Issues related to the rejection of religion: Atheism

How does New Atheism criticism religion for being infantile?

Religious belief is infantile as it is a childish delusion which ought to have disappeared as humanity reaches its maturity. It is just like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy which are abandoned as soon as we are capable of evidence based thinking. It is invented to cope with a sense of helplessness.

How is the dangers of religion criticised?

Sam Harris criticises religion's reliance on divine authority likening itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism. These principles correlate with fundamentalism and extrinsic religion. This is demonstrated by historical events such as the Crusades, witch trials and terrorist attacks, highlighting the dangers of religion.

How is Hawking's argument and other scientific evidence fail to be persuasive?

Scientific evidence can only talk meaningfully about the moments after the big bang, not moments before. This allows for the possible of a divine being as the cause of the big bang, thus demonstrating that a philosophical explanation for universe's existence may be persuasive.

How does 'The God Delusion' suggest that religion is a form of child abuse?

'The God Delusion' raises concerns about the indoctrination of children by their parents. The biological process of natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents or elders tell them.

Where does the word atheism derive from?

(from the Greek atheos meaning 'without god(s)'

Define atheism

A lack of belief in Gods opposed to an affirmative belief that there is no God.

Define an agnostic

An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know for that any gods exist or not, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist.

Define an atheist

An atheist is anyone who doesn't happen to believe in any gods, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist.

How does Alister McGrath, in his 'The Dawkins Delusion', argue that infantile argument is flawed?

As it doesn't account for the many people discover God later in life and certainly do not regard this as representing any kind of regression, perversion or degeneration. This is illustrated by the example of Anthony Flew, the noted atheist philosopher who became a believer in God in his eighties.

What is the main differences between atheism and agnosticism?

Atheism involves what a person does or does not believe. It is about belief. Whereas agnosticism involves what a person does or does not know. It is about knowledge.

How does Augustine defend religion in the face of Epicurus' criticisms?

Augustine's theodicy argues that God is not responsible for the creation of evil. He refers to evil as a privation of good and uses the example of blindness, as a privation of sight, to illustrate this. Creating a 'lack of something' contradicts God's act of creation. If this point is taken as valid, then Augustine's theodicy is partially successful at defending the God of Classical Theism.

How does Dawkins insist that Christianity is 'blind faith'?

Because it is 'a persistently false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence'; religious people are so deluded by religion that they are immune to any form of rational argument.

What are the seven attitudes of New Atheists which are described by John Humphreys, an agonistic, in his book 'In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist'?

Believers are naive or stupid. Or at least, not as clever as atheists. The few intelligent ones are pathetic because they need a crutch through life. To which Humphreys replies 'Don't we all? Some use booze rather than the Bible' They are also pathetic because they can't accept the finality of death. To which Humphreys replies 'Maybe, but it doesn't mean they're wrong' They have been brainwashed into believing They have been bullied into believing If we don't wipe out religion, then civilisation is doomed. Trust me: I'm an atheist.

How does Kaczor respond to Dawkins' argument that Pope Benedict is 'an enemy of science' because he obstructs vital stem cell research on the grounds of pre-scientific superstition?

By arguing that he obstructs embryonic stem cell research because it is a basic principle of ethics that persons should not be harmed without their consent in scientific research in order to potentially benefit other people. That the embryo is a living human is an argument supported by the fact that to live is to have self generated activities which an embryo does have as it proportionally grows and specialises. Also, it is clear an embryo can die, but only living things can die, so the embryo is living. Furthermore, if the embryo has a human mother and a human father, then what species can it be other than human. This proves it is a living human therefore killing it would go against a common ground shared by all people of good will. Dawkins is put further into the wrong by Kaczor because the Church not only supports but funds stem cell research that does not involve the killing of embryos but uses stem cells from adults or umbilical cords. This research has developed into treatments which has saved lives, whereas embryonic stem cell research has not led to one cure.

How does McGrath respond to the indoctrination of children argument?

By arguing that this argument cannot be applied only to religious parents. Children brought up with the anti religious education of the Soviet Union followed the same fate. McGarth argues that society is in need of high quality religious education and be told fairly and accurately what Christianity teaches. Yet no case can be made for them to be force-fed Dawkins's favoured dogmas and distortions. Propaganda can come from either side of the discussion.

How does Richard Dawkins, a modern evolutionary biologist, argue that natural selection is incompatible with an intelligent designer?

By pointing out that the evidence to support Darwin's theory is so overwhelming that the Argument from Design is now redundant. Natural selection is a blind and automatic process with no foresight or purpose. His ideas on this are found in his works 'The Blind Watchmaker'

How does Dawkins support Lennox' claim himself?

He admits 'If this book works as I intend, religious leaders who open it will be atheists when they put it down'

How does McGrath respond to the argument that faith is irrational?

He argues that there are decidedly exotic ideas on both sides of the God-atheism debate. Dawkins himself is guilty of abandoning rigorous evidence-based scholarship when he misinterprets Luther to believe that he pointed out that the life of faith was absent from reason when he was actually saying that human reason could never comprehend that God should give humanity salvation freely, without demanding anything in return.

How does Hawking undermine religion?

In his book 'The Grand Design' he formulated the scientific theory M-theory which explains a universe that creates itself out of nothing, removing the need for a religious explanation behind the origin of the universe.

How does Darwin undermine religion?

In his work 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection', he formulated the theory of evolution which offered an alternative explanation, which was natural selection, for the design of the world which didn't require the existence of a god.

Where does Christopher Kaczor undermine the New Atheist claims that religion opposes science?

In his works 'The Church Opposes Science: The Myth of Catholic Irrationality'

When was an increase in atheism seen?

Individuals began identifying themselves as atheists in the Age of the Enlightenment when unproven dogma was challenged. The French Revolution advocated for the supremacy of human reason.

How does Hume's fallacy of composition criticise religion?

It undermines the religious argument which says that since everything in the universe is subject to the law of cause and effect then there must be a first cause by saying that just because one 'effect' in a chain has a 'cause', it does not follow that the whole series has a single cause. This is supported by modern philosophers such as Bertrand Russell.

How does McGrath respond to the argument that unproven beliefs are unjustifiable?

McGrath argues that most of us are aware that many beliefs we hold can't be proven but are nonetheless perfectly reasonable to entertain. He relates his argument to how many philosophers of science have long made the point that there are many scientific theories that are at the moment believed to be true but may have to be discarded in the future if new evidence emerges.

What is the origin of New Atheism?

New Atheism is a term coined by Gary Wolf in 2006 and began in 2000s in favour of skepticism and atheism

How does Epicurus criticise religion?

The Epicurean Paradox seriously undermines the presence of a god in a world in which there is so much evil and suffering. Modern scholars, such as J. L. Mackie through his 'inconsistent triad' support this by arguing that the three statements: God is all loving, God is all powerful and evil and suffering exists, cannot all be true simultaneously as there would be a logical contradiction.

In his book 'Gunning for God', what does John Lennox say is distinctively new about New Atheism?

Their tone and emphasis which is one of intensity and aggression. What they are out to do is not inform but to convert - to de-vangelize.

How does he argue that it is a common misconception that a person has to choose between religion and science?

This he argues is notably proven to be incorrect through the achievements of so many Catholics in science. He uses many examples including Descartes who discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction, Alexander Fleming who invented penicillin and Blaise Pascal who invented the adding machine and the hydraulic press. Therefore, if the Catholic Church was opposed to scientific knowledge and progress, then there would be no Catholic scientists, yet there have been and still are in modern day. Furthermore, the Catholic Church as an institution funds, sponsors, and supports scientific research in the Pontifical Academy of Science, and in the departments of science found in Catholic Universities worldwide. This shows that religion does not oppose science but rather supports science financially and institutionally.

What is New Atheism seen as?

seen as anti-theist rather than atheist