To my fellow non-theists. I sent the following letter to Sam Harris, and was wondering if any of you agree with the substance of my remarks. My contention is that the "New movement" should not rally under an "atheist" banner.
============
Dear Sam,
I admire you so much! In the speech you gave at the last AA conference, you presented two general reasons for why atheists shouldn't call themselves atheists. I offer a third reason, one that might be more useful in both (a) defining what the "new atheism movement" stands for and (b) dispelling confusion.
The term atheism in "new atheism movement" is highly misleading in that it suggests that the actual opposition is theism, and not just certain theistic religions. A real distinction needs to be made, I think, between general theism and certain theistic religions: whereas general theism is primarily concerned with the existence of some entity with omni-max attributes, certain theistic religions are concerned with the intentions, desires, beliefs, and commands of a specific omni-max entity. The real target of "new atheism" should not be general theism at all, but only the contentions and claims of certain theistic religions. There are several reasons for this claim.
First, general theism is not as dumb and irrational as many atheists make it out to be. The fact that the criticisms by professional atheistic philosophers have gotten more sophisticated over the years, not less, is a testament against the alleged irrationality of general theism. If general theism is so stupid and utterly irrational, why would it require highly sophisticated critiques to knock it down? Perhaps Thomas Nagel was right in the secular round-table discussion when he said "theism should be acknowledged by atheists as an honorable position": after all, an opponent who can put up a very strong fight seems worthy of respect.
Second, general theism is simply not (or shouldn't be) the relevant target of "new atheism" criticismsâ€"certain theistic religions are. When debating theists the issue shouldn't be: "Does God exist?' Or even: "Are there good reasons for thinking that God does not exist?" Instead, when debating theists the issue should be: "Are there good reasons for taking the claim________seriously?" where the blank can be filled by statements such as 'Christianity/Islam is true', 'The Bible is the Word of God,' 'God is really against gay marriage,' 'If you don't accept Jesus you'll go to hell,' etc. Those are the type of claims "New atheists" like yourself are actually targeting, and should continue to challenge.
Third, by construing the debate against faith as an attack on certain theistic religions, and not on general theism, you will win the support of many 'functional' atheists and people who would otherwise 'join the cause' if not for the misleading label. This is because: since the target *isn't* general theism, it is just plain wrong to label the movement against certain theistic religions an 'atheist movement'â€"no one is really trying to defend atheism in its broadest sense. Moreover, it is likely that you'll also win over moderates like David Wolpe, people who are in agreement with your stances against religious fundamentalism, but are otherwise hesitant to be part of the "new atheism cause" since they view the movement as also attacking general theism.
In any case, whether or not you agree with my suggestion, I look forward to reading more of your articles and watching your upcoming debates. I'm a big fan.
regards,
Spencer
=================
While there are some atheists who do think that all religious concepts are dangerous, I agree that the ones that are the real concern are those major religions which promote high levels of irrational thought. To attack theism as a whole is not only setting more people against the anti-fundamentalism cause but is presuming that, for instance, deism and Christianity are equally irrational positions. I think that to most of us, it is obvious that Christianity, Islam etc is far more irrational than something such as deism (a simple form of theism with no dogma).
Quote from: "laetusatheos"I think that to most of us, it is obvious that Christianity, Islam etc is far more irrational than something such as deism (a simple form of theism with no dogma).
I really hope that's true, but the responses I've been getting are less than encouraging. I invite you to check out the responses from some of my more hostile atheist "critics."
Simply google radical_logic.
Consider the following: a) 90+% of Americans poll as theists. b) A majority of Americans distrust atheists.
IMO, atheists are seen as members of one group without many colors or 'denominations' from most points of view. I think most atheists are seen as absolutists whereas most Americans (theists) think in more relative terms about their theism. Hence, being painted with such a broad stroke places most of us at a disadvantage from the start when we attempt to break ranks with the more virulent, vocal, and published among us. It will take a lot of time to get the point of view across that atheists are more diverse in their opinions and not following one sole set of 'doctrine' as handed down from Harris or Dawkins.
So would New Atheists be equivalent somehow to Compassionate Conservatives?
:cheers: