Beyond ‘New Atheism’

[rug]

September 14, 2011, 8:00 pm
By GARY GUTTING

Led by the biologist Richard Dawkins, the author of “The God Delusion,” atheism has taken on a new life in popular religious debate. Dawkins’s brand of atheism is scientific in that it views the “God hypothesis” as obviously inadequate to the known facts. In particular, he employs the facts of evolution to challenge the need to postulate God as the designer of the universe. For atheists like Dawkins, belief in God is an intellectual mistake, and honest thinkers need simply to recognize this and move on from the silliness and abuses associated with religion.

Most believers, however, do not come to religion through philosophical arguments. Rather, their belief arises from their personal experiences of a spiritual world of meaning and values, with God as its center.

In the last few years there has emerged another style of atheism that takes such experiences seriously. One of its best exponents is Philip Kitcher, a professor of philosophy at Columbia. (For a good introduction to his views, see Kitcher’s essay in “The Joy of Secularism,” perceptively discussed last month by James Wood in The New Yorker.)

Instead of focusing on the scientific inadequacy of theistic arguments, Kitcher critically examines the spiritual experiences underlying religious belief, particularly noting that they depend on specific and contingent social and cultural conditions. Your religious beliefs typically depend on the community in which you were raised or live. The spiritual experiences of people in ancient Greece, medieval Japan or 21st-century Saudi Arabia do not lead to belief in Christianity. It seems, therefore, that religious belief very likely tracks not truth but social conditioning. This “cultural relativism” argument is an old one, but Kitcher shows that it is still a serious challenge. (He is also refreshingly aware that he needs to show why a similar argument does not apply to his own position, since atheistic beliefs are themselves often a result of the community in which one lives.)

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/atheism-scientific-versus-humanist/

[msongs]

1. religion is learned from parents and churches - little robots believing what mommy says nt

[socialshockwave]

2. I came to religion due to my mom's stroke.

I was an agnostic, and I decided to pray.

And I prayed.

And my mother got well. And I prayed. And God answered my prayers.

And He showed me the way.

Yes...I'm a robot.

BEEP BOOP STUPIDITY

[trotsky]

22. No one called you stupid.

But what is your response to those many, many people who prayed at the bedside of a loved one... and lost them anyway? Who felt no response from the god they prayed to, no solace whatsoever?

[socialshockwave]

33. I'll admit I can't speak for them. I have no answer. n/t

[chollybocker]

27. Maybe you should send a thankyou note

to the doctors and nurses, too. Just to be safe.

[socialshockwave]

34. Oh I already did!

Just because I think God helped them to save her doesn't mean I'm not grateful for the docs and nurses.

[darkstar3]

36. +1

[sudopod]

45. I for one will not criticize your acceptance of the Guru's message. nt

[RKP5637]

12. Agree, it's a learned behavior. n/t

[NMMNG]

32. Agreed

I was born an atheist and I remained one until I was eight. I thought "god" was just another TV character, albeit one who was spoken of but never seen or heard. Then my mother started taking me to church and I was fed all of the Christian dogma. Assuming, as most children do, that my parents and grandparents (and all of those nice church people) would never lie to me, I swallowed it and believed it until I woke up 20 years later.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Oh another assault on those dreadful new atheists!

Yay!

By the way, "Most believers, however, do not come to religion through philosophical arguments. Rather, their belief arises from their personal experiences of a spiritual world of meaning and values, with God as its center." I didn't know that. I always thought that "most believers" came by their beliefs as an accident of birth and consequent cultural indoctrination into a specific belief system. I'd love to see the data that validates the assertion that most believers are believers because of 'their personal experiences of a spiritual world etc' and not because they were brought up, for example, Zoroastrian.

[rug]

6. How can you bear it?

[mzteris]

40. "most believers" came by their beliefs as an accident of birth and consequent cultural indoctrinatio

ayuh. What you said.

I used to often think of that - even way back when I was a buhliever... what if I'd been born in India or Japan or 500 years before in the very same spot? What would I believe then?

I was always a "questioner". I guess I always doubted, but that whole "if you ask questions you're going to hell thing" was a real put-off for a kid. Then as I got older I thought something was wrong with ME... .why couldn't I just BELIEVE?!?!?

It took my FIVE YEAR OLD to show me the way. "Mommy, there's just no way those stories are true. They make NO SENSE!" and finally, I was able to let go 'cause none of it did.

[Thats my opinion]

50. Certainly

Culture is the vehicle which inevitably leads to experience

[Speck Tater]

4. "...their belief arises from their personal experiences of a spiritual world of meaning and values..

That quote is bullshit. People come to their religion as a result of being brainwashed as youngsters by parents and other authority figures.

[Trajan]

5. I am with msongs ...

"Most believers, however, do not come to religion through philosophical arguments. Rather, their belief arises from their personal experiences of a spiritual world of meaning and values, with God as its center." ... <-------WRONG

Their belief arose like all belief arose: Cultural indoctrination from birth ....

It takes a lot of guts to break through that indoctrination, and establish your own beachhead of honesty .... Kitcher is dead on, but so is Dawkins ...

[rurallib]

9. Every parent thinks they are doing the most wonderful thing

in saving their child's soul etc.

[darkstar3]

7. How does this figure?

"atheistic beliefs are themselves often a result of the community in which one lives."

Darkspouse and I are the only atheists we know IRL. So how could my atheism be the result of my community, a group of evangelicals?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. shouldn't atheists have their own forum? or do they, and I don't know about it?

this place is confusing sometimes.

[rug]

10. There is one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=263

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. wouldn't this subject be more apropos over there? How does one

decide where to post? Why is it appropriate for this forum? Why do atheists come here to discuss religion and theology?

[rug]

18. Beats me.

[NMMNG]

26. Maybe because this is the Religion and Theology forum?

Just a wild guess...

[laconicsax]

46. I know!

It isn't like atheists could have a perspective on the issue. After all, we don't live in a Christian-dominant society which gives special preference to religion and defers to it, especially when that religion is one of the Abrahamic faiths. Oh, wait...

I take it you've never considered the possibility that someone who doesn't have a religion or belief in a god could have an interest in religion/theology or have studied the issue. Here are some analogies you may understand.

-Should only atheletes post in the Sports forum? How could non-atheletes have an opinion on the subject?
-Should only women post in the Women's Rights forum? How could men have an opinion on the subject?
-Should only scientists post in the Science forum? How could non-scientists have an opinion on the issue?
-Should only economists post in the Economy forum? How could people with a brain have an opinion on the subject?
-Should only those in poverty post in the Poverty forum? How could middle or upper-class people have an opinion on the issue?
-Should only residents of Israel post in I/P? How could anyone else have an opinion on the issue?
-Should only lawyers, judges, and cops post in the Justice forum? How could anyone else have an opinion on the issue?
-Should only the disabled post in the Disability forum? How could anyone else have anything to say on the subject?
-Should only congresscritters post in the Congress forum? How could we the people have anything to say on the subject?
-Should only gun owners post in the gungeon? How could non gun-owners have an opinion on the topic?

[dmallind]

55. Well jeez you mean everybody here discussing politics is an elected official?

Gosh I'm such an interloper. Maybe everybody in the threads on choice is an abortion provider or patient, because SURELY you are consistent and genuinely assume people at DU only have the right to an opinion and the bandwidth to express it on topics where they have a first-person active participation?

I mean it's not like religion affects the lives of atheists is it? Politicians never try to enshrine religion into law; there are no prayers on our money or in our pledge; A bona-fide Dominionist would never be a front runner for the presidential nomuination of a major party; atheists have a fair chance to get elected and are trusted or otherwise based on their actions; Sunday is just another day where trade continues exactly like Saturday; nobody ever knocks on our doors to talk about religion, and churches share fairly in the tax base. What need do we have to talk about religion?

[LeftishBrit]

self-delete (dupe).

.

[LeftishBrit]

57. Because this forum is about discussion of religion from *all* viewpoints.

Not just a Christian viewpoint.

If you want a Christians-only forum, there is a 'Christian Liberals/ Progressive People of Faith' group. Also a nondenominational Prayer Circle group; group specifically for Catholics and Orthodox; and groups for non-Christian religious believers: Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and seekers on unique paths.

Since religion is so crucial to culture and politics, it's a relevant issue for *all* to discuss. There are indeed atheists who take academic courses in Theology/ Religious Studies at universities - interest in the subject does not require belief.

[socialshockwave]

11. The Religion/Theology forum seems to be atheists who post here.

I feel like the only Christian who posts here sometimes. :(

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. makes no sense to me ...

why do you even bother? are you a masochist? :hug:

[socialshockwave]

14. I dunno. I just am passionate about my faith in God

It's helped me through hard times.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. This forum has helped you through hard times? or do you mean

that your faith has helped you through hard times?

[socialshockwave]

17. LOL! This forum's been giving me a hard time. xD

My faith has. I've been back and forth on what I believe...but I feel set in stone now.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. lol --

this forum is used, abused and misued, reminds me of the gungeon. ;)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

43. If this forum's been giving you a hard time

What does that say about your faith? I'm not trying to be snarky - I'm sincerely curious.

[Thats my opinion]

51. Stay with it

You are increasingly not alone.

[darkstar3]

19. Atheists have a group, as rug linked to, and so do you.

The forum serves as place to discuss something, from all points of view, that affects everyone on a social level. If you don't like multiple points of view, you know where the exit is.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

24. Get in line.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. pass. let the guy in front of me do it twice.

[darkstar3]

29. Change your mind?

Performance anxiety affects a lot of people. Don't be ashamed.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

35. in your dreams. nighty night.

[trotsky]

39. Jesus must be proud of you, wow.

I can feel the love of a True Christian.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[socialshockwave]

23. I don't shy away from debate.

I'm just not used to - in my view- such constant, vicious attacks. I may not agree with the atheist community on their views, but I respect your right to have them. :) I just ask for the same respect to be given in return.

[darkstar3]

28. Read me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x240069

[RKP5637]

42. Excellent!!! n/t

[trotsky]

30. Can you identify some of these "vicious attacks"?

A lot of Christians seem to be confused, thinking that someone telling them their beliefs are mistaken is a horrible, nasty attack on all Christians.

If you don't want to hear other opinions about your religion, you should probably stick to one of the Groups where dissent is not allowed.

[Thats my opinion]

52. I and many others agree

But you are asking more than you will probably get. It just doesn't work that way--regretfully.

[cleanhippie]

54. Me too! Your Letter to the Editior was vicious personal attack on all christians

who do not believe in christianity the same way you do.


How can one be such a total hypocrite?

[LeftishBrit]

58. IMO, it was a well-deserved harsh attack on religious right-wingers

I would have attacked on different grounds; but I will always welcome opposition to the pernicious values of the right wing from *any* perspective.

I consider that the values of the hard-right are those of the psychopath and sadist; that is also I suppose a vicious personal attack, but I consider that right-wing values - 'Do hit people when they're down! I'm all right Jack, and the Devil take the hindmost!' - deserve attacking.

[cleanhippie]

61. My point is that That's My Opinion is being a total hypocrite.

He disparages non-believers here for what he sees as personal attacks then writes a fucking LTE to the LA Times that is nothing but a personal attack on believers that do not share HIS view of Christianity. That is THE definition of a hypocrite.

[Thats my opinion]

62. O thou great defender

of the atheist hating Christian right, and therefore committed to make a frontal assault on those who defend the right of the nobodies and the atheists to their point of view. My guess is that no matter what I say and to whom, even if I agree with you, you are going to try and savage it.
And that is what has happened to so much of r/t. Well the times are a changing.

[cleanhippie]

63. O thou great hypocrite.

It's as if you give what I and others write, you own personal meaning, regardless of what is actually written.


Times a changing? Indeed they are, my friend, indeed they are. The hypocritical words and actions are no longer being accepted, and religion is no longer getting a free pass from criticism. Changing indeed, for the better.

[LeftishBrit]

60. Of course everyone has the right to their religious or non-religious views

But the attacks are IMO caused by people's experiences with the atheist-hating Christian Right, and by the significant American cultural negativity toward atheists, even by some people who are not Christian Right (and yes, it even sometimes appears on DU). IIRC, you are Canadian, as I am British; we therefore only occasionally encounter the Christian Right anti-secular attitudes that appear to be routine in some parts of the USA.

In any case, people attack each others' views on all sort of things. I don't think that the 'snark' about religion is any greater than the 'snark' on anything else!

[LeftishBrit]

59. There is one, and there are also specific forums for religious people

This forum is for *all* perspectives on the issue.

Atheists also live in a society and culture influenced by religion, and have a right to express our (diverse) views on the situation.

[Warpy]

31. Belief in a supernatural "other:" is most likely hard wired

What form that supernatual other takes depends entirely on the believer's upbringing and subsequent experience.

The problem with "god did it" is that it shuts down any further inquiry, ends the discussion right there and then. That's the limitation of theism, when it is invoked. The more curious inquire "but just how did god do it?" and keep the investigation going. The less intellectually ambitious point to some oral tradition or holy writ and thunder that everything is there, don't ask any more questions, it's blasphemy to do so.

The real problem as I see it isn't that some people have experience of a supernatural other and some people do not. The real problem lies with dead letter literalists of any stripe, religious or political, who try to force the world to adhere to their often ancient texts rather than expanding on those texts as we learn more about the world.

[RKP5637]

37. That, is what gets me about religion, "those who try to force the world to adhere to

their often ancient texts rather than expanding on those texts as we learn more about the world."

[Warpy]

47. Exactly, yet I know believers in the hard sciences

who hold the dead letter literalists in the same disregard I do. I find I have a lot in common with them even though they're believers.

[Thats my opinion]

53. Brilliant! nt

[safeinOhio]

38. religious belief seems to cross all cultures and is

universal. I think that would make it innate and controlled by a gene or two. I just don't have that one.

[darkstar3]

41. Authoritarianism is innate.

The child who doesn't listen to mom and dad about the dangers of the world doesn't grow up to have children of his own.

Authoritarianism is innate. Religion is authoritarian. There you go.

[deacon_sephiroth]

48. their belief arises from their personal experiences of blah blah blah, um no

That's funny, that's not how I remember it, in fact that's not how I've ever SEEN it happen AT ALL.

In all my years of going to church and attending a Christian Accede my for my schooling did I EVER watch a child's beliefs arise from personal experience, though MANY of us wanted NOTHING more than to see this god everyone was talking about. Alas he did not show himself (shocking I know), what he did show us was raving, fear-mongering, irresponsible adults, preying on the ignorant youth. They went on and ON and ON about hell, about the pain the torment the suffering, the eternity, how you'll never see your parents again because they'll be in heaven, and you'll be in hell because you are bad, evil, DOOMED. They went on until the children cried their eyes out, in fear and anguish. Because in that delicate state of youth your imagination is so vivid so powerful, your emotions still so raw, you're doing good enough just to cope with the basic concept of mortality LET ALONE the adults trying to convince you that IT GETS WORSE than the whole "YOU DIE" thing.

At that point the kids would do anything to stop the terror, and the price they're asked is their "soul".

Adults, using ancient hysteria to make children cry until they sign over their souls........ REALLY? REALLY?!?!?! In the 21st century???

For many Atheists... their (lack of) beliefs arise from their personal experiences.

[Jim__]

49. OK, I've added "The New Secularism" to my wish list.

It looks like an excellent book.

And your post also gave us a link to another fine essay by James Wood, Is That All There Is:

...

In fact, Charles Taylor’s own essay in this collection, entitled “Disenchantment—Reenchantment,” suggests considerable agreement with Robbins. Taylor describes a crevasse that separates a world filled with gods, demons, and magic from our own mind-centered world. In the old theistic world, meaning and value were believed to inhere in the world itself, outside the human mind: in God, in the cosmos, and in God’s natural world, whether charged objects (such as religious relics) or the structure of the universe itself. Meaning came to you from out there. In a secular world, our meanings and values are thought to be generated by our minds and projected onto the world.

For Taylor, though, this “mind-centered” conception is a mistake. It doesn’t follow from the successes of post-Galilean science, he suggests, that our attributions of value are merely arbitrary. We can argue about them rationally, and some of them can be said to be “strong evaluations” of an objective state of affairs. By a “strong evaluation,” Taylor means a judgment so powerful and wide that, when someone else is incapable of sharing it, this suggests some limitation or inadequacy on his or her part. When our neighbor doesn’t agree with us that murdering scores of people at an island camp in Norway is wrong, we do not shrug and say, “Chacun ses goûts.” When Tolstoy calls Shakespeare a poor writer, it is a judgment that judges Tolstoy, and marks his eccentricity.

Secular explanations of the world (modern physics, astronomy, evolution) have not made the world less wondrous, and have not undermined the validity or the authority of our wonderment. Taking pleasure in the flight of a bird is not undermined by knowing a lot more than our ancestors did about how that bird evolved, and about how it works: on the contrary. The contemporary discourses that trouble Taylor seek to explain not the world but our minds. What happens when, say, neuroscience “explains” that our wonderment is merely an evolutionarily determined product of certain processes in our brain? Isn’t the strong evaluation that may sponsor such wonderment undermined by a mechanistic surrogate? Altruism, for instance, may involve strong evaluation: we admire it as something larger than ourselves, and those who don’t share our admiration of it seem inadequate, or worse. But where are we left when evolutionary biology tries to reduce the strong evaluation we make about altruism by claiming that, like all animal behavior, it is just a contrivance that benefits our selfish genes? In Taylor’s terms, the question is whether an “upper language,” in which we describe altruism as noble and admirable, can be fully captured by a “lower language,” of instrumental and biological explanation, a language that scrupulously avoids the vocabulary of purpose, intentionality, design, teleology.

Taylor is skeptical that it can; he worries about the undermining allure of such reduction, and not without cause. These days, one is continually running up against a crass evolutionary neuroscientific pragmatism that is loved by popular evolutionary psychologists and newspaper columnists (of the kind who argue that we are happiest living in suburbs and voting Republican because neuroscience has “proved” that a certain bit of our brain lights up upon seeing Chevy Chase or Greenwich; or that we all like novels because stories must have taught us, millennia ago, how to negotiate our confusing hunter-gatherer society—I exaggerate only a little). Taylor is right to claim that the popularity of this type of reduction is “one of the most burning intellectual issues in modern life.”

...

Great post, rug!

[tama]

56. Hmm

If the article represents Kitchers thoughts correctly, he could clarify them by making a better distinction between religous/spiritual experience* per se, and culturally conditioned interpretation of it. Contrary to what he says, "spiritual experiences underlying religious belief" do not necessarily depend on cultural conditions, as do their interpretations.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience