F Atheism

The rise of Atheism

-As societies modernise they become less religious- secularisation theory, lost favour recently

>clear trends involve:

• religion becoming marginalised from public life (less central, especially in politics)

• fewer people engage in religious practices (doesn’t mean a rise in atheism Grace Davis)

• Religious belief decline

Explained as:

• A process of rationalisation (encouraged through bureaucracy in work, undermines religion)arc

• Increase in science and tech (arent claiming we all understand the contrast in scripture in part yes, given us greater control over our lives, less reliant on religion, if sick go to doctor, reduces scope for religion and so it has less importance)

• Religious pluralism (Peter burger before modernity people lived under one overcahing view that was enforced by RCC, but post reformation and pluralism the view was questioned and certainty undermined)

-Larger proportion of non religious people are young (suggests it will increase)

BUT challenged by sociologists, believe Western Europe may be an exception to the rest of the wordl

>rise of global fundamentalism (eg USA and middle east Islam)
>spread of pentecostal christianity even in modernised south korea

>the emergence of religiously motivated political movements eg in iran

>the rise of new religious movements (not huge but against the trend)

Differences between atheism and agnosticism

-Seems to be a similarity between negative atheism and agnostism

BUT Flew argues that their is a distinction between negative atheism and the presumption of agnosticism

>the starting point is vastly different - agnostic assumes a legitimate coherent concept of God whose existence can be considered, the atheist does not and requires the theist to prove the contrary

BUT Russel argues agnostics can hold views that are very comparable to atheism eg God is so improbable it isnt worth considering (open to possibility but are practically an atheist)

>uses the analogy of a teapot in orbit “i do not think the existence of the christian God any more probable that the existence of the Gods of Olympus[…]nobody can prove that there is not between the earth and mars a China teapot’ there are many claims we cannot prove or disprove and must be agnostic about, but practically we are not suspending our judgement

>technically agnostic practically atheist

Athiesm- the lack of belief in God

-Flew identifies two types

>Positive (strong) Atheism- when someone firmly beliees/asserts that no deities exist (he views this as an overreach, cant know this to be the case)

>Negative (weak) Atheism- when someone doesnt believe in the existence of any deities but doesnt necessarily explicitly state that there are none

>believes any discussions about the existence of God should start from the presumption of negative atheism as ‘the onus of proof lies on the man who affirms, not on the man who denies’ (like in court)

>the theist must prove 1 that their concept of God is coherent + logical 2 there is sufficient reason or evidence to believe that this concept of God exists in reality

>though he had a reputation as an atheist he was convinced by the fine-tuning argument (teleological- similar to Tennant’s specificity of universe), though he didnt believe in the God of Classical Theism he believed in something like Aristotle’s prime mover

-Protest Atheism- the rejection of God based on moral grounds

>usually based on POE

>If God exists I cant imagine he is worth believing in

eg Stephen Fry (a monster not worthy of believing in), holocaust (how can i go on believing), Dostoevsky’s Ivan (if suffering is the cost of entry he would respectfully return the ticket)

Agnosticism- when a person doesnt know if God exists or not

-Coined by Thomas Huxley (meaning without knowledge)

>Different forms (similar to atheism)

>Weak agnosticism- when a person doesnt know whether God exists but thinks it is possible to know

>Strong agnosticism- when a person thinks that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

Athiesm- the lack of belief in God

-Flew identifies two types

>Positive (strong) Atheism- when someone firmly beliees/asserts that no deities exist (he views this as an overreach)

>Negative (weak) Atheism- when someone doesnt believe in the existence of any deities but doesnt necessarily explicitly state that there are none

>believes any discussions about the existence of God should start from the presumption of negative atheism as ‘the onus of proof lies on the man who affirms, not on the man who denies’ (like in court)

>the theist must prove 1 that their concept of God is coherent + logical 2 there is sufficient reason or evidence to believe that this concept of God exists in reality

>though he had a reputation as an atheist he was convinced by the fine-tuning argument (teleological- similar to Tennant’s specificity of universe), though he didnt believe in the God of Classical Theism he believed in something like Aristotle’s prime mover

-Protest Atheism- the rejection of God based on moral grounds

>usually based on POE

>If God exists I cant imagine he is worth believing in

eg Stephen Fry (a monster not worthy of believing in), holocaust (how can i go on believing), Dostoevsky’s Ivan (if suffering is the cost of entry he would respectfully return the ticket)

