Atheism is lame (according to atheists)

[historia]

Consider these recent comments from various figures of the New Atheist movement.

Sarah Haider, former head of Ex-Muslims of North America:

You think you leave religion and you have landed upon a better shore, a more enlightened shore. And here are people who seem to care a lot about what is true in the world. They seem to care about rationalism and free inquiry. They make all the right noises. And it seems that for a time that that is true.

But then suddenly there's an issue in which their political sympathies don't align with free inquiry and rationalism and science. And suddenly things get distored so, so quickly.

Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine:

My wife went to an all-girls Catholic school in Cologne, Germany. And we were thinking, even though we're both atheists, we'd rather have a Catholic school for our [boy] than one of these crazy woke schools where he's told he's not a boy, he's a girl, or whatever craziness will be going on.

Peter Boghossian, author of A Manual for Creating Atheists (2013):

I will admit to a kind of Pollyanna view that if we [atheists] could just defeat some of these [religious] beliefs, then it would open up a kind of new age of flourishing or a new age of englightenment . . . .

[Now] I think without any question whatsoever -- and I've spoken to many people about this -- we are far, far better off with a society that has a benevolent form of Christianity than we are with a society that has adopted the fundamental tenents of wokeism or critical social justice. There's just no question about it.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel (2007), in her recent article, "Why I am now a Christian":

Russell and other activist atheists believed that with the rejection of God we would enter an age of reason and intelligent humanism. But the "God hole" —- the void left by the retreat of the church —- has merely been filled by a jumble of irrational quasi-religious dogma.

The result is a world where modern cults prey on the dislocated masses, offering them spurious reasons for being and action — mostly by engaging in virtue-signalling theatre on behalf of a victimised minority or our supposedly doomed planet.

The line often attributed to G.K. Chesterton has turned into a prophecy: "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything."

David Silverman, former head of American Atheists:

Would I rather have my child be a moderate Christian or a woke atheist? Moderate Christian.

And that's a disgusting place to be. We live in a bizzaro world that's crazy, and you made me say that. It's wrong. It's true, though!

Questions for debate: Why are an increasing number of one-time atheist advocates now saying they were naive in thinking the New Atheist movement would bring about a more rational world? Why are some even going so far as to say moderate Christianity would be better for society?

[TRANSPONDER]

Questions for debate: Why are an increasing number of one-time atheist advocates now saying they were naive in thinking the New Atheist movement would bring about a more rational world? Why are some even going so far as to say moderate Christianity would be better for society?

I think that's a good question, and a similar path I hit long ago as a short-lived atheist.

My answer is science and reason, while yielding of fact and truth, in themselves supply no end goal, values, or anything actually worth believing in. They give no deeper meaning to things, and are more just heartless operators you can apply to anything, to better understand or analyze the situation. Thus they leave some deep set concerns unanswered, concerns that religion and theism do directly provide. Hence their enduring attractiveness, even if it all comes couched in a narrative that doesn't sit well with modern beliefs.

(Case in point, if you asked science or reason what the end of the world is, the answer would be a big freeze or something along those lines. But are we not capable of more? Of something worth believing in?)

But science and indeed atheism (and Logic, rather than reason) does not claim to solve the world's social and political problems. Science provides a world that is a sight more healthy and comfortable that it was 200 years ago. Atheism at least would eliminate rival religions to fight about, but that's not what it claims to do - only to not believe in any god -claim and provide reasons why. Humanist social ethics does address that matter. It is ethics that intervenes in science and asks 'Should you be doing that?' which is not really the purpose of science.

What the OP is doing is a strawman: it ascribes to atheism a duty or objective that it is not intended to do, no more than science, and then slags it off because it is not doing it. Not that I have seen any good evidence that it does not lead to some improvements in people. Atheists do not get rich from claiming to heal people on stage.

[Clownboat]

Questions for debate: Why are an increasing number of one-time atheist advocates now saying they were naive in thinking the New Atheist movement would bring about a more rational world?

Surely you agree that removing, ghosts, gods, demons, angels and the like leads to a more rational world. Right?

That's just the thing. The atheists I'm quoting in the OP are saying that simply removing belief in God or getting people to reject religion doesn't, in itself, cause people to adopt rational beliefs in place of those prior commitments.

Consider this example from the Amazing Atheist:



What are we to make of that?

That they are wrong. Clearly, removing beliefs in god, ghosts and the such would lead to a more rational world. Unless of course such things were real, but that has yet to have been shown to be the case.

[theophile]

Questions for debate: Why are an increasing number of one-time atheist advocates now saying they were naive in thinking the New Atheist movement would bring about a more rational world? Why are some even going so far as to say moderate Christianity would be better for society?

I think that's a good question, and a similar path I hit long ago as a short-lived atheist.

My answer is science and reason, while yielding of fact and truth, in themselves supply no end goal, values, or anything actually worth believing in. They give no deeper meaning to things, and are more just heartless operators you can apply to anything, to better understand or analyze the situation. Thus they leave some deep set concerns unanswered, concerns that religion and theism do directly provide. Hence their enduring attractiveness, even if it all comes couched in a narrative that doesn't sit well with modern beliefs.

