New atheists are not intellectually bright.

[paul becke]

Best let 'attack-dog' philosopher, William Lane Craig loose on this video:

The New Atheists are Not Intellectually "Bright" - YouTube

 

[o0oFaytheo0o]

I completely agree with what he is saying here. I mean, Dawkins field is EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY for petes sake. What makes him think that he can step into the realm of Philosophy and Religion and declare that people studying those fields are wrong. In that area he is an ammature and shouldn't be seen as an authoratative figure. Leave that to the real philosophers.

 

[Lifestream12]

I completely agree with what he is saying here. I mean, Dawkins field is EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY for petes sake. What makes him think that he can step into the realm of Philosophy and Religion and declare that people studying those fields are wrong. In that area he is an ammature and shouldn't be seen as an authoratative figure. Leave that to the real philosophers.

Why should it matter whether someone IS an authoratative figure or not? If someone is right about something, they are right about something, it doesn't matter who they are.

 

[judechild]

Ls12,

Sure, on the level of whether a person is correct about something or not, it doesn't matter whether the person is an authoritative figure. But the point is that Dawkins is a really sub-par philosopher, and that makes sense, considering he has no training but is trying to critique people who have had such. The result is about comparable to persons who take Genesis 1 literally, and so they (who are not "authoritative figures) attempt to use biology, geology, and astronomy to show that the world is young.

For example, Dawkins tries to critique the "five ways of Thomas Aquinas" but doesn't realize that he critiqued the wrong one; Thomas has two versions of the five ways, and the one Dawkins critiques is the shorter of the two, which Thomas used to teach first year theology students (roughly 14-16 year olds) the basics. And he doesn't even manage to critique the kiddy version effectively.

 

[o0oFaytheo0o]

He just ultimately needs to stick to his own way of thinking of things and not meddle with our own. Both science and philosophy are of equal merit, and since we obviously don't absolutely know the 'truth', he shouldn't go around tearing down other peoples thoughts on the issues. Sorry, I'm a bit anti-dawkins haha.

 

[Lifestream12]

He just ultimately needs to stick to his own way of thinking of things and not meddle with our own. Both science and philosophy are of equal merit, and since we obviously don't absolutely know the 'truth', he shouldn't go around tearing down other peoples thoughts on the issues. Sorry, I'm a bit anti-dawkins haha.

We all have the right to our own opinion, but not our own facts. I think every idea should be challenged heavily and scrutinized, and it doesn't matter whose idea it was or who does the scrutinizing. If its true, its true, and shouldn't be afraid of that scrutiny. I think you are just mad that he attacks your beliefs so head on.

 

[Matariki]

Why should it matter whether someone IS an authoratative figure or not? If someone is right about something, they are right about something, it doesn't matter who they are.

Although you don't need to be an authoritative figure to recognize and understand truth, its a completely different story when someone tries to take 'pot shots' at someone else's worldview or field of expertise without understanding the philosophical principles their world view, yet alone their own world view. For an example, take a look at the following statements made by Richard Dawkins;

River out of Eden - p132-133

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

And then in the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins attempts his own spin on the Ten Commandments:

1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.
3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
6. Always seek to be learning something new.
7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
10. Question everything.

 

[o0oFaytheo0o]

What a hypocrite. He is constantly attacking faithfulness and conformity and then in his version of the ten commandments he says we should be faithful and conform to truth.

If Dawkins and religious authorities agree these are good virtues then clearly they must be, Dawkins just doesn't know that he's attacking his own beliefs.

 

[Lifestream12]

What a hypocrite. He is constantly attacking faithfulness and conformity and then in his version of the ten commandments he says we should be faithful and conform to truth.

If Dawkins and religious authorities agree these are good virtues then clearly they must be, Dawkins just doesn't know that he's attacking his own beliefs.

You know what, I actually kinda agreed with you that he shouldn't be promoting faithfulness in his version of the commandments (though I think the conformity thing is a different issue). But you are still submitting to authority in that second part, which is even more hypocritical! You keep dismissing Dawkins' thoughts when they don't coincide with your own, but you use his "authority" as an arguing point for why something would be good (in this case faithfulness). The point about not submitting to authority is the whole point. Even Dawkins can be wrong!

 

[SonOfTheWest]

NM didn't see forum location at first.

 

[Matariki]

The point about not submitting to authority is the whole point. Even Dawkins can be wrong!

Which is precisely the point. How can one say that there is no good or evil, then condemn religion and then use a famous religious text (the ten commandments) and attempt to rewrite it, but fails to realize that his new commandments are actually morally consistent with the original ten commandments. And not only that, its consistent with the golden rule (which is multi-cultral) and other texts that can be found in the bible.

Richard Dawkins 10 Commandments:

• Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
• In all things, strive to cause no harm.
• Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
• Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
• Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

Mark 12:31 - "The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these."

1. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
2. Question everything.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "but test everything; hold fast what is good."

• Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

Matthew 15:14 - "let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

 

[QED]

Yeah. I usually prefer old new ideas because at least they're new at the time of their oldness. It makes them far less interesting to dissect, though. Not as much people have come up with as many ideas as Christianity has, as an example.

I was wondering why the new ideas against Christianity haven't tended to be any good. It seems to me it's because Christianity already has all of the answers to the criticisms thus far.

 

[QED]

Why should it matter whether someone IS an authoratative figure or not? If someone is right about something, they are right about something, it doesn't matter who they are.

Nah... I think it's far more fundamental than that. I think that there always has to be something right about something, so that something is what you should listen to.

 

[seashale76]

Some new atheists probably aren't all that bright. I've run into a few of them around the internet.

In developmental psychology, there's the idea of how people develop identity. It's related to adolescent development, but I think it is seen in adults, as well.

Those who are healthy, will have identity achievement, where they will commit to beliefs, goals, and values after a time of exploration. Closely related to this, is identity moratorium, where they are currently exploring but haven't committed to anything. Then you have the unhealthy areas of identify foreclosure, where one commits to a belief without exploring, and identity diffusion, which is basically, complete apathy with no exploration or commitment.

I know that unbelievers are quick to lump all believers into identity foreclosure, which is patently false for many of us. Alternately, I've met more than a few atheists who are completely in identity foreclosure or identity diffusion.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Atheism isn't what it used to be, that's for sure. I'm venturing a guess that is what this thread means by 'new atheists'.

Most atheists used to be, in a sense, deists. They held no opinion, but conceded to themselves that a 'constant' exists., some sort of moral ground or spiritual inclination. At the very least, they generally did not disrespect or challenge the notion of a supreme entity.
The founding fathers of America are the best examples of this- almost all of them were atheists, but had a sort of 'Christian Deist' thing going on in their ideals.

This is because they were honest with themselves and conceded that there is not much to the contrary of God. New atheists, however, argue as if they have some sort of replacement for God, which they do not, and this is what makes them appear not very bright. After a while, it transforms into conviction against God and they gain a falsely biased mindset.

 

[Eric Hibbert]

What a hypocrite. He is constantly attacking faithfulness and conformity and then in his version of the ten commandments he says we should be faithful and conform to truth.

What's even more interesting than that is that he resorts to imposing law on people, just like the Pharisees he compares us to.

The difference between God's law and Dawkins' law is that God provides a remedy for those who cannot follow His law.

The Bible repeatedly refers to the law as a burdensome thing meant to illustrate our sinfulness and drive us to the cross, where we can receive grace.

Dawkins' law has no such remedy and only leads to more law.

 

[judechild]

What's even more interesting than that is that he resorts to imposing law on people, just like the Pharisees he compares us to.

More helpful than pointing out some slight contradiction in Dawkin's ethics is that at least three of them can be used to show that he acknowledges some form of Natural Law:

In all things, strive to cause no harm.

Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

The biggest question, of course, is why it is bad to "seek to cause harm" or to fail to "treat your fellow human beings... with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect." It cannot be because of social convention (id est, society does not approve of people who fail to treat other human beings with "respect" - whatever that is). This is because he says "Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others," presumably, "others" includes society - which is just a macro-level grouping of "others."

If it is not social convention that makes it wrong to fail to respect, love, and be honest with fellow human persons, then maybe it is only an expression of personal preference (i.e. "It is personally very distasteful for me to witness other people being lied to"). This also cannot be Dawkin's belief. If it were, then Dawkins could not present these as rules for others to live; he could only say that he, himself, finds these good rules. Whether a CEO believes that it is good to cheat his workers out of a fair wage (and hence, "disrespect" and be false to them) is not something that Dawkins could comment on.

If it is neither social convention nor personal preference that makes disrespecting and being false to others wrong, then it can only be the result of some external, meta-ethical standard. This means that morality is the same principle as driving; a driver acts legally when he drives at the speed limit, and acts illegally when he drives above it. This means that the legality of his driving is dependent on his acting in accord with the law. The same principle holds for morality; the human person acts morally when he acts in accord with the "Moral Law" which is imbedded in some way into the workings of the universe. Since these principles are meta-ethical, they apply to all persons, everywhere (hence the Nazis at the Numburg Trials were found Guilty - not because they had violated any standing law in Germany at the time, but because they violated the Natural Law).

Since Dawkins must acknowledge some sense of the Natural Law, the question becomes "how did those moral principles 'get there?'" The most reasonable and apparent answer is that a transcendent moral agent exists.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

God works in mysterious ways. To say that these so called 'rationalists' have an upper hand on Him is a bad joke. God will triumph, and He will reign over anyone who posits a vain reality.