The New Atheist Fundamentalism

[Madaglan]

I lack belief in Bigfoot. If a group of Bigfoot believers got together and started to pass laws that said that everyone in the society – whether or not they believe in Bigfoot – has to do certain things by the laws set down by Bigfoot, I would probably vehemently oppose their actions and strongly argue against the existence of Bigfoot by pointing out that there is no evidence to accept the claim.

In that situation, I would obviously still lack belief in Bigfoot.

And my pointing out that there’s no good evidence or reason to believe in Bigfoot could hardly be compared to trying to convince people to accept claims on the basis of faith.

Sheesh.

And thanks, rick. It’s not my goal to “convert” anyone – just to get them to think critically.

And if Bigfoot preached the truth, in accordance with wisdom and genuine tradition, would the laws be all that bad?

The question of the existence/non-existence of God for most atheists is different than for most theists, and certainly Christians. Monist materialism underlies the approach atheists take to the question of God, and so were God to exist, God would have to be discernible to the senses (would consist of energy and/or matter) and would take up space. Many theists, on the other hand, are dualist in their metaphysic. There is a distinction between the created and the uncreated, and the scientific approach of discovering the truth of created reality through empirical means need does not apply in the same way to that which is above the created order.

The comparison of God with Bigfoot is not quite accurate. Bigfoot is considered along the same ontological plane as other animals, and is situated in certain spacial areas. God, for Christians, on the other hand, is the organizing principle and source behind all that is created. He is in everything created, not as created material to be extracted through scientific research, but as uncreated spirit that guides creation.

 

[Nevermore22]

This has very little to do with the current discussion, but the comic brought this one to mind:

http://www.reverendfun.com/add_toon_info.php?date=19971229&language=en

 

[Heteroclite]

Nevermore: The Scarlet Letter has morphed into a golden one. (So, is the “Mark of the Beast” a giant “A”? )

 

[Heteroclite]

AntiTheist, you yourself may not subscribe to the fundamentalist variety of atheism, but most of the more prominent and vocal “scientists” do, witness this summary of their faith by Lewontin (“Billions and Billions of Demons”, New York Review of Books, (January 9, 1997), p. 28.)

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

(emphases mine)

 

[Contarini]

Who does this?

Dawkins is one of the best examples. Of course he stridently denies that he’s doing any such thing.

What? Example? Does anyone here think they they’re not in a religion and consider themselves to be Christian?

Post a thread with that question in the title, and you’ll probably find some. Catholics don’t do this, but this forum attracts plenty of “Bible-only” fundamentalist/evangelical Christians as well. It’s one of the standard lines you hear from fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

I disagree. I verify my universe and its inhabitants according to my senses and scientific knowledge peer reviewed.

I think it’s intriguing that you put your senses and peer-reviewed science together. If I said “I verify my universe and its inhabitants according to my senses and the teachings of Holy Scripture” you would probably notice that these were two very different things. Peer-reviewed science is a body of authoritative teaching produced by an elite and accepted by the masses on faith. Indeed, many of the beliefs that we hold about the universe rest on the teachings of science in sharp contrast to the evidence of our senses.

I think there are very good reasons to believe in the validity of the scientific method, and to trust peer-reviewed science unless and until one has good reason to distrust a particular conclusion. But to put peer-reviewed science on a par with the evidence of your own senses (and even, I would argue, to trust science when it contradicts the senses, as I think most of us do on many points) requires a good deal of faith.

What blind faith does he have? I’m pretty sure he is lacking faith.

He has faith in the scientific method. So do I, but it isn’t blind faith. I am open to the possibility that scientists might not only make mistakes (as we all agree they sometimes do) but might make mistakes while following good scientific method and might never correct those mistakes (or be corrected by others) in spite of continuing to follow good scientific method. In other words, I am open to the possibility that the scientific method itself has limits. And so when I find people who are not open to that possibility, it looks to me as if they have blind faith, just as my fellow-Christians who are not open to any evidence against their faith appear to me to have blind faith.

Edwin

 

[AntiTheist]

AntiTheist, you yourself may not subscribe to the fundamentalist variety of atheism, but most of the more prominent and vocal “scientists” do, witness this summary of their faith by Lewontin (“Billions and Billions of Demons”, New York Review of Books, (January 9, 1997), p. 28.)

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

(emphases mine)

Assuming that this was the meaning in context – which I’m not necessarily willing to grant – I can’t say I agree with him. I prefer to say that science adopts a methodological naturalism, not a philosophical materialism.

Personally, I accept the material world because there is evidence of it. If someone wanted to claim that there was a non-physical world (not connected to the physical), that person would have to provide evidence for it.

Further, I note that counter-intuitive scientific claims are supported by evidence, placing them in a different category than beliefs randomly accepted.

EDIT: But note that you’ve given us an example of a fundamentalist materialist. We’re talking about funadmentalist atheists here. They’re not the same thing, as I hope should be obvious.

Contarini:

Peer-reviewed science is a body of authoritative teaching produced by an elite and accepted by the masses on faith.

It’s not accepted on faith. As you yourself note, we have good reason to trust the findings of peer-reviewed inquiry: for example, we have all of the beneficial effects that have come out of this process in the past, suggesting that we should indeed trust it.

Further, the process entails experts attempting to find flaws in each other’s theories – it subjects scientific ideas to rigorous scrutiny before they are accepted, which gives us further reason to trust these findings.

None of this operates on faith in any way whatsoever, and to try to reduce it to faith is disingenuous in the highest degree.

 

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/quantum.jpg?w=450&h=577

Recently the Templeton Prize, awarded for contributions to “affirming life’s spiritual dimension”, has been won by French physicist Bernard d’Espagnat, who has worked on quantum physics with some of the most famous names in modern science.

d’Espagnat says a spiritual reality is veiled from us, and science offers a glimpse behind that veil. The bizarre nature of quantum physics has attracted some speculations that are wacky but the theory suggests to some serious scientists that reality, at its most basic, is perfectly compatible with what might be called a spiritual view of things. Some suggest that observers play a key part in determining the nature of things. Legendary physicist John Wheeler said the cosmos “has not really happened, it is not a phenomenon, until it has been observed to happen.”

D’Espagnat worked with Wheeler, though he himself reckons quantum theory suggests something different. For him, quantum physics shows us that reality is ultimately “veiled” from us. The equations and predictions of the science, super-accurate though they are, offer us only a glimpse behind that veil. Moreover, that hidden reality is, in some sense, divine. Along with some philosophers, he has called it “Being”.

The deeper questions in physics are bound to interact with the religious/philosophical assumptions of the physicist. So how do scientists investigating the fundamental nature of the universe assess any role of God? Mark Vernon, who writes science articles, did a little research and came up with the following here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/09/08/a-spiritual-reality-veiled-from-us/

dj