Some Thoughts about New Atheism

In another post, I wrote already about some of my observations regarding William Lane Craig vs. Anthony Flew and William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens debates.

The subject of the debates was the same - the existence of God. They both began in the same way: William Lane Craig presented the same 5 arguments for God's existence. Neither Anthony Flew nor Christopher Hitchens were able to refute them. However, the attitudes of Anthony Flew and Christopher Hitchens were completely different. Hitchens's speeches were just full of attacks on religion and hatred. Flew was much more respectful and avoided attacks. And he honestly admitted that he was unable to refute Craig's arguments. Hitchens did not do so. So, Flew made an impression of an honest and respectful person, unlike Hitchens.

Flew was an "old atheist" (later, he became a deist). Hitchens was a "new atheist." I also watched videos of other three "horsemen" (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris).

According to my observation, "new atheists" are just unable to be respectful to religion and religious people. My impression of the "new atheism" is that it is just a hatred toward religion and nothing more. They use a lot of arguments and points from what was written long time ago. The only thing they added to the "old atheism" is their hatred. But actually hatred toward religion is not something new because communists also hated religion.

Well, somehow many people use hatred in order to gain popularity. In the past, some American televangelists used two things to make themselves popular: homophobia and anti-communism. Now they can use only homophobia. Obviously, homophobia and anti-communism are two forms of hatred. Communists used classism (class discrimination and poor people's hatred toward rich people) to gain popularity and get authority. Nazis used nationalism and especially anti-Semitism in order to become popular and gain authority.

"New atheists" use another form of hatred - hatred toward religion. But their purpose is the same: to gain popularity and authority. It is not something new. Just it seems that it is much easier to become popular, criticizing and hating others, than by making something really constructive and valid.

Another interesting thing is the use of terms. It is well-known that cults often change the meanings of the words. Communists did the same. According to the Soviet propaganda, the Soviet Union was the most democratic country in the world. They said that it was the country where people were really free. The progress was associated with the communist ideology. Those who rejected it, were considered reactionaries. And there were many other similar misuses of the terms.

I noticed the same tendency among "new atheists." For example, in their language, "critical thinking" is criticism of religion. They will never admit that theists may be able to think critically. But they do not want people to challenge them or to use critical thinking toward their ideas. They think that they have a right to criticize theists, but they do not like to be criticized or challenged by theists.

Then, they associate progress with their ideas. But who has ever proven that progress is possible only with atheism? I think no one among the Western people doubts that modern Russia is more progressive country than what the Soviet Union 30 years ago. However, 30 years ago, over 90% Russians were atheists. Now only 5% Russians are atheists.

Cults and New Atheism

William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew Debate

William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew debate: Does God exist?



I think this video is also worth watching. This debate took place in 1998 when Anthony Flew was an atheist. I think it is also interesting to compare this debate with William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens debate that took place 11 year later: http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/christopher-hitchens-vs-william-lane.html.

The subject of the debates was the same - the existence of God. They both began in the same way: William Lane Craig presented the same 5 arguments for God's existence. Neither Anthony Flew nor Christopher Hitchens were able to refute them. Hitchens could have prepared better for the debate with Craig since their debate took place much later.

It is also interesting to compare the attitudes of Anthony Flew and Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens's speeches were just full of attacks on religion and hatred. This is actually my impression of the so called new atheism: the new atheism is just hatred toward religion and nothing more than that. Flew was much more respectful and avoided attacks.

It is also important to notice that Anthony Flew eventually changed his views on God and left atheism:



Richard Dawkins was very unhappy at this:

Unlike Richard Dawkins, Flew was one of the most respected atheist thinkers of the 20th and early 21st century (his scholarly works on David Hume are still studied today, and his "presumption of atheism" argument is still used by atheists).
(From the description of Craig vs Flew debate)

"Four Horsemen" of New Atheism

The name "Four Horsemen" refers to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris and was first used during a 2007 debate in which they discussed their criticisms of religion and advocated critical thinking. (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/richard-dawkins-issue-hitchens)

So, the name "four horsemen" is the name that they invented for themselves. They took it from the Bible, Revelation 6:1-8 (NIV):

1 I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, “Come!” 2 I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.