(Case in point, if you asked science or reason what the end of the world is, the answer would be a big freeze or something along those lines. But are we not capable of more? Of something worth believing in?)

But science and indeed atheism (and Logic, rather than reason) does not claim to solve the world's social and political problems. Science provides a world that is a sight more healthy and comfortable that it was 200 years ago. Atheism at least would eliminate rival religions to fight about, but that's not what it claims to do - only to not believe in any god -claim and provide reasons why. Humanist social ethics does address that matter. It is ethics that intervenes in science and asks 'Should you be doing that?' which is not really the purpose of science.

It doesn't matter whether or not science or atheism claim to have solved such problems. The fact is they cannot solve them.
Nor does it matter whether they have done any good in this world. Of course they have! We'd be foolish to do without them.

The point is, they only get you so far, and leave big questions unanswered. They are unsatisfying, and lacking on their own, and unsurprisingly leave atheists wanting.

So re-enter theism. A post-atheism form of theism of course, one that carries forward and is compatible with science, logic, and all that good stuff.

[TRANSPONDER]

Exactly. But there's the kicker that the Theists or anti -atheists come up with: "What have we to put in its' place?" Just leaving questions will encourage more guesses and opportunities for shysters to peddle nonsense for their own benefit. Fortunately, we do have answers to a lot of the old questions like what's that glowing thing in the sky, why does it always rain when I want to go out and why do men get paid more than women?

Now we can even answer the trickier ones like alternatives to Genesis - creation, instinct and morality hooray and wave the atheist flag with nothing on. I mean, the flag, not the atheists.

There are still the Biggies like the origin of the universe, but there are answers to many of the others; and interesting ones, too. Thus, there is no reason why losing faith in gods, ghosts and flying saucers will lead to more myths and legends or conspiracy theories as we call them now.

But science - denial is a a powerful thing; perhaps even more powerful than science - espousal. Believing that one is part of a select and elect group that are the only ones that Know The Truth that "They" are attempting to conceal from everyone else, can make a person feel so special and important.

[historia]

Clearly, removing beliefs in god, ghosts and the such would lead to a more rational world.

It seems to me there are two problems with your argument.

First, you're only considering half the equation.

Your argument here is like saying that if I increase my income I will necessarily increase my savings. But that's not necessarily true. What if I also increase my spending beyond the increase in income? In that case, I actually have less savings. In the same way, we have to consider what new beliefs people adopt, not just the ones they discard.

But, second, and more importantly, you're parsing the first question in the OP too narrowly.

In that question, I'm asking why these one-time atheist advocates are saying what they're saying. "Bring about a more rational world" was just my short-hand -- and frankly somewhat understated -- summary of what they were expecting the New Atheism to accomplish.

In their own words, they thought atheism would bring about "a new age of flourishing or a new age of enlightenment" (so Boghossian), that we would "enter an age of reason and intelligent humanism" (so Ali), that atheists would be committed to rationalism and free inquiry in all areas of their lives (so Haider), and so on. They're not just describing a marginal increase in rationality here. They were expecting a transformational change to society that they now realize didn't happen.

[TRANSPONDER]

Clearly, removing beliefs in god, ghosts and the such would lead to a more rational world.

It seems to me there are two problems with your argument.

First, you're only considering half the equation.

Your argument here is like saying that if I increase my income I will necessarily increase my savings. But that's not necessarily true. What if I also increase my spending beyond the increase in income? In that case, I actually have less savings. In the same way, we have to consider what new beliefs people adopt, not just the ones they discard.

But, second, and more importantly, you're parsing the first question in the OP too narrowly.

In that question, I'm asking why these one-time atheist advocates are saying what they're saying. "Bring about a more rational world" was just my short-hand -- and frankly somewhat understated -- summary of what they were expecting the New Atheism to accomplish.

In their own words, they thought atheism would bring about "a new age of flourishing or a new age of enlightenment" (so Boghossian), that we would "enter an age of reason and intelligent humanism" (so Ali), that atheists would be committed to rationalism and free inquiry in all areas of their lives (so Haider), and so on. They're not just describing a marginal increase in rationality here. They were expecting a transformational change to society that they now realize didn't happen.

A valid point, but you're only doing half the equation. One cannot force a person to save. Increased income merely affords a person the opportunity to save. So atheism gives an opportunity to have a more rational world. That we don't have it is not the fault of atheism but the failure of humans to be rational.

I'm a half full person (though it's hard sometimes) and I consider how much better it is now thanks to science, technology and even humanist society, which even theistic societies follow whether they give it credit or not. It's easy to complain about the cost of medical treatment and forget about the benefits of the treatment in the first place.

I get the selected quotes, and I'd probably prefer to have a Christian as a friend than a violent thug who presumably never went to church. That not only does not debunk atheism but doesn't even make a case for preferring a Christian society even if the religion isn't true.