After reading Antony Flew’s There is a God, a few weeks ago, I found John Haught’s book, God and the New Atheism, a bit of a fizzer. He has some good things to say in his arguments against Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but he’s repetitious in his writing, and the book looks as though it’s been produced in rather a hurry, in order to cash in on the current interest in the Christian/Atheist debates. Maybe I just don’t like Haught’s style, and that’s put me off. However, I finished reading it this morning, so whatever he has to say, I’ve now read (!)
Flew’s book was inspiring, by contrast. Here’s a man who has the integrity to say he was wrong about the way he thought previously. This seems to me to be the mark of a true philosopher: as Flew says, he follows arguments to their logical conclusion, even if it means given up long-held beliefs.
Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris remind me more of fundamentalists in various religions: people who are so set on a few basic points that they can’t see any other arguments. (The original Christian fundamentalists had far more breadth to their beliefs; unfortunately their name has been adopted for a group who are narrow and backed into corners.) Philosophically they're much more like teenagers in need of acne treatment than people who've grown up and really argued through all the issues. You find plenty of their adherents on the Net: people who have no willingness to listen to anything beyond their own narrow views.
4 comments:
"Here’s a man who has the integrity to say he was wrong about the way he thought previously. This seems to me to be the mark of a true philosopher: as Flew says, he follows arguments to their logical conclusion, even if it means given up long-held beliefs."
The man is a fool. Lets be blunt- if you are an atheist, argument by design is the FIRST one Christians use.
Or do you find it a sign of intellectual integrity when Christians switch to atheism?
"Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris remind me more of fundamentalists in various religions: people who are so set on a few basic points that they can’t see any other arguments."
... The problem with fundamentalists isn't that they focus on certain arguments. After all, fundamentalism covers ALL things. The problem is they take certain ideas as a given based on faith.
"(The original Christian fundamentalists had far more breadth to their beliefs; unfortunately their name has been adopted for a group who are narrow and backed into corners.)"
? The origional Christian Fundamentalists were Protestant reactionaries.
"You find plenty of their adherents on the Net: people who have no willingness to listen to anything beyond their own narrow views. "
The entire point of logic is that it is narrow! It leaves out large numbers of things on the grounds they aren't true!
If you are unwilling to have a single real argument, don't lambast your opponents for their narrowness. The beam is in your eye.
The man is a fool. Lets be blunt- if you are an atheist, argument by design is the FIRST one Christians use.
Antony Flew is apparently a fool only to those atheists who can't bear the thought that he's changed his mind. None of them seem willing to listen to anything he has to say.
If you are unwilling to have a single real argument, don't lambast your opponents for their narrowness. The beam is in your eye.
Thanks for using a Scriptural quotation to round off your comments. Very appropriate! LOL
"Antony Flew is apparently a fool only to those atheists who can't bear the thought that he's changed his mind. None of them seem willing to listen to anything he has to say. "
Except I did. His arguments are that life is to complicated and must be designed. Whihc is a laugh to anyone who has a backround in biology. Or meterorology. Or economics. Or sociology. Or psychology. Or cosmology. Or... basically any other field that sudies complex systems.
His argument is little more than argument from ignorance (for "life is too complex") and argument from fine tuning. Fine tuning has a very simple flaw-it assumes that the laws of the universe can be variable. Given what we know about the universe there is no reason to believe that. After all, physicallaws are emergent- at the bottom things are random, but enough randomness and patterns emerge.
"Thanks for using a Scriptural quotation to round off your comments. Very appropriate! LOL"
It is more appropriate than you think. The place I heard it is "Why people believe in Weird Things", by Micheal Shermer. He lambasts the Objectivists for misunderstanding it... right before proceding to strawman atheism.
The lesson is rather simple. EVERYONE is suceptible to logical fallacies. So read up on them and try to avoid error. That is why I hate faith so much- it is a declaration that you don't need to bother.
It seems that all atheists hate faith - with a passion.
Post a Comment