3 When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” 4 Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make people kill each other. To him was given a large sword.

5 When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “Come!” I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. 6 Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, “Two pounds of wheat for a day’s wages, and six pounds of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!”

7 When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!” 8 I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

Well, the fourth horseman is clearly called Death. Others are not named. However, the second one is quite clearly identified with the war, and the third one is identified with famine. There are different interpretations of the first horseman. Some interpretors consider him to be Antichrist, some think that he is Christ. However, in the text of the Bible itself, he is identified with the conquest.

So, the four horsemen are Conquest, War, Famine, and Death. I do not know how many people would like to call themselves one of these things, but Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens did so.

In 2008, four prominent atheist authors got together to discuss religion and their positions. The DVD was entitled "The Four Horsemen" (in reference to the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse") and ever since they have been referred to by this title. They are:

• Richard Dawkins - as Death
• Christopher Hitchens - as Famine
• Sam Harris - as Pestilence
• Daniel Dennett - as War

(http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_Atheism#.22The_Four_Horsemen.22)

Actually, they did not read the Bible carefully because there is no Pestilence among the four horsemen of the book of Revelation. However, it is still very remarkable how they call themselves:

• Richard Dawkins calls himself Death.
• Christopher Hitchens called himself Famine.
• Sam Harris calls himself Pestilence.
• Daniel Dennett calls himself War.

Very nice people, aren't they?

Debate: Does the Universe have a purpose?

Debate: Does the Universe have a purpose? 

There is one point that I want to mention. Richard Dawkins refused to debate with William Lane Craig one-on-one. He did not appear to the debate on October 25, 2011 in Oxford. However, one year before that, on November 13, 2010 they did meet in Puebla, Mexico. It was not one-on-one debate. It was a panel three-on-three debate on the subject Does the Universe have a purpose? The participants were: Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins vs. Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett.

It is interesting to note that one year before, on November 29, 2009, Richard Dawkins claimed that he would never debate with William Lane Craig:



This is how William Lane Craig described their first meeting:

I am currently in Mexico to participate in a conference called Ciudad de las Ideas, which is a conference modeled on the TED conference in the US. It features lots of high tech people, sociologists, psychologists, economists, scientists, etc.

As part of the conference they´re having a panel of six of us debate on the question ¨Does the Universe Have a Purpose?¨ Well, to my surprise, I just found out that one of the three persons on the other side is Richard Dawkins! It´s true! I met him the other night. When he came my way, I stuck out my hand and introduced myself and said, "I´m surprised to see that you´re on the panel."

He replied, "And why not?"

I said, ¨Well, you´ve always refused to debate me."

His tone suddenly became icy cold. "I don´t consider this to be a debate with you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted." At that, he turned away.

"Well, I hope we have a good discussion," I said.

"I very much doubt it," he said and walked off.

So it was a pretty chilly reception! The debate is Saturday morning, should you think of us. I´ll give an update after I get back.

So, Dawkins did not consider this event as a debate with Craig. Well, it was not their one-on-one debate. However, it was still a debate in which they both participated. So, his behavior seems to me quite dishonest and dubious.

Here is the video (the beginning part is in Spanish, but the debate itself is in English):



Here are a couple of reviews of this debate:
http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2010/11/does-the-universe-have-a-purpose-a-review-of-the-panel-debate-with-craig-and-dawkins/
http://12tuesday.com/richard-dawkins-et-al-vs-william-lane-craig-et-al-debate-review/

Well, I was not quite impressed with this debate. It did not seem to be productive. It seems that there were too many people and their time was too limited. In any case, the atheist team did not win. It was very far from that

William Lane Craig v. New Atheism

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett are the four prominent writers of the new atheism, they are sometimes called "the four horsemen" of the new atheism. William Lane Craig is a prominent Christian apologist. He had public one on one debates with Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and won both debates.

