Do atheists read the primary sources?

[Ginkgo]

Whom should the theist read if he wants seriously to come to grips with atheism? Atheism does not have its Aquinas figure, as is probably inevitable for a negative thesis. Best to read the scholarly criticisms of the better theistic arguments, i.e. the responses to Anselm (starting with Guanilo but maybe including something published last week), and the responses to Aquinas, Plantinga, and Alston.

Not as good an approach, but still not bad, is for the theist to come to terms with the arguments of Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris, the most philosophically sophisticated of the “New Atheists.” Better yet would be to read, Mackie, or Sinnott-Armstrong.

Perhaps Dawkins and Krauss as well?

[Lawrence Crocker]

Perhaps Dawkins and Krauss as well?

Dawkins is a mixed bag: some good arguments; some not so good; and much mixing of arguments against God and arguments against religion. Krauss I have not read.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is useful to distinguish, as the debate between atheists and theists only rarely does, between atheism and anti-religion-ism. One of the defects of the “New Atheism” is that it tends to conflate the two and encourages us to do the same.

There are a few theists who believe that all religions are historically, sociologically, and politically terrible. There are some atheists who are indifferent to the existence of religions, and even some think there are some good religions. Left leaning atheists often have a soft spot for the Quakers, the social gospel Protestants, the liberation theology movement, and the current Pope. Right wing atheists might have a similar fondness for the Puritans (the Bradford free enterprise strain, not the communalists) and the preachers of the Gospel of Prosperity.
.

What you are doing is making up a set piece caricature of what you like to think of as "New Atheism". Like most straw men it is just as inflammable , and your words equally inflammatory.

What you need to do is to try and see why there is such a thing as anti-religionism, and what motivates the thought that religion is dangerous.
None, not even the characters of the so-called "New Atheism" are stupid enough to admit that all religion at all times is bad; the thought is more about the fact that all religion is potentially bad, since it all claims divinely inspired high ground and all religion demands of its followers to believe in falsehoods. This makes religion a danger. Not now, maybe not tomorrow but soon.

[ReliStuPhD]

Whom should the theist read if he wants seriously to come to grips with atheism? Atheism does not have its Aquinas figure, as is probably inevitable for a negative thesis. Best to read the scholarly criticisms of the better theistic arguments, i.e. the responses to Anselm (starting with Guanilo but maybe including something published last week), and the responses to Aquinas, Plantinga, and Alston.

I agree. Bertrand Russel and Anthony Flew would be good in that respect.

As for the so-called "New Atheists," it seems to me that they do more to set the cause back than to advance it. Their arguments just aren't philosophically robust. I doubt that their writings will last much beyond their respective deaths.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Whom should the theist read if he wants seriously to come to grips with atheism? Atheism does not have its Aquinas figure, as is probably inevitable for a negative thesis. Best to read the scholarly criticisms of the better theistic arguments, i.e. the responses to Anselm (starting with Guanilo but maybe including something published last week), and the responses to Aquinas, Plantinga, and Alston.

I agree. Bertrand Russel and Anthony Flew would be good in that respect.

As for the so-called "New Atheists," it seems to me that they do more to set the cause back than to advance it. Their arguments just aren't philosophically robust. I doubt that their writings will last much beyond their respective deaths.

The trouble is with Theists is that they claim other's arguments are not robust, but rarely are capable of demonstrating that.

[Wyman]

Whom should the theist read if he wants seriously to come to grips with atheism? Atheism does not have its Aquinas figure, as is probably inevitable for a negative thesis. Best to read the scholarly criticisms of the better theistic arguments, i.e. the responses to Anselm (starting with Guanilo but maybe including something published last week), and the responses to Aquinas, Plantinga, and Alston.

Not as good an approach, but still not bad, is for the theist to come to terms with the arguments of Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris, the most philosophically sophisticated of the “New Atheists.” Better yet would be to read, Mackie, or Sinnott-Armstrong.

Perhaps Dawkins and Krauss as well?

Actually, I've always found Socrates to fill that roll well in the Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo. Although he pays some lip service to the 'gods' (they killed people who did not - the arguments in the Euthyphro cast grave doubts on the consistency and meaningfulness of religious activities. The reason for accepting his punishment in the Crito is based on secular, social contract ideas; and the talk of the afterlife in the Phaedo takes the form of 'wishful thinking' - i.e. either I die and nothing happens, which is fine, or maybe I'll get to talk to famous people. And his discussion of the soul is a Euthyphro-like deconstruction of the contemporary ideas on the subject.

[Lawrence Crocker]

Actually, I've always found Socrates to fill that roll well in the Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo.

I can't claim to be a Socrates scholar, but when I can get away with it I interpret him more as a skeptic than a propounder of doctrine. So I tend to take him to be more anti-theist than atheist, leaving him free to be anti-atheist as well. I think of him as founding that turn that in philosophy that sees the its progress as showing what cannot be true of ever more sophisticated candidate theses.

There are certainly powerful Socratic arguments against some central tenets of theism, the Euthyphro Dilemma at the top of the list for the God-goodness link. (This argument seems to me one of the great achievements of human thought, which everyone should know.) If he has arguments against a more modest theism, I have under-appreciated them.