Agnosticism- when a person doesnt know if God exists or not

-Coined by Thomas Huxley (meaning without knowledge)

>Different forms (similar to atheism)

>Weak agnosticism- when a person doesnt know whether God exists but thinks it is possible to know

>Strong agnosticism- when a person thinks that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

Differences between atheism and agnosticism

-Seems to be a similarity between negative atheism and agnostism

BUT Flew argues that their is a distinction between negative atheism and the presumption of agnosticism

>the starting point is vastly different - agnostic assumes a legitimate coherent concept of God whose existence can be considered, the atheist does not and requires the theist to prove the contrary

BUT Russel argues agnostics can hold views that are very comparable to atheism eg God is so improbable it isnt worth considering (open to possibility but are practically an atheist)

>uses the analogy of a teapot in orbit “i do not think the existence of the christian God any more probable that the existence of the Gods of Olympus[…]nobody can prove that there is not between the earth and mars a China teapot’ there are many claims we cannot prove or disprove and must be agnostic about, but practically we are not suspending our judgement

>technically agnostic practically atheist

The rise of Atheism

-As societies modernise they become less religious- secularisation theory, lost favour recently

>clear trends involve:

• religion becoming marginalised from public life (less central, especially in politics)

• fewer people engage in religious practices (doesn’t mean a rise in atheism Grace Davis)

• Religious belief decline

Explained as:

• A process of rationalisation (encouraged through bureaucracy in work, undermines religion)arc

• Increase in science and tech (arent claiming we all understand the contrast in scripture in part yes, given us greater control over our lives, less reliant on religion, if sick go to doctor, reduces scope for religion and so it has less importance)

• Religious pluralism (Peter burger before modernity people lived under one overcahing view that was enforced by RCC, but post reformation and pluralism the view was questioned and certainty undermined)

-Larger proportion of non religious people are young (suggests it will increase)

BUT challenged by sociologists, believe Western Europe may be an exception to the rest of the wordl

>rise of global fundamentalism (eg USA and middle east Islam)
>spread of pentecostal christianity even in modernised south korea

>the emergence of religiously motivated political movements eg in iran

>the rise of new religious movements (not huge but against the trend)

New Atheism

-to antitheasm

>it is more than believing god doesn’t exist, but rather is hostile to religion

>superstition, religion and irrationalism should be criticised with rational arguments

>critical of the influence of religion on broader society (eg government and education)

>characterised by the writings of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett

 Faith and Freedom Coalition

-Taking action to impact the outcome of the next Presidential election in the USA?

-produce the biggest turnout of Christian voters in American history

>trying to mobilise conservative Christian’s

>got Reagan elected (evangelicals were largely non voters till 80s)

>F&FC promised to evangelise voters, going door to door, putting 30m voter guides in churches etc

-Ban abortion nationwide, curb LGBTQ+ rights, blur separation of church and state

>Lousiana required 10 commandments in every gov classroom

>”take the pride flag out of schools and put the Bible back in”

>war against the energy within that is “godless philosophies”

>Trump compared to Cyrus the Great (enabled Jews to return to Israel)

IS IT A SUCCESSFUL RESPONSE TO NEW ATHEISM?

-Challenges new atheism by mobilising a political counter point- political success

>BUT proves new atheism to be correct (intolerant, reject science)

 

2. Increase in religious apologists in the media

a) Look up a definition of the term ‘apologism’.

>a defence or excuse

 >

 

c) Research one of the following apologist websites:

● www.reasonablefaith.org

Claims to be interested OM creating Ann égrena for public and uncompromising Christian perspective

>challenge unbelievers, train Christians to defend

>articles on Craig’s views on biblical history, the Bible and science etc

● www.bethinking.org

What is the purpose of these websites? What kinds of articles do they include? How do they try to defend Christianity against the claims of New Atheists?

Extension: Watch debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0XRQd9YOUM

(It’s quite long so you might just want to concentrate on 13:00 to 54:00)

● How persuasive do you find each speaker? Why?

● How might taking part in such debates help with the public perception of religion?

Increase in religious apologists in media

-Apologism tries to provide rational reasons for religion

-Rise of New Atheism has led to much public discussion from Christianity

>given a platform for Christian apologists

>allowed for a fuller and more authentic public articulation of Christianity

-New Atheism has defined the areas for Christian apologists to work on eg natural science in support of faith

-New Atheism was high profile with regular appearance of Dawkins and debates ft the Four Horsemen

>provides platforms for apologists eg Craig v Hitchens

>opens the debate to a wider audience

-Craig is of the idea that the Bible is the word of God (most of it should be taken as historically true)

>NT Wright also uses history to back it up- the difference is he writes for academics, Craig and others involve themselves in more public forums

-McGrath argument doesn’t create conviction but the lack of it destroys belief

>what seems proved may not be embraced but when it is undefended it is abandoned

>claims the role of apologism isn’t to convert but to stop people leaving the religion as there are reasons to stay (more of a defence)

Increase in fundamental religious activity relating to morality and community

-Religious beliefs involve a world view that is embedded in a person’s thinking and behaviour

>not purely private

>public and private dimensions aren’t truly separated

-Attacks on religion from new-atheists has led to more agression from religious groups, feeling their traditional norms are under attack

>upsurge in Islamic and Christian fundamentalism

>unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs

>society is moving from them so the groups are more active in opposing changes by seeking to influence law and policy

eg Christian Right USA informal coalition of Evangelical Prot + RCC who attempt to influence policies on homosexuality, marriage, abortion, embryonic stem cell research- family, gender roles, sexuality

Roe v Wade over turned, no longer federally protected, would be viewed as a success

Florida dont say gay bill, schools unable to speak on sexuality

Eg UK Christian Institute promote a tory viewpoint founded on Biblical inerrancy

Eg Islamic fundamentalism (often associated with terrorists like ISIS but also applies to law abiding groups who seeks to influence society through social and political action) implementing of Sharai’a law

Faith and Freedom Coalition

-Taking action to impact the outcome of the next Presidential election in the USA?

-produce the biggest turnout of Christian voters in American history

>trying to mobilise conservative Christian’s

>got Reagan elected (evangelicals were largely non voters till 80s)

>F&FC promised to evangelise voters, going door to door, putting 30m voter guides in churches etc

-Ban abortion nationwide, curb LGBTQ+ rights, blur separation of church and state

>Lousiana required 10 commandments in every gov classroom

>”take the pride flag out of schools and put the Bible back in”

>war against the energy within that is “godless philosophies”

>Trump compared to Cyrus the Great (enabled Jews to return to Israel)

IS IT A SUCCESSFUL RESPONSE TO NEW ATHEISM?

-Challenges new atheism by mobilising a political counter point- political success

>BUT proves new atheism to be correct (intolerant, reject science)

Fundamentalism

>unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs

>usually involves strict adherence to scripture, often interpreted absolutely

>intollerant to other views

>reject aspects of modern, secular, society

Models of science and religion

-lan Barbour - American theologian and scientist

Presented several models of the relationship between science and religion:

1. Conflict - science and religion make rival literal statements about the same domain, so a person must choose between them.

>if they both answer the same question they cant both be true

>New Atheists take this approach (religion impedes scientific progress) + fundamentalists (if you accept Genesis as literal evolution cant also be true)

>science v the infallible word of God

1. Independence - Science and Religion can be distinguished by the questions which they ask, the domains to which they refer, and the methods which they employ.

>they deal with different questions and thus can both be accepted

>Gould comes up with Non-Overlapping Magesteria (NOMa) “the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm[…]the magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral values”

How v why (details insignificant, influenced by the ignorant perspectives)

Genesis metaphorical or mythologised

1. Integrated - that religious belief can be inferred from or is even supported by the evidence in nature, of which science has made us more aware.

>there is overlap in question but they need not be in combat

>McGrath (wrote the Dawkins Delusion) rejects the idea that science inherently leads to atheism

points out the number of scientists believing in god hasn’t decreased

Eg Francis Collins evolutionary biologist provided a scientifically backed teleological argument- argues for the wonder and ordering of nature points to a Creator

Eg Flew convinced by the anthropic principle (FR Tennant fine tuning argument, draws on evolution, strength of gravity )

Eg Craig cosmological argument strengthened by BBT (modern apologist)

>There are some limits to science, some things cant be answered, takes an integrated approach Partially Overlapping Magesterium (POMa)

moments of cross-fertilisation

Possible to interpret scientific observations without compromising intellectual integrity

“Nature is open to many interpretations”

BUT Cognitive dissonance, may maintain contradictory beliefs but defend

Dawkins would cite Ockham’s Razzor- science doesn’t require the explanation of God

On the success of New Atheism

-Increase of openly professing atheists in response to New Atheists but in the US it was 4%

-New Atheism doesn’t account for the nature of faith- based on spiritual need not a rational assessment of facts and evidence, so trying to disprove it with facts wont work

-They offer no replacement for religion- nothing to fill the ‘spiritual void’

-New Atheism could be turning people off with its tactics

Atheistic arguments

• Lack of scientific proof for religious belief/conflict between science and religion/science can explain the world without the need for God

• Problem of evil

• Religious faith is a form of wish fulfilment/projection of the unconscious mind

• Competing truth claims of different religions mean that they cannot all be right, so are most probably all wrong.

• The unlikelihood of religious beliefs being correct when most other beliefs/knowledge from the time when religion was developed are incorrect.

New Atheism successfully shows the incompatibility of science and religion. Evaluate this view. 1. New Atheists seem to argue that scientific theories are based only on evidence, whilst religion runs away from evidence. The claim is that atheism is rational and scientific while religion is irrational and superstitious. Faith is not an element of science since evidence for a correct conviction compels us to accept its truth. As Dawkins says “Faith is a state of mind that leads people to believe something – it doesn’t matter what – in the total absence of supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence, then faith would be superfluous…” However, Alister McGrath points out that such a view “fails to make the critical distinction between the ‘total absence of supporting evidence’ and the ‘absence of totally supporting evidence’.” It is true that some facts about the world have been proved (e.g. the chemical formula for water) but the bigger scientific questions such as is there a Grand Unified Theory that explains everything rely on answers based on the best evidence available but they are not certainties. In future years they may well change as new evidence is considered. As Gauch concluded “Science rests on faith”. Dawkins in his book “The God Delusion” does argue that the existence of God is a testable hypothesis and concludes that the hypothesis is falsifiable. Therefore the hypothesis is open to the scientific method. So here is a New Atheist proponent arguing that that the existence of God is a meaningful hypothesis. This implies that religion and science are compatible. This compatibility is reflected in the fact that scientists who are also Christians have debated against Dawkins. Possibly one of the most well-known debates was between Dawkins and John Lennox who is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford. 2. Science answers the question “how” while religion answers the question “why”. They deal with two very different areas. Religion involves faith while science is concerned with facts. But it is admitted that “science has no methods for deciding what is ethical.” So that supports the view that science and religion are incompatible. However, some New Atheists argue that moral values are about promoting human wellbeing and since science tells about what promotes wellbeing “it can determine moral values”. It should also be noted that “God is not an inhabitant of the universe, he is the reason why there is a universe at all.” Therefore, there is a difference between science and religion. Science works only on observable data and draws a conclusion or hypothesis from that data. Some people point out that “subatomic particles cannot strictly be observed, yet cannot be regarded as non-existent for this reason”. The best scientific theories offer explanations of both observable and unobservable aspects of the world. Therefore, science is compatible with religion. Philosophy Of Religion / Atheism AO2 Philosophy Of Religion | Atheism AO2 2  Part 2 TASK: Develop the basic argument below by using any relevant quotes/references to scholars that are listed. It should not be assumed that all are relevant or required. Then compare with other people in the class and discuss any differences assessing the justification given for those differences. Don’t forget to also consider the different styles of evaluation examined in the A02 task based on topic of Miracles. “New Atheism successfully shows that religious faith is infantile.” New Atheism is quite clear that religious belief/faith is a childish delusion which should have disappeared a long time ago as humanity developed its maturity. Our thinking is now based on evidence which has enabled us to abandon childish beliefs. So why do people still hold on to religious belief. Clearly it is the indoctrination or brain washing as a child from our parents. Of course there is some truth in this. We are affected by the beliefs of our parents. But surely many adults turn to religion when they come for a non-religious background. So does that choice still stem from childhood? The New Atheists complaint is that religious beliefs are clearly false beliefs held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. The religious believer is deluded and seems immune to any form of rational argument. Faith is basically irrational. But surely science has an element of faith. Science gives us theories that make best sense of the data we have. But they are only theories – best fit conclusions. It is a matter of faith whether those theories are the full story or even correct. Religious believers act in a similar way. They proportion their belief to the evidence. They conclude that the universe cannot be adequately explained in terms of the natural but the supernatural. The religious believer argues that their theory equally makes sense of all the data – concluding that there is a God. So, religious faith cannot be said to be infantile.