News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Question about the New Atheism

Started by bertrandrusselisdead, April 01, 2009, 11:40:46 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

bertrandrusselisdead

Someone asked who is Tim Keller, and since I've been listening to him for the last few weeks and think he is quite interesting I'll add a little more about him.

The link I gave is a good quick introduction to Keller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxup3OS5ZhQ

This is the talk he gave at the Google HQ, it was one of the best attended talks by an author at Google.

These are some bits taken from the wiki article about him.

Timothy J. Keller (born 1950) is an American author, speaker, and the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in New York City, New York. He was asked by the PCA to start Redeemer in 1989 despite his relative lack of experience and after two others had turned down the position. The church grew from 50 people to total attendance of over 5,000 people each Sunday as of early 2008, leading many to call him "the most successful Christian Evangelist in the city." His target audience consists mainly of urban professionals, whom he believes exhibit disproportionate influence over the culture and its ideas, and in his preaching, He shuns the label "evangelical" because of its political and fundamentalist connotation, preferring to call himself simply orthodox.

Keller, once the director of his denomination's mercy ministries, has always emphasized Christian service and charity, both in his own church's members and in those the center trains to plant urban churches. The Vision of Redeemer is:

QuoteTo spread the gospel, first through ourselves and then through the city by word, deed, and community; To bring about personal changes, social healing, and cultural renewal through a movement of churches and ministries that change New York City and through it, the world.

Redeemer, according to Christianity Today, is "one of Manhattan's most vital congregations" and, according to a 2006 survey of 2000 American church leaders, is the sixteenth most influential church in America.

Keller's book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism was named Book of the Year for 2008 by World Magazine. It rose as high as #7 on the New York Times Non-Fiction Best-Seller list in March of 2008.

curiosityandthecat

Quote from: "bertrandrusselisdead"Redeemer, according to Christianity Today, is "one of Manhattan's most vital congregations" and, according to a 2006 survey of 2000 American church leaders, is the sixteenth most influential church in America.

Keller's book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism was named Book of the Year for 2008 by World Magazine. It rose as high as #7 on the New York Times Non-Fiction Best-Seller list in March of 2008.
To me, that says more about those periodicals than anything else. ;)
-Curio

G.ENIGMA

Quote from: "bertrandrusselisdead"I'm puzzled about the claims of the new atheists.

Obviously bad things have been done in the name of religion, but what are they really saying? Are they claiming religion is the cause of all evil? If we irradicate religion we will irradicate all irrational thought? Suddenly everyone will understand how probability really works? If they achieved their utopia and managed to prevent anyone from holding any wrong beliefs (how do they define wrong belief? most beliefs can't be proved) what do they think would happen?.

Well for a start all those people who are hurting themselves and others in the name of some totally irrational religion may stop and think that this is the only life they will ever have and stop wasting it by becoming a martyr in the hope of a better afterlife. :hmm:
To those who are overly cautious, everything seems impossible.

Dragon_Of_Heavon

New Atheism huh. By this I can only think that you mean new as out of the closet atheists. (we have never been popular) Well as one of these new Atheists I can say I have no delusions that getting rid of religion will destroy evil in the world but it would destroy superstition and that can only be a good thing. Also historically there is a very good argument that destroying religion would stop a lot of wars and conflicts. So there are a lot of good things about getting rid of it.
When the last bastion of religion falls the religious will look up at the sky and ask their God why? And then they will collapse wailing and grinding their teeth. The atheist will look at his feet and say "I think that I can build something better here!"

Kylyssa

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Religious people think atheists are wrong, but I haven't even heard a mainstream creationist call them all child abusers for not teaching their children that religion is true, and they think there is a hell of a lot more at steak.

However, some Christians call Child Protective Services on parents who don't take their children to church and some Christians use a parent's lack of religion to weight custody in favor of the religious parent in divorce cases.

Kylyssa

Teaching a child about your religion is not abusive - teaching them self-hatred, teaching them to despise non-Christians, forcing them to practice your religion or be kicked out on the street, denying them medical treatment, and keeping them from an adequate education are all child abuse.

I think that presenting a religion to children as the one and only Truth which overrules all other types of thought is an abuse of power.  It's like the soup kitchens and shelters that require the homeless people who use it to attend a church service and yell "praise Jesus!" in order to get fed or allowed to stay the night.  A child who is indoctrinated in a religion has no choice in the matter.  Don't you think that it would be more meaningful for people to choose to believe rather than to be indoctrinated and believe because they know nothing else?

A number of teens I've taken in over the years were discarded for religious reasons and in their cases, their parents' religious practices were horrible child abuse often accompanied by physical abuse and emotional abuse.  Have you any idea how a fundie reacts to a child who confesses to having a homosexual thought?  Or to a child who decides to explore another religion?  It's brutal.  The lion's share of my kids came from uber religious homes.

