TheGuardian: What scares the new atheists

[Perspicuo]

TheGuardian: What scares the new atheists
The vocal fervour of today’s missionary atheism conceals a panic that religion is not only refusing to decline – but in fact flourishing
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists

The resurgence of religion is a worldwide development. Russian Orthodoxy is stronger than it has been for over a century, while China is the scene of a reawakening of its indigenous faiths and of underground movements that could make it the largest Christian country in the world by the end of this century. Despite tentative shifts in opinion that have been hailed as evidence it is becoming less pious, the US remains massively and pervasively religious – it’s inconceivable that a professed unbeliever could become president, for example.

For secular thinkers, the continuing vitality of religion calls into question the belief that history underpins their values. To be sure, there is disagreement as to the nature of these values. But pretty well all secular thinkers now take for granted that modern societies must in the end converge on some version of liberalism. Never well founded, this assumption is today clearly unreasonable. So, not for the first time, secular thinkers look to science for a foundation for their values.

It’s probably just as well that the current generation of atheists seems to know so little of the longer history of atheist movements. When they assert that science can bridge fact and value, they overlook the many incompatible value-systems that have been defended in this way. There is no more reason to think science can determine human values today than there was at the time of Haeckel or Huxley. None of the divergent values that atheists have from time to time promoted has any essential connection with atheism, or with science. How could any increase in scientific knowledge validate values such as human equality and personal autonomy? The source of these values is not science. In fact, as the most widely-read atheist thinker of all time argued, these quintessential liberal values have their origins in monotheism.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I tried to read that earlier today, but a combination of TL;DR and "this is bullshit" meant I gave up before I got halfway through it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But pretty well all secular thinkers now take for granted that modern societies must in the end converge on some version of liberalism.

You mean, like how we gave the vote to blacks and women despite people saying it was against God's will?
Legalizing interracial marriage despite people =! God's will?
Legalizing pot, gay rights, rock music despite =! God's will?

I don't know HOW one might have thought that was an ongoing process....

 

[Sarpedon]

It is amazing that anyone would call what is happening to Christianity 'flourishing.'

Accross Europe, numbers are low and dropping every year. Countries such as Ireland and Spain, once bastions of religion, are now in the sharpest remission. In the still very religious USA, churches are closing because fewer people are joining the clergy, and congregations are unable to foot the bill to keep churches open on every corner, as was previously the case. Now congregants drive for an hour to a suburban mega-church, where economies of scale can render them viable.

"It's inconceivable that a non-believer may be elected president." It is amusing that christians should advertise their bigotry and insecurity as a sign of their strength.

The fact that so many have already left means that the remainder will become increasingly radicalized, and the fact that so few join the clergy will raise the incidence of thieves and pedophiles in the remainder. This cycle will continue. It is true that religion is not vanishing as rapidly as we'd like, but to mistake that for health is wishful thinking.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yeah, the fact the enlightenment thinkers that advanced the values of democracy and personal liberty were also among the most religiously skeptical thinkers of their time is just pure coincidence. The fact that democracy arose prior to monotheism, was largely abandoned for monotheism's dominance, and emerged along with the most widespread challenge to religious authority in many centuries doesn't imply anything.
After all, what could be more compatible with democracy and personal liberty than the foundational monotheistic notion of a single, un-elected authority that is the unquestionable source of all that is good and all that should be? And what is more compatible with empirical science that the notion that evidence is only demanded by those too weak of spirit to believe on faith?
Just because throughout history and at every level of analyses monotheistic religiosity is negatively correlated with acceptance of science and tolerance of nearly every type, doesn't mean anything.

 

[Valjean]

Who are these poor, naive atheists who are in such a panic? Whatever gave them the idea that religiosity, which wasn't installed by reason, could be removed by reason?
Any old fashioned, non-evangelical type atheist could have told them that.

 

[ronburgundy]

Who are these poor, naive atheists who are in such a panic?

None. Theists just interpret anyone with the gall to publicly question religion as being "militant" or "panicked". It is the theist projecting their intolerance and fear of non-believers onto the non-believers.
Ironically, they acknowledge that these atheists are "new", which is to implicitly acknowledge that outspoken atheism has not had as much social acceptance as it does now, which contradicts their claim that theism is truly on the rise (at least in the West).

Whatever gave them the idea that religiosity, which wasn't installed by reason, could be removed by reason?

True, you cannot rationally argue someone out of something they were not rationally argued into. That said, pointing out the moral failings of religion and the inherent dangers its foundational authoritarianism poses is an appeal to the kind of emotionally relevant issues that drive some people toward theism.
Thus, it is highly plausible that outspoken atheists and moral critics of the major religions have in fact prompted some would-be moderate religionists or religion-enablers toward both atheism and secularism.

It is naive to think that society would be theism-free, given that its simplistic teleological and uni-causal explanations will always find a home in the minds of people unable or unwilling to do the intellectual work to understand the world. But it is not too much to hope and push for a society where such views are a minority and rightly disrespected as both objectively wrong and at odds with secular values, and thus held privately but kept out of public discourse and law.
Several modern societies have achieved this or close to it.

 

[Brian63]

For secular thinkers, the continuing vitality of religion calls into question the belief that history underpins their values.

Oh my goodness, that is so right! Religion is a very common set of beliefs in humans throughout history, therefore God exists! How could we all have missed that simple but stunning logic all this time?! Praise Vishnu! (or do I have the wrong God? Not sure.)

Brian

 

[Keith&Co.]

And there's that crowing at the end:

In fact, as the most widely-read atheist thinker of all time argued, these quintessential liberal values have their origins in monotheism.

They seem to have missed the fact that the most widely-read atheist thinker of all time would have still considered this thinking a human invention...right along with monotheism.

 

[Draconis]

What resurgence of religion? Google "collapse of Christianity in the west" and you'll find plenty to read.

The only religion doing well here is probably Islam, because it's being shipped in by the boatload. Without that, religion would be dying off rapidly.

 

[DBT]

I was not aware of there being a ''vocal fervour of missionary atheism'' at work.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I was not aware of there being a ''vocal fervour of missionary atheism'' at work.

Well then, please allow me to take a few minutes to tell you the Good News about absolutely nothing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I was not aware of there being a ''vocal fervour of missionary atheism'' at work.

Well then, please allow me to take a few minutes to tell you the Good News about absolutely nothing.

Pfffft.
First, let's spend 20 minutes while you try to justify calling it 'good' news.
Good for everyone? Good for you? What's your metric?
Or are you just punning the theists who say they've got good news about their skybeast?

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I was not aware of there being a ''vocal fervour of missionary atheism'' at work.

For ''vocal fervour of missionary atheism'', I read "atheists finally, after 1000s of years of imposed silence, feeling able to speak out without fear of being beheaded, burnt alive or otherwise punished for not conforming to the required belief system - unless they're in one of the 13 countries where atheism is still punishable by death, of course". I realise my version is a bit more wordy than the original but, clumsy as it is, I think it approaches much closer to reality.

 

[Underseer]

I was not aware of there being a ''vocal fervour of missionary atheism'' at work.

You disagree with them in public, and they can no longer set you on fire for that. Accusing you of being as bad as they are is the best they can do under the circumstances.

- - - Updated - - -

Well then, please allow me to take a few minutes to tell you the Good News about absolutely nothing.

Pfffft.
First, let's spend 20 minutes while you try to justify calling it 'good' news.
Good for everyone? Good for you? What's your metric?
Or are you just punning the theists who say they've got good news about their skybeast?

Emphasis added.

Did you forget who you were talking to? Of course he's punning/funning.

 

[braces_for_impact]

 

[untermensche]

I was not aware of there being a ''vocal fervour of missionary atheism'' at work.

One "missionary" is mentioned, Sam Harris.

But no quote from Harris saying he is concerned or cares about the present fluctuation in religious practice.

 

[ideologyhunter]

It's an overstated article, at the least. I'm grappling with that phrase that asserts that secular/materialist atheists like me assume that 'history underpins their values.' I'm assuming that there are centuries of life ahead for the big Religions of Man. Certainly the Islamic world has built massive levees to keep back the contrary tides of ideas and knowledge -- and the Christians seem to adapt to each new challenge to their scriptures by reinterpreting and reinventing their narrative.
I live north of the Bible Belt in a small town -- and I don't sense that I'm part of a groundswell of secularism. To be atheist in a country that insists on naming God on the money means to adapt an ironic pose, not a swagger.
Anyway, it's amusing to see how atheists are characterized in the press and in press releases by family value orgs -- I love the one about our rebellion against God.

 

[bilby]

"Did you hear? a guy in Scotland saw the Loch Ness monster the other day".

"Don't be silly. There is no such thing as the Loch Ness monster; It's pure fiction".

"You're just saying that because you are angry with the Loch Ness monster".

Unassailable logic there.

 

[Perspicuo]

Thanks for adding reputation to this user. May you be lucky enough to receive the same Reputation back in turn.

Bilby