Hey all. Sorry I was unable to attend the expo. I am improving and wish I had been there. Shane was kind enough to give me a smattering of the dicussions. Cricitisms of the "new atheists", I am sure, was discussed. Shelly, Thanks for giving it a go.
I would suggest that this article may be of interest. It is PZ meyers, and he responds to some (empty) criticisms of the anti-neoatheists group. It addresses, in a more consisce way than I am able, my percieved fallacies of the critics (hedges included).
Here is a sample:
"Brown does something interesting: he attempts to define the six characteristic premises of the New Atheism, and invites everyone to keep score. OK! Let's see how I stack up.
* There is something called "Faith" which can be defined as unjustified belief held in the teeth of the evidence. Faith is primarily a matter of false propositional belief.
Hmmm. "Unjustified" I'll accept, but I don't agree that faith is necessarily false. Still, I'll give it to him in my case: +1 for PZ.
* The cure for faith is science: The existence of God is a scientific question: either he exists or he doesn't. "Science is the only way of knowing - everything else is just superstition" [Robert L. Park]
Again, there are two things muddled up here, and I accept part but not the other. The existence of a god certainly is a scientific question. If there exists a prime mover or a cosmic watchmaker or a meddling tinkerer or a thunderbolt-flinging patriarch, and if it had or is having an effect on the universe, then yes, god is something we should be able to detect. If god is some nebulous entity that is not part of or is not involved in affecting our existence, then it is irrelevant and can be ignored."
---
Here is Brown's Original article (just for balance).
HH =)
2 comments:
I really wish I had some time to read and do some research so that I can engage in this neo-atheist discussion. I was hoping to listen to that podcast and read a few articles over Christmas, but never could find the time. To be honest, I am woefully ignorant of almost all of the authors you guys talk about, except for Dawkins of course.
With the weather being as it was, it is just as well you didn't go Travis, since you not being there made me feel a little better about not attending myself. I really want to go next year though, so don't forget to invite me!
After having discussions with Ron and from reading your blog, I think you and I are on pretty much the same page as far as our views on atheism. Now that I'm almost done with the CPA exam, I am hoping to be able to catch up on my reading.
Well, in this particular debate--the one between Brown and Park--I'm with Park. But I agree with a lot of what Hedges has to say, though I've never watched any of the debates he alludes to, etc.
My position hasn't really changed since we had this debate earlier. And I think the new atheists (among which I wouldn't include Park but would include Dennet) do practice the same scientism I condemned in that debate. As I said then, I think scientific knowledge can be useful, but I think that usefulness has been greatly exaggerated and, at times, prioritized to the point of becoming dogmatic. I know Hedges didn't say that directly, but I think he implies it.
But, yeah, too bad you were sick. You were there in spirit, though!
Post a Comment