8 thoughts on “Principles of New Atheism”

1. After reading parts of Victor J. Stenger – Has Science Found God? In his chapter on History of the Warfare of Science WithTheology. Honestly I only found it to be a chapter of assertion, not argument. First, he used only some standard ‘proofs’ of evolution: evolution = change, so fruit lies evolve and bacteria evolve; DNA shows everything is related; evolution informs medicine (pp. 48–49).I know there is difference between operational science and origins science. I am sorry but he has not convinced me of anything.

   Victor Stenger in later chapters is exploring aspects of his vision of a godless universe. Oddly, after so much talk about the importance of parsimony, He shows the universe rife with unobserved and unobservable entities.

   His discussion of the kalâm cosmological argument. This argument states (1) everything that has a beginning has a cause; (2) the universe had a beginning; (3) the universe had a cause. Stenger is concerned to do away with a beginning of the universe. First, he briefly criticizes causality in general. Second, he proposes the existence of negative time, which keeps time itself at a sort of equilibrium or symmetry, arguing that none of the basic principles of physics includes a preference for one directionin time over the opposite direction’ (p. 175).

   I am not sure how seriously I should take a proposal like this. It would seem to be, even in principle, beyond the realm of scientific testing or observation. He also gets into the speculation regarding dark matter and dark energy, two unobserved entities.

   I’m not so sure you should have started me off with Mr. Stenger.

   I am quite sure that Christopher Hitchens is smarter than I, but I thought that Hilter considered Jews, a lower form of life, not considered to be human. I would consider that evolution. I need better answers, so far I am not convinced that Atheistism is that correct.

   Reply ↓

2. Interesting post. I’m currently reading Stenger’s The New Atheism , nearly finished and finding it fascinating. While I do think the above principles to be accurate, I have difficulty with the thought that my being an atheist requires subscribing to any principles at all. My thought is that being an atheist, at least in my experience, is a matter of indisputable fact…a fact which required no action on my part nor does it require my carrying a banner. This said, it’s all VERY interesting and exciting…in part because I am finding my position on this challenged and I welcome views which challenge my thinking.

   Reply ↓

   • Hello Alex,

     Being an atheist doesn’t require one to subscribe to any principles. The word atheist, etymologically speaking, is widely misunderstood. It concerns belief, specifically, lack thereof, not the denial of a Supernatural Being, not principles (moralism / ethicism), nor knowledge (agnosticism).

     “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. . . . The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning “without god”, used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society.”
     Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology_and_usage

     Also see:

     http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἄθεος
     http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheos

     I read Stenger’s “The New Atheism,” and as with most of his writing, I found it to be very good, and quite informative as well. Upon reply to your comment, this fellow New Orleanian is going to sit down with my new book titled “A Wicked Company: The Forgotten Radicalism of the European Enlightenment,” by Phillip Blom, which may be found here:

     Now that we have realized that you and I have no principles, and you no longer feel any obligation to subscribe to any, please feel free to continue through life as a godless heathen with reason on one side of you, and the rest of us godless heathens on the other. I think you are in pretty good company, for I know reason, and the rest of us godless heathens are.

     In Reason,
     Madison

     Reply ↓

     • Thanks for the reply Madison, and I agree I am in good company.

       And, by the way, based on your mention, I’ve reserved a copy of Blooms’ A Wicked Company at the library. I’ll read it while waiting to get my hands on Krauss’ A Universe From Nothing.

3. Being recently introducted to the Athiest culture, I am confused with some of your statements. I am hoping that you will be able to help me understand.

   First when you said, ” Religion is not the source of morality.) Would you please expand on that? I ask this first question, because you later say that, ” The universe is matter and nothing more.” I did not know that morality was matter.

   You also said that “Atheism is a positive philosophy.” I had learned that Hilter, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were Atheists, and with my studies, learned that nothing good came from there stand for Atheism. Please help me to understand.

   Just one more question that I have, you said that “Godless societies happier, healthier.”
   Please explain, as I belong to a motorcycle club, and some of the things I have seen were not happier, nor were they heatlthier.

   Thanking you in advance for your answers.
   Jack

   Reply ↓

   • jack,

     Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the “Atheist culture;” I hope you enjoy your journey.

     “First when you said, ” Religion is not the source of morality.) Would you please expand on that? I ask this first question, because you later say that, ” The universe is matter and nothing more.” I did not know that morality was matter.”

     I was not the source of the “Principles.” Please note the documented Source: Victor J. Stenger

     “I had learned that Hilter, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were Atheists, and with my studies, learned that nothing good came from there stand for Atheism. Please help me to understand.”

     Christopher Hitchens Hitler was Catholic
     

     Hitchens On Hitler
     

     That Lenin, Stalin, and Mao committed atrocities because of their atheism is an old non-sequitur argument that is frankly quite tiresome. It is like saying because they all had mustaches, they committed atrocities; what did that have to do with their actions? Neither of them killed, or committed their mass atrocities in the name of atheism, as a matter of fact, in the history of mankind, I am not aware of any mass atrocities ever being committed in the name of atheism; however, the mass atrocities committed in the name of Christianity litter the history of mankind.

     “Just one more question that I have, you said that “Godless societies happier, healthier.”
     Please explain, as I belong to a motorcycle club, and some of the things I have seen were not happier, nor were they healthier.”

     The following book written by Professor of Sociology, Phil Zuckerman, PhD is the best contemporary empirical study that addresses this question, and I highly recommend reading it.

     Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

     “Society Without God” offers a unique perspective on the active debate regarding the necessity of religion . . . By turning to one of the most secular societies in the world, Scandinavia, Phil Zuckerman offers an empirically grounded account of a successful society where people are happy and content and help their neighbors without believing in God. The book is fluently written and highly illuminating. It offers an accessible entry to important questions in the study of religion and secularism.”
     -Michael Pagis, Journal of the American Academy of Religion

     Here is a video interview with Phil Zuckerman:

     Phil Zuckerman – Society without God Phil Zuckerman
     

     In Reason,
     Madison

     Reply ↓

4. like/bump

   Reply ↓

5. Great post! So true

   Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.