Richard Dawkins refused to debate with Craig. Richard Dawkins was invited by the Oxford student Christian Union to defend his book The God Delusion in public debate with William Lane Craig. However, Dawkins refused the challenge and his chair remained empty. Craig then gave a lecture, refuting Dawkins' arguments from his book.

Craig and Daniel Dennett did not have a public debate one on one either. Instead, Craig gave a lecture, presenting evidence for God's existence. It was followed by response of Daniel Dennett. Of course, Dennett was unable to refute Craig.

In another series of videos, Craig gave his refutation of new atheist arguments against God's existence.

I recommend everyone who thinks that Christian faith is illogical or irrational and that so called new atheism is logical and rational to watch all these videos:
http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/christopher-hitchens-vs-william-lane.html
http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/william-lane-craig-vs-sam-harris-debate.html
http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-god-delusion-debate-that-never-was.html
http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/evidence-for-gods-existence-william.html
http://ex-atheist-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/william-lane-craig-refutes-new-atheist.html

Watch these videos for yourself and make your own conclusion: is Christian faith really illogical and irrational? is new atheism really more logical and rational than theism?

William Lane Craig Refutes New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence

New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (1 of 5)





New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (2 of 5)





New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (3 of 5)





New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (4 of 5)





New Atheist Arguments Against God's Existence Refuted (5 of 5)

Evidence For God's Existence (William Lane Craig, Daniel Dennett, Alister McGrath)

Evidence For God's Existence (William Lane Craig, Daniel Dennett, Alister McGrath)

This video is not a debate between William Lane Craig and Daniel Dennett. This is a lecture given by Craig where he presents evidence for God's existence. It is followed by response of Daniel Dennett, one of "the four horsemen" of the new atheism. Of course, Dennett was unable to refute Craig's excellent arguments. In the end, Alister McGrath, a Christian theologian, apologist and ex-atheist, gives his conclusion.

Is God a Delusion? The Debate That Never Was: William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins?

Is God a Delusion? The Debate That Never Was: William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins?

From the description of this video on YouTube:

Richard Dawkins was invited by the Oxford student Christian Union to defend his book The God Delusion in public debate with William Lane Craig. The invitation remained open until the last minute. However, Dawkins refused the challenge and his chair remained empty. Craig then gave a lecture to a capacity audience on the weaknesses of the central arguments of the book and responded to a panel of academics.

William Lane Craig vs Sam Harris Debate

William Lane Craig vs Sam Harris - Morality--Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?

This is a video of a debate of William Lane Craig and Sam Harris, one of the four prominent writers ("four horsemen") of the so called new atheism.

This debate has basically the same scenario as Craig v. Hitchens. Craig very logically presented the moral evidence for God's existence. Harris could not refute it. Instead, he (as well as Hitchens) just changed the subject and attacked religion. So, most parts of their speeches were completely irrelevant to the subjects of the debates.

Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig Debate

If somebody thinks that Christian faith is illogical or irrational and that so called new atheism is logical and rational, I recommend you to watch this video Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig - Does God Exist.

William Lane Craig is a famous Christian apologist. Christopher Hitchens is one of the four prominent writers of the new atheism.

Craig presented five very logical arguments for faith in God. Hitchens was unable to refute any of them. Neither was he able to present any valid argument for atheism.

Another one of the four prominent writer of the new atheism, Richard Dawkins, refused to debate with Craig. Probably, he refused because his friend Hitchens lost the debate with Craig.

Watch this video for yourself and make your own conclusions.

Communist Ideology and Atheism

Communists in the Soviet Union and other countries were militant atheists and persecuted any religious people regardless of their religion. Why did they do so? The answer is very simple: the communist ideology is incompatible with any religion, but it is very compatible with atheism.

There are some modern Russian communists who profess to believe in God. However, the thing is that the official ideology of the Russian communist party is different from the original communist ideