The illogic of Atheism

I don't get the essay's assertion that no one knew what they were talking about when speaking of "God". At the very least the ancients had some idea of God as Universal Intellect (the Mind that holds Universals) as well as the Prime Mover (the Pure Actuality that allows change to occur).

As for illogic of atheism, I like Feser's arguments better:

Can we make sense of the world? 

If one wants to maintain a defensible atheist position, then, one has to try to make something like D [The world is only partially intelligible in itself and only partially intelligible to us] work, as Russell and Mackie (and my younger self) did.  One has to claim with a straight face that the world is intelligible down to the level of the fundamental laws, but beyond that point suddenly “stops making sense” (as Talking Heads might put it).  For one has to say, not that the world has some ultimate explanation that is non-theistic, but rather that it has no ultimate explanation at all.  And in that case one can hardly claim to have provided a more “rational” account of the world than theism does.  To paraphrase what Copleston said to Russell, if you refuse to play the explanatory game, then naturally you cannot lose it.  But by the same token, it is ludicrous to claim that you’ve won it.

I read the article and I think I get the gist of what he's saying if not agreeing with everything he says. For example, I get the impression he doesn't distinguish between concepts of God, gods and super-advanced civilisations. I don't see an examination of  what we usually consider to be the supernatural. 

As for prominent atheists such as the late Hitchens (who's place in the notorious four seems to have been grabbed by Krauss) and Dawkins, their arrogance is really what sets them apart and what their followers seem to admire. I remember watching a TV debate between the two Hitchens brothers - one an atheist the other a Christian and both intolerably arrogant. It was ugly.  Aslo, I recall a radio interview with Dawkins when the interviewer suggested to him that he is perceived as an angry man on a mission. He retorted angrily - almost shouting - that he is NOT an angry man! I felt sorry for the interviewer. Of course he's an angry man. I forced myself to watch his TV documentaries (The Root of All Evil) on British TV and they were an exercise in angry intolerance. I'm constantly amazed at atheists who angrily blame God for all the evils in the world - the very God they insist does not exist. They seem to (not-) believe in the same Old Testament man in the sky that religious fundamentalists believe in.

But, back to the article, I think he is somewhat inconsistent throughout and that reflects the whole atheism vs religion debate: there is no consistency because nobody really knows what they are arguing about. Too many concepts of God, too much man-made religion, scientism becoming a faith resembling religion - all very messy.

an you reference something specific? (And please don't reference some article written by a third party who takes a snippet out of context to mislead the audience.)

Sure.

The OP's article had the following quote regarding Dawkins:

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and others often pretend that they are only in a defensive posture, and that their attacks upon religion are only counter-attacks, but I don't buy it.

Here's an article written by what appears to be an atheist author.  Its pretty well written to my view, but please click on the link to the video from a speech Dawkins' gave several years ago.

Article
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/1...-damaging/

Video
http://youtu.be/H9UKTuuTHEg?t=14m51s

I think the OP's criticism stands up to the evidence in this case.

Actually, upon re-reading my own comments, I see it is difficult to avoid being "all over the place" on this subject. Perhaps because it is not a subject but a diverse collection of subjects. When I asked my son to simplify his atheism for me - to define what he means by God - he said "all gods". So there it is - a blanket denial no matter what the philosophical argument, no matter what the definition. I guess that makes it easy to place yourself within an "ism" but it does get messy when an atheist argues against my idea of God when the concept of a god in his mind is nothing like that in my mind.

Actually, upon re-reading my own comments, I see it is difficult to avoid being "all over the place" on this subject. Perhaps because it is not a subject but a diverse collection of subjects. When I asked my son to simplify his atheism for me - to define what he means by God - he said "all gods". So there it is - a blanket denial no matter what the philosophical argument, no matter what the definition. I guess that makes it easy to place yourself within an "ism" but it does get messy when an atheist argues against my idea of God when the concept of a god in his mind is nothing like that in my mind.

While it feels gradual, even glacial, there does seem to be movement toward Idealism ->
Apparently even the Pope might be showing some interest.

Sure.

The OP's article had the following quote regarding Dawkins:


Here's an article written by what appears to be an atheist author.  Its pretty well written to my view, but please click on the link to the video from a speech Dawkins' gave several years ago.

Article
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/1...-damaging/

Video
http://youtu.be/H9UKTuuTHEg?t=14m51s

I think the OP's criticism stands up to the evidence in this case.

The link you provided takes me to the 14 minute, 51 second mark of the interview. Yes, he says to mock and ridicule people at that point. But I watched the whole video in order to see what he is really referring to. He doesn't say to mock people because they are religious, but to call out someone if they make a ridiculous claim (his examples were that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that a wafer becomes human flesh or that wine becomes blood), instead of giving them a pass just because it's a faith-based ridiculous claim.

Mathis certainly seems to behave as though he thinks it is reasonable to ridicule ridiculous claims, so I don't see why criticism of Dawkins would be justified in this case.

Linda

The link you provided takes me to the 14 minute, 51 second mark of the interview. Yes, he says to mock and ridicule people at that point. But I watched the whole video in order to see what he is really referring to. He doesn't say to mock people because they are religious, but to call out someone if they make a ridiculous claim (his examples were that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that a wafer becomes human flesh or that wine becomes blood), instead of giving them a pass just because it's a faith-based ridiculous claim.

Mathis certainly seems to behave as though he thinks it is reasonable to ridicule ridiculous claims, so I don't see why criticism of Dawkins would be justified in this case.

Linda

I've read plenty accounts by atheists who do not appreciate the way Dawkins goes about his business - his arrogant and dismissive approach is pretty well known. It's interesting that after claiming ignorance you seem to be pushing back on that notion without having done much research yourself.

Frankly, I'm not sure you even need to do research... Dawkins seems to announce himself plenty across various platforms. I don't think you have much of an argument here, though I'm not surprised you're trying to make it in response to someone offering you one example rather than looking into the matter yourself.

I've read plenty accounts by atheists who do not appreciate the way Dawkins goes about his business - his arrogant and dismissive approach is pretty well known. It's interesting that after claiming ignorance you seem to be pushing back on that notion without having done much research yourself.

Frankly, I'm not sure you even need to do research... Dawkins seems to announce himself plenty across various platforms. I don't think you have much of an argument here, though I'm not surprised you're trying to make it in response to someone offering you one example rather than looking into the matter yourself.

I remember this article from a few years ago - indeed, I think I posted the link on the Skeptiko forum at the time. I think it kind of sums up your point about Dawkins:

The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins

It’s difficult to remember the hosannas that greeted The God Delusion and the vote by Prospect’s readers that named Dawkins as Britain’s greatest public intellectual. Much of the atheist/humanist/secularist movement is now embarrassed by him, and repelled by the zeal of his cult of personality.

At the time, the Dawkins Foundation website was touting the so-called "Reason Circle" with enticements to get closer to the great man - at a cost, of course. I see the "Reason Circle" has now disappeared from the website along with the solicitation of outrageous amounts of cash. This is what the article exposed at the time, however:

My man in the pub was at the very low end of what believers will do and pay for: the Richard Dawkins website offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like Dante’s Hell, is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak.

When you compare this to the going rate for other charismatic preachers, it does seem on the high side. The Pentecostal evangelist Morris Cerullo, for example, charges only $30 a month to become a member of ‘God’s Victorious Army’, which is bringing ‘healing and deliverance to the world’. And from Cerullo you get free DVDs, not just discounts.

But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive ‘Darwin Circle’ and then the ‘Evolution Circle’, he attains the innermost circle, where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have a private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins, and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with ‘Richard’ as well as ‘all the benefits listed above’, so he still gets a discount on his Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying ‘Religion — together we can find a cure.’

The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended.

At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here is a religion without the good bits.

A year later (by 2015), the cost of dinner with Dick had come down considerably. A mere $1,000 would buy you the privilege.

https://www.richarddawkins.net/dinnerwithrichard/

Come and enjoy this unique opportunity to dine with the “world’s greatest thinker,” (according to the readers of Prospect magazine) and support the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science.

A small dinner will give a select group of Richard’s intellectual compatriots the opportunity to chat with Richard as well as other supporters of reason and science.

Date: Saturday, October 3, 2015
Time: 7:00 pm

Location: A restaurant in San Francisco, further details for Attendees only*

Cost: $1,000 per person**

Mathis certainly seems to behave as though he thinks it is reasonable to ridicule ridiculous claims, so I don't see why criticism of Dawkins would be justified in this case.

Wow Linda.  This is beyond weak; even by your misdirecting and intellectually dishonest standards.

Dawkins is justified because the criticizing author also behaves poorly (in your view)?

Right, let's just forget your request for evidence to back the counter claim.  It was provided, it is irrefutable, and you hand waved it away (again, your MO it appears).

I'm not a fan of this Mathis guy and doing a bit of reading on him he seems to be a controversial figure (if he is even a discreet person).  I'll concede a fair bit of rope if anyone wants to criticize him.  However, to try and defend Dawkins as some model of "reasonable" (the first word you used) is just ridiculous.  Dawkins attacks huge groups of people he's never met with broad, incorrect, and mean-spirited stereo typing.

But you for you such a description seems "out of character".