religions which have come and gone over time, that humans have evolved beyond these belief systems.

    There is very clear evidence to the contrary. Taos, Roswell, Berkeley, New Hope, Tacoma Park, and probably dozens of other "hippie havens" around the country where people claim to believe in the healing powers of crystals, the ability to fly with ones mind, teleportation across time and distance, you name it. Not only is it reasonable to believe that the Asian desert gods will be replaced, it's a simple matter to find new ones already on deck.

    So we would then be left to believe that these seemingly benign religions would remain so, if given the power and resources currently held by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It might be hard to envision a chubby housewife in a belly dancing outfit ordering the sacrifice or execution of people.... but it could happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I'd say that the error to atheist thinking in our time is that if the current set of myths are put to death and added to a mass grave of religions which have come and gone over time, that humans have evolved beyond these belief systems.

    There is very clear evidence to the contrary. Taos, Roswell, Berkeley, New Hope, Tacoma Park, and probably dozens of other "hippie havens" around the country where people claim to believe in the healing powers of crystals, the ability to fly with ones mind, teleportation across time and distance, you name it. Not only is it reasonable to believe that the Asian desert gods will be replaced, it's a simple matter to find new ones already on deck.

    So we would then be left to believe that these seemingly benign religions would remain so, if given the power and resources currently held by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It might be hard to envision a chubby housewife in a belly dancing outfit ordering the sacrifice or execution of people.... but it could happen.
    You've clearly never been to a Black Friday sale. I'd rather face a dozen jihadis than those chubby housewives during a door buster.

    People don't evolve past the need for belief systems. We may learn more about the world around us, but we still have systems of belief that fill in the gaps. Atheism as a belief simply flatters the atheist, who considers himself more evolved than those poor benighted fools who worship what he sees as primitive sky spirits, while the atheist worships himself. The various pathological ideologies of the left can only flourish among spoiled, self-absorbed narcissists who see themselves as superior entities, even as they espouse ideas that wouldn't stand a moment's scrutiny if they looked at them dispassionately.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,155
    As was said, Atheists are former believers or the children of former believers who asked for something from God and the prayer wasn't answered(when it was only the answer was no). Atheists like to ask where God is in the time of disasters when the answer is easy. When you have a society that constantly sticks their nose up at God, lambaste Him, curses Him, goes against Him, can you blame Him when he doesn't come running when these same people ask for His help?
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member Eupher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mizz-uhr-ah
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I'd say that the error to atheist thinking in our time is that if the current set of myths are put to death and added to a mass grave of religions which have come and gone over time, that humans have evolved beyond these belief systems.

    There is very clear evidence to the contrary. Taos, Roswell, Berkeley, New Hope, Tacoma Park, and probably dozens of other "hippie havens" around the country where people claim to believe in the healing powers of crystals, the ability to fly with ones mind, teleportation across time and distance, you name it. Not only is it reasonable to believe that the Asian desert gods will be replaced, it's a simple matter to find new ones already on deck.

    So we would then be left to believe that these seemingly benign religions would remain so, if given the power and resources currently held by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It might be hard to envision a chubby housewife in a belly dancing outfit ordering the sacrifice or execution of people.... but it could happen.
    Then again, maybe those religions just died out. Sorta like Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite. After all, you can only convince so many kooks of so much garbage before the leaders have to off the followers and themselves. Oh, wait. Not in Jim Jones' case. He had to have somebody shoot him because he was afraid to drink the Kool-Aid.
    U.S. Army, Retired
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •