What is OmniNerd?

Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by you, the reader. Through voting and moderation we strive to highlight the nerdiest of what's around and provide content that's a little more thought provoking than other sites.

Submit New Content

Voting Booth

Overall 2008 debate winners?

View Results, All Polls
43 votes, 5 comments
+ -

What the New Atheists Don’t See

Link link by LordDilly on 29 October 2007, tagged as religion, atheism, and philosophy

Atheist Theodore Dalrymple discusses what he believes are the philosophical short comings of the new Atheists- Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens et. al

Star This to Save in Your Profile Favorite
Thread parent sort order:
Highest Voted : Lowest Voted : Oldest : Newest
Thread verbosity:
Expand All : Minimize Replies to Comments
2 Nerd-Its - +
Uncle Tom's Cabin by scottb :: NR7

Reading that, the image that came to mind was the character of Uncle Tom from Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel. Or at least Aunt Chloe...

"How easy white folks al'us does things!" said Aunt Chloe, pausing while she was greasing a griddle with a scrap of bacon on her fork, and regarding young Master George with pride. "The way he can write, now! and read, too! and then to come out here evenings and read his lessons to us,—it's mighty interestin'!"

Gee whiz - look at all the amazing acheivements of the theists.

Daniels (Dalrymple's a pen name) pretty much has missed the entire point of the "new atheists". His characterizations of the well-known books by Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris fully demonstrate it. He takes a sentence of Harris and reads meaning into it the author has already denied, but then follows it up with:

And in my own view, the absence of religious faith, provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant, can have a deleterious effect upon human character and personality.

He completely fails to address Harris' central theme - that religious faith quite frequently is "murderously intolerant".

The whole article is bizarre - a self-proclaimed atheist who longs for faith. He's almost the mirror image of Mother Theresa - a self-proclaimed theist who couldn't actually manage to believe.

His whole take on the "philosophical shortcomings of the new atheists" is irrelevant, since he's so completely missed understanding what they're about. These "new atheists" aren't any kind of reaction to old theism - old theism was happily cutting its own throat for years and things were going quite well, thank you. Then the "new theists" - the evangelical and dominionist dickheads - started sticking their nose into things. We got schools teaching religion disguised as science and a president who thinks the gods told him to invade Iraq. That's what provoked the "new atheists" - and that's what's allowing them to get so much traction.

The "new theists" don't make nuanced theological arguments - they believe Genesis is a literal account of the creation of the Earth. They don't build cathedrals like Chartres - they build megachurches that look like Wal-Marts. They don't paint emotionally breathtaking still lifes - they make absurd YouTube movies about how bananas prove "intelligent design".

Joseph Hall's writings are completely irrelevant to the new atheists - because they're completely unknown to the new theists. There's no point in engaging with Hall's writings because it's the William Dembskis and Desmond D'Souzas of the world that actually reflect what the majority of Christians believe - or worse, the Ted Haggards, Jerry Falwells. George Aldriges and Becky Fischers.

Posted 29 October 2007, Hide, Reply