The New Atheism: Ten Arguments That Dont Hold Water Free
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FREE THE NEW ATHEISM: TEN ARGUMENTS THAT DONT HOLD WATER PDF Michael Poole | 96 pages | 01 May 2010 | Lion Hudson Plc | 9780745953939 | English | Oxford, United Kingdom ARIZONA ATHEIST: The 'New' Atheism: 10 Arguments That Don't Hold Water?: A Refutation Chris Bell. Two contemporary atheists who do not believe God exists - Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens - also seem to be overly angry persons. Dawkins reckons that 'good scientists who are sincerely religious Michael Poole, Visiting Research Fellow in Science and Religion at King's College, London, has written a small book of ten chapters - 96 pages - which could and should! His main question: do the ideas of the The New Atheism: Ten Arguments That Dont Hold Water and noisy 'new atheists' hold water? He devotes a little chapter to each of the ten most common arguments for not believing in the existence of God, and in summary, says: Science and religion are addressing different questions. For example, science cannot help us with 'Why is there something rather than nothing? Although Dawkins asserts in one place 'Atheists do not have faith' This illustrates what he calls 'the fallacy of the excluded middle' a recurring phrase in the book - choosing between only two positions when others are logically possible. Most of the favorite theoretical constructs are here: Planck's constant, the god meme, functionalism, instrumentalism, direct vs. The target-audience is obviously undergraduates. The flavour is quite British: Chapter 10 is titled 'Unpeeling the Cosmic Onion' a fascinating discussion of 'universe' and 'multiverse'there's mention of 'grown-up talk' etc. I believe that a serious flaw in Poole's apologetic is the absence of a Christological basis for belief in the existence of God: the approach is mostly scientific and philosophical. Finally how about The New Atheism: Ten Arguments That Dont Hold Water 'According to Stephen Hawking, a minute increase of about one part in a million million in the density of the universe one second after the Big Bang would have meant a recollapse of the universe after some ten years. A similar decrease in density would have resulted in a largely empty universe after the same time' Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays,p. Something to think about before you go to sleep tonight! Chris Bell UTC. The New Atheism: 10 Arguments That Don't Hold Water? Thanks for the mention and great write The New Atheism: Ten Arguments That Dont Hold Water. I try to review books reasonably thoroughly myself, so I know how much work these things are! Thanks for contributing to the body of blogosphere knowledge! Thank you very much for the time spent doing this in such a pleasant way to be read. I've started not long ago watching debates and reading about this kind of topics and must say I'm rapidly getting bored and arriving to the same feeling you describe that apologists don't do anything new. It would seem as they were not even listening to the other side on the debates, It is frustrating to see them repeat over and over the same refuted argument as if they were stubborn children. Being some of those arguments a simple insult to human intellect. I really wish they would stop the bible references and begin a true search for god if what they want is everyone else to agree with them. Thanks for the comment! I'm so happy you enjoyed the review! Take care. Harry Potter? James Bond? All "generally regarded as authentic beyond all doubt"? I find nothing in the gospels which is inconsistent with their being fully fictional. They The New Atheism: Ten Arguments That Dont Hold Water resemble this more than any other genre. The lack of biographical details, the errors in history, geography and culture, all of these go to their fictional nature. Nothing about them has the ring of truth. Thanks for reading! I agree, though I think the quote was referring to ancient writers not comic strips or novels, but I get your point. For example Plato had mentioned Atlantis and this has caused people to go out and search for it, but now they believe he was just mistaken. What was it about all secular writings taken seriously without question? Just like the bible secular writings are investigated and often found to be inaccurate. This blog is no longer active and is not accepting any new comments. Introduction I am at it again. I've set my sights on yet another Christian author who has published one more in a long line of books seeking to refute the New Atheists. I found this book to be poorly organized and the noted sources are a little difficult to understand at first, but other than that it is well written. It's certainly a different format for a book like this, and is a little annoying, but those are my opinions about how the book is laid out. As for the arguments themselves, let's find out Thanks a bunch John! Chapter 1: Un-natural selection or 'Down with sex! In this first chapter Poole disagrees with Richard Dawkins' and Christopher Hitchens' complaints about the many evil deeds done by religious people. However, I feel that Poole has erected a strawman of sorts. The New Atheists do not view the bad deeds done by religious people as the reason religion is bad, it is the beliefs themselves that cause many people to do bad things, hence the many examples they give in support of their argument. For example, in The God DelusionDawkins says, You don't have to make the case for what you believe. If somebody announces that it is part of his faiththe rest of society, whether of the same faith, or another, The New Atheism: Ten Arguments That Dont Hold Water of none, is obliged, by ingrained custom, to 'respect' it without question; respect it until the day it manifests itself in a horrible massacre like the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the London or Madrid bombings. They just seem to believe that the bad outweighs the good, and that is my opinion as well. Obviously Hitchens knows that religion has lead to some good things but, again, believes the bad outweighs the good. However, I do agree that the subtitle is an over exaggeration. I believe Poole has erected another strawman when referring to Daniel Dennett's book Breaking the Spell. He wrties, The investigation of the functions served by religion - functionalism - is not, in principle, a threat to the truth-claims of religion. It is a partial, but valuable, study of one aspect of the behavior of individual The New Atheism: Ten Arguments That Dont Hold Water collective humankind. Given Dennett's beliefs, he suggests The three favourite purposes or raisons d'etre for religion are to comfort us in our suffering and ally our fear of death to explain things we can't otherwise explain to encourage group cooperation in the face of trials and enemies Religion serves these three functions, and why not? They say nothing about the truth or falsity of the beliefs themselves. Even still, this argument is absurd since sex in and of itself is not a human activity that comes with certain beliefs which might influence behavior. Rather, it is the beliefs we often have about the inequality of women, or seeing women as purely sexual objects, that are often a cause of sex crimes, and not sex itself. Religion, on the other hand, does come packaged with certain beliefs that can cause immoral behavior. He writes, In short, [Jesus] is saying: if people don't do or try to do, since we are all fallible what I teach, don't believe them if they claim to have faith in me, and to be one of my followers. Chapter 2: 'Faith is believing what you know ain't so A2 'Faith is irrational' and 'demands a positive suspension of critical faculties. Poole writes, The above views of faith do not reflect how the word is generally used in everyday life. Perhaps both the surgeon and the close friend are trusted because they have proven themselves to be reliable in the past? However, religious beliefs often have no evidential support to speak of. Faith in our senses. This argument has the same problem I spoke of above. Based upon past experience our senses can be trusted and have been proven to be reliable most of the time. In addition, the scientific method has often been helpful in correcting any issues with our senses not accurately representing the world, such as the common example of ghost sightings. Here, our senses are seemingly leading us astray but the scientific method can be used as a way to check to be sure our senses are not deceiving us. There's nothing wrong with having faith I don't feel this semantics argument is an effective one because no matter which word one uses, what matters is how one comes to believe certain things and whether or not there is reliable evidence for those beliefs. The scientific findings of science Dawkins spoke of in his lecture had solid evidence backing his statements, which is a far cry from the claims of religion. I will get to those supposed evidences later on in the book. Chapter 3: People who live in glass houses? A3 Religious beliefs are memes, mind viruses, self-delusion, placebos, wishful thinking and indoctrination. Poole argues, The New Atheism: Ten Arguments That Dont Hold Water if belief The New Atheism: Ten Arguments That Dont Hold Water a God is a 'mind virus' that we may not know we have, then the double-edged sword that cuts both ways dictates that belief in no God is also a 'mind virus' that we may not know we have.