Wired has an article in the November issue about the “new atheism”. This is essentially a more aggressive form of atheism which says that not only is there no God, but belief in God is dangerous. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett seem to be leading the charge in this fight, seeing as each has recently published a book on the subject.
One doesn’t have to look far to understand the motivation behind this movement. I mean, look at all the trouble religion has caused in the middle east. But, does Dawkins really need to be so bellicose? As an example of the sorts of things he says which get me riled up:
Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists
Maybe in certain sub-samples of “highly intelligent people” this is true, but I also know a lot of wicked smart people for which it is not.
Also, how is it that Dawkins and Dennett miss the rather obvious objection to atheism that it is really just another faith? They’ve exchanged their faith in God for faith in a rule-ordered universe.
so I think i’m gonna convert to a follower of Apollonius. He’s basically like jesus. Jewish followers in Jerusalem said he performed miracles, healed the sick, died and came back, virgin birth, son of god, all that jazz. but Apollonius edges out Jesus with his coolest skill, walking through walls. I think that’s a awesome thing to have in your christ. fuckin’ sweet.
Apollonius is also just a good name.
hey blake, how’s it going?
i read the book. dawkins’s atheism is not certainty that god does not exist. rather, he gives an argument for why god as an explanation for the universe and life as we know it is just as unlikely as the flying spaghetti monster, or zeus, or apollonius, or a teacup orbiting pluto (that’s too small to be detected by our telescopes).
the figure he cites about very smart people being likely to be atheist refers to a study of members of the academy of sciences in the US, if I remember correctly, with the figure of believers among the subset of natural scientists at 7%.
and though this kind of religion bashing, this militancy, might feel downright mean, atheists have it far worse in America:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm
is it because they’re immoral? they are underrepresented in the prison population, though who knows how to interpret that.
Hi Jon,
I suppose that I just have a problem with the premise that science has anything to say about religion. The guiding force of all modern science is scientific materialism. The existence of God (or the flying spaghetti monster) is not something measurable, therefore science cannot assign any sort of probability to it.
I saw an article in the nytimes about the study of the national academy of sciences (in fact, I posted about it a while back). The figures from the article are that 10% of members of the national academy believe in God, while 40% of scientists overall do so. I happen to know 3 members of the national academy, and all of them believe in God, so I guess I am in touch with an usual sample. In any case, while all the members of the national academy certainly qualify as “highly intelligent”, they are still only a small fraction of people that deserve that label. If one considers more reasonably sized measures, I think that you will find Dawkins’ statement to be false, or at the worst misleading.
Also, Dawkins appears to deny that religion produces any good. Yet, it is fairly easy to rattle off counter examples; from public figures like Martin Luther King, to high school gym teachers that have kicked an addiction, many people emerge from extreme trial largely motivated and sustained by their faith.
I just think we have larger fish to fry than bashing religious moderates when religious fundamentalism is trying to hijack science education in America, or block stem cell research which could potentially cure several diseases.
It is also not even clear that atheism does not produce similar kinds of radicals as fundamental religious sects. For example, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Cultural Revolution in China were all motivated by anti-religious groups. I think the rise of fundamentalist Islam should serve more as a warning of the dangers of mixing religion with government.