This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Believe It or Not

atp's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by atp

Well written, but lacks content. Mostly just saying "atheists are stupid and don't make good arguments". But hardly ever supporting the claim with arguments on his own.

The few times he does, the arguments falls flat.

For example, he seems to require that atheists have a really profound reason for being so. What nonsense, atheism is rally about nothing more than not believing in stories that makes no sense. Since there are plenty of ways to discover why religion makes no sense, and all of them can lead to rejecting religion, there are plenty of ways to reject the dogmatic truths religion provide.

There is no need for a profound understanding of the details of christianity to not believe, as there is no need for a profound understanding of any other religion to not believe.

The only points at which the New Atheists seem to invite any serious intellectual engagement are those at which they try to demonstrate that all the traditional metaphysical arguments for the reality of God fail. At least, this should be their most powerful line of critique, and no doubt would be if any of them could demonstrate a respectable understanding of those traditional metaphysical arguments, as well as an ability to refute them. Curiously enough, however, not even the trained philosophers among them seem able to do this.

Atheism has no burden of proof, because athism is not defined by what it is, it is defined by what it is not: it's not a belief system.

It is not required to show why any argument for religion fails. But it is necessary for religion to provide good arguments for the truth of religion. Unless religion is reduced to blind faith in truths mediated by authorities.

The writer tries to make an analogy of the infinte regress problem:

To use a feeble analogy, it is rather like asserting that it is inadequate to say that light is the cause of illumination because one is then obliged to say what it is that illuminates the light, and so on ad infinitum.

This is an example of how he fails whenever trying to make a real argument. There is no infinite regress problem in asking the question "what causes illumination". This can be explained very precisly through the physics. It is not necessary to understand the true nature of light to explain this.  

This was just a couple of examples of the basic lack of understanding this writer shows for the theme... oh wait, I almost forgot one part that was to funny not to mention:

I dutifully acquainted myself not only with all the recent New Atheist bestsellers, but also with a whole constellation of other texts in the same line, and I did so, I believe, without prejudice. No matter how patiently I read, though, and no matter how Herculean the efforts I made at sympathy, I simply could not find many intellectually serious arguments in their pages, and I came finally to believe that their authors were not much concerned to make any.

If you actually believe you are without prejudice, if you actually believe your prior knowledge and your world view does not affect how you meat and interpret new situations and knowledge, you lack seriously in self insight and the ability to be a sceptic.

Thu, 13 May 2010 06:11:57 UTC | #469458