Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This article from Christianity Today says the brand of atheism promoted by the "three horsemen" is fading, to be replaced by what CT regards as a more tolerant atheism.
Nevertheless, they concede that theism is on the decline, just the same.
Quote:
"Basically, the world has moved on and has rather left New Atheism behind ... but that's no cause for rejoicing, because we have new problems to worry about." That is, the decline of the New Atheists' particular brand of hyperbolic antireligious fervor does not necessarily signify a rise in religious faith or belief in God.
I am not really willing to call the rhetoric of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al hyperbolic so much as frank and unvarnished ... I think what really distinguished them was their view that religion is a great evil and a problem that won't go away until religion does; hence, the need to crusade against it, to persuade people to abandon it inorganically rather than as a natural consequence of its own, quite substantial, limitations.
Personally, I see religion as more of a symptom and catalyst than a root cause. New Atheism, I think, tended to discount the actual root cause, which is the sloppy, undisciplined and untrained "reasoning" process of the default human, because New Atheism elevated the (supposedly) rational, objective, scientific mind in a way that isn't actionable in the real world because far too few people are un-married to various cognitive errors and biases so as to even rightly pursue it.
So IMO the real problem is a failure to teach critical thinking skills to children so that we end up with a crop of adults who aren't vulnerable to "woo", if you will. THEN we might start to make some sustainable, organic progress in human affairs. Until then ... people will mostly play old tapes in their heads, and continue to promote war, human and environmental exploitation, authoritarianism, etc.
It's a Gordian knot, though, because parents married to preconceptions and biases aren't going to allow their children to be divorced from them, so the chicken-and-egg reality is that something has to happen to truly humble adults and get them to acknowledge that their approach isn't working, accept the antidote, and pursue it for both themselves AND their children. And that's a tall, TALL order that probably requires some sort of painful existential crisis for humanity or some substantial portion of it. Yet such a crisis would probably tend to push people toward theism rather than away from it, because it short circuits the personal growth process with empty but comforting promises, which offers an easy escape from the hard work of personal growth and self-reflection.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but if New Atheism thought it would catch on and turn the tide of public opinion, it was either unrealistic or premature or overdetermined -- probably all three
Yes, sometimes the ol' shock treatment is necessary to shake things loose and break down barriers, I suppose ... and it could be a sign of progress that this function has seen its day and we're now onto more nuanced pursuits.
There are, of course, alternative explanations.
For me, the jury is still out. I think that reason is the only sustainable path, but that doesn't preclude a lot of very painful side trips into various forms of social upheaval and human suffering in the meantime; nor does it preclude that some or even all of us won't survive such side trips.
I think that as a species we may be making contact with the Great Filter ... the understanding of technology before we are wise enough not to misuse it.
Still ... we must keep trying I guess, because the alternatives really do suck.
Yes, sometimes the ol' shock treatment is necessary to shake things loose and break down barriers, I suppose ... and it could be a sign of progress that this function has seen its day and we're now onto more nuanced pursuits.
There are, of course, alternative explanations.
For me, the jury is still out. I think that reason is the only sustainable path, but that doesn't preclude a lot of very painful side trips into various forms of social upheaval and human suffering in the meantime; nor does it preclude that some or even all of us won't survive such side trips.
I think that as a species we may be making contact with the Great Filter ... the understanding of technology before we are wise enough not to misuse it.
Still ... we must keep trying I guess, because the alternatives really do suck.
the shock treatment along with changes in society are having the effect IMO.
I'm not sure I'd consider Christianity Today a good source for being objective about the state of atheism.
I don't. I'm more interested in their perceptions of it. If they admit to a decline in faith and a rise in nones then it is pretty hard to pretend those things aren't happening ... they would be pretty much the last to admit it.
I don't. I'm more interested in their perceptions of it. If they admit to a decline in faith and a rise in nones then it is pretty hard to pretend those things aren't happening ... they would be pretty much the last to admit it.
So much of this is that people who aren't extreme are much easier to get along with than those that are. No matter what they believe.
Secondly, most atheists can get along in life just fine these days. So less need to push back in frustration.
Third, atheists have resource and friends and organizations now to access if they choose.
Finally, with guys like Matt Dillahunty and Seth Andrews and Aron Ra out there along with the old school atheists... atheists have the radical part covered by spokesmen. The "guy on the street" atheist can refer people to those guys rather than argue with believers.
So much of this is that people who aren't extreme are much easier to get along with than those that are. No matter what they believe.
Secondly, most atheists can get along in life just fine these days. So less need to push back in frustration.
Third, atheists have resource and friends and organizations now to access if they choose.
Finally, with guys like Matt Dillahunty and Seth Andrews and Aron Ra out there along with the old school atheists... atheists have the radical part covered by spokesmen. The "guy on the street" atheist can refer people to those guys rather than argue with believers.
Except that now we have venues to express ourselves that didn't exist in the past.
Atheism is relevant only in a society where theism is dominant. If theism continues to decline, atheism may become less relevant over time.
There is no viable "a-Santa-ist" movement, because few adults believe in Santa Claus. Hopefully atheism will eventually become as relevant as "a-Santa-ism," and for the same reason.
So much of this is that people who aren't extreme are much easier to get along with than those that are. No matter what they believe.
Secondly, most atheists can get along in life just fine these days. So less need to push back in frustration.
Third, atheists have resource and friends and organizations now to access if they choose.
Finally, with guys like Matt Dillahunty and Seth Andrews and Aron Ra out there along with the old school atheists... atheists have the radical part covered by spokesmen. The "guy on the street" atheist can refer people to those guys rather than argue with believers.
It is true that 99.9% of my "pushing back" is in debate with theists in fora like this designed for that purpose and where people come for that purpse. In Real Life, it never actually happens. At least not up north here, anyway.
The irony is that most of my personal income has come, first from an organization run by a trad Catholic, a guy who visited the Trump white house and bragged about it ... and more recently from an org run by almost a caricature of a southern Baptist real estate mogul and landlord. People who are, philosophically and politically and temperamentally, completely the opposite of me. We've never discussed god or religion or anything but what they want me to do and how much they will pay me to do it.
So I suppose that I should take heart that it's possible to get along just fine as an atheist at least in contexts where no one feels some weird need to make an issue or litmus test of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