[Obvious Leo]

As for the so-called "New Atheists," it seems to me that they do more to set the cause back than to advance it.

I agree. I reckon the proselytising atheist is every bit as absurd a figure as the proselytising theist because the existence or non-existence of the supernatural is not a legitimate subject for either scientific or philosophical enquiry. The proselytising atheist thus plays into the theist's hands by defining his own argument as a belief and in the case where no evidence can support either side there is no valid reason why one belief should be preferred over another. The atheist would be better advised to shut his gob and demand that the theist make his case, which is of course utterly impossible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and the burden of such proof always lies with the claimant, which means the argument is over before it even gets started.

The anti-religion argument is a different matter. Religious belief is a genuine psychological and sociological phenomenon and as such it is an eminently legitimate subject for both scientific and philosophical enquiry.

[Hobbes' Choice]

As for the so-called "New Atheists," it seems to me that they do more to set the cause back than to advance it.

I agree. I reckon the proselytising atheist is every bit as absurd a figure as the proselytising theist..../quote]

Obviously the rise in atheism has nothing to do with the advent of New Atheism!

Just having the discussion reveals the absurdity of religion, and the weakness of the Theist argument. You guys are history. In fact the case for religion is so weak that a dusty old fart like Dawkins can make headway, because as bad an unattractive as he is making a case to reject religious doctrine is like falling off a log.

[Obvious Leo]

Obviously the rise in atheism has nothing to do with the advent of New Atheism!

We seem to be agreeing with each other quite a lot of late, Hobbes. Maybe they've put something in the water. I very much doubt that the committed theist is likely to be persuaded our of his stance by force of logical argument for the simple reason that theism and logic operate in different conceptual magisteria.

Just having the discussion reveals the absurdity of religion, and the weakness of the Theist argument. You guys are history. In fact the case for religion is so weak that a dusty old fart like Dawkins can make headway, because as bad an unattractive as he is making a case to reject religious doctrine is like falling off a log.

We're seeing it happening all over the world and even slowly taking hold in the reactionary theocracy that is the USA. Religion is a dying ideology which will simply be unable to withstand the anarchy of the information age. Who the hell needs god in a world which has iPads and Kardashians?

[Melchior]

I can't agree with this or with any of the rest of your post if we're talking about the word "atheist" as it is applied in the common usage. The vast majority of people who would so define themselves would have scarcely ever given the matter any thought, any more than most theists have ever given the matter any thought.

In that case, what we're talking about is the fact that many people misuse the word, not that the word means something other than what it, well, means. You've got something of an uphill climb to get past etymology and usage by those who aren't confused ok the term. Atheist is a clear descriptor with a long history of use that is little-changed to this day. But I can certainly agree wth your assertion that many atheists don't understand the word well enough to know that it does not apply to them. I agree that apatheism is more descriptive.

Thanks for the response.

One can be a church-going 'Christian' and be an atheist. I bet most so-called Christians merely go through the motions for various motives and reasons. But they don't really 'believe'.

[Melchior]

Whom should the theist read if he wants seriously to come to grips with atheism?

Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Mueller 1881 translation.

[Obvious Leo]

Practically every rural village or country town in regional Australia has one or more churches of various Christian denomination, all of which were built well over a century ago. Almost all of these have now been converted to up-market B&B's or boutique art and craft galleries. The few little old ladies still interested in such entertainments nowadays often need to travel substantial distances to socialise with others of similar interest. In country areas at least religious belief is almost universally regarded as a quaint cultural remnant of a forgotten past. In the capital cities the situation is somewhat different because of the influx in recent decades of migrants from the Muslim world. However this will only last for a generation or so. The first generation migrants may be anxious to stay fast to their cultural traditions but their kids will be more interested in the sport, booze, dope and naked women on the beaches. One could hardly blame them.

[Wyman]

Actually, I've always found Socrates to fill that roll well in the Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo.

I can't claim to be a Socrates scholar, but when I can get away with it I interpret him more as a skeptic than a propounder of doctrine. So I tend to take him to be more anti-theist than atheist, leaving him free to be anti-atheist as well. I think of him as founding that turn that in philosophy that sees the its progress as showing what cannot be true of ever more sophisticated candidate theses.

There are certainly powerful Socratic arguments against some central tenets of theism, the Euthyphro Dilemma at the top of the list for the God-goodness link. (This argument seems to me one of the great achievements of human thought, which everyone should know.) If he has arguments against a more modest theism, I have under-appreciated them.

I agree - he's a skeptic; I didn't realize you were talking of something else. I consider myself agnostic, but perhaps I misuse the word and should call myself a skeptic.

Yes, the Euthyphro, odd as it is, was the beginning of a new way of thinking, I think. It seems to have been developed by Socrates and perfected by Plato. Is piety good because God loves it or does God love piety because it is good? If it is only good because God loves it, then the quality which makes it good is conferred on it (by God - the quality of 'being loved by God' which is circular and thus not a definition). It is the beginning of analysis or logic - a more rigorous and formal treatment of words and concepts.

[ReliStuPhD]

One can be a church-going 'Christian' and be an atheist.

Agreed. We call them "cultural Christians" (Muslims, Buddhists, etc) in the Religious Studies field. They follow their religion because they were raised to, not because of any deep-seated belief.