Sophus

I definitely believe it's a mild form of child abuse. Making them believe if they don't do this this and this that they will burn in hell. And all the feelings of guilt religion imposes on them; 'a strict father figure is watching your every move'. I'm not saying it's done to intentionally to abuse them - but they are.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

curiosityandthecat

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Teaching a child about your religion is not abusive - teaching them self-hatred, teaching them to despise non-Christians, forcing them to practice your religion or be kicked out on the street, denying them medical treatment, and keeping them from an adequate education are all child abuse.

[aside]
Did you know that malaria was originally believed to be caused by not being Christian?   :raised:
[/aside]
-Curio

Dragon_Of_Heavon

Its not just christian fundies like the 700 club or Westboro who are guilty of this sort of zealotry though, orthodox Jewish families are specificaly known for disowning a child who turns from the faith or marries out of the faith. The Catholic Church states in the Catechism that it is important for a person to understand other beliefs and structures. However in Catholic College you will find classes mostly on the Ancients, St Thomas Aquinas, and St Agustin, you may go so far in the other direction as Hume, you will not however never find a class on an atheist or an eastern philosopher without a HEAVY Catholic overtones. This is because even though it states in the Catechism that a good Catholic must understand the world and various points of view, however if you read the fine print it basically also says that every thing that is against the bible or the church tradition is automatically in error and so everything must be viewed though church colored glasses. This is most times emphasized to protect the faithful, but it keeps them from real understanding as well. (I got kicked out of class more than a few times) Any thing is abusive if all the power is going one way is it not?
When the last bastion of religion falls the religious will look up at the sky and ask their God why? And then they will collapse wailing and grinding their teeth. The atheist will look at his feet and say "I think that I can build something better here!"

youngmoigle

Are they claiming religion is the cause of all evil?
Probably not. But religious people are capable of prolonged evil (think of the Inquisitions).

Suddenly everyone will understand how probability really works?
They will if the subject is properly taught in public schools. [They don't teach it at Sunday School]

If they achieved their utopia
They probably wouldn't use the word "utopia"

and managed to prevent anyone from holding any wrong beliefs
That's an extreme position - The New Atheists merely desire to live in a society where falsehoods are not taught as fact (with eternal punishment as a convincer).

how do they define wrong belief?
Neil Armstrong walked on the moon (correct belief)
Jesus Christ ascended into heaven (wong belief)
And those definitions are based on the evidence available

most beliefs can't be proved
But the degree of error can be minimized.
I am 99.99999% certain the sun will rise tomorrow
I am slightly less certain that an angel will appear tomorrow.

what do they think would happen?
I think we would gain an immediate advantage because more people would make more sensible decisions about all sorts of things. I can't see the down-side.

I'm puzzled by their apparent claim it is religion that is somehow responsible for what is wrong with the world
"Apparent" is the key word. It may be that New Atheist are not claiming what you say they claim. Few would claim that religion is the sole cause of all wrongs, nor even the major cause of many wrongs.

 rather than (for example) the unequal distribution of power and wealth, or unaccountability of those with power etc.
These things are not ignored by atheists - but they are not just secular problems either:

Unequal distribution of power and wealth: Compare the Pope in his palace and the believer in his shanty-town
Unaccountability of those in power: Think of the pedophiles protected from the law for centuries by the church.

Dizzikait

I'd like to jump in and tackle this child abuse...thing. I think that (no, I know that), while a child is developing, they ask LOTS of questions. When the answer to every question revolves around religion and god, well that does constitute child abuse in my book, because that parent is ill-preparing that child for their life. Sure that kid is eventually going to learn that god doesn't give us babies when we pray really hard, but that kid is still, perhaps, going to have doubts in his head, because of things his parents told him when he was little. Maybe he still feels guilty about little "sins" here and there in his adult life, because he was taught that we're all sinners, right from the very beginning. Doesn't causing a life-long doubt in your child's head about what is right and wrong, and making them generally unhappy constitute child abuse?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that parents who are atheists have got it all nailed down either, but IMO, if people can teach their children religion at a young age, they should also teach them basic science, common human decency, let them be exposed to other cultures and *gasp* other religions. (Haha, in a perfect world right?) But that's not likely, since most deists are highly insecure of their faith, lest they lose their child to atheism, or Hinduism or w/e. This type of subtle mental child abuse will not ever be the type that is punishable by law, IMO. And as atheists we really couldn't suggest such a law, really. That would call for the government to intervene in people's religion, which, may I remind everyone, is bad.

Matrix

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Parents do the best we can. We raise children to up-hold the values we think are good, to believe the things we think are true, to  live the life we think is fulfilling, and happy, and to impart the most, and best that we have to offer on to them. Not everyone is even remotely going to agree on everything I think is virtuous, right, a good life, or agree with what I think is important. I can only do the best that I can, and so can others.

I agree. But I think the problem comes when you teach your child the morals and values you hold to be important, etc and then scare them into believing what you do by saying that they will go to hell if they don't believe. Scare tactics are common in totalitarian rules and we all know how well those work out. I'd say teach your child what you can about being a good person and what not and then live and let live.
"Peacefully they will die, peacefully they will expire in your name, and beyond the grave they will find only death. But we will keep the secret, and for their own happiness we will entice them with a heavenly and eternal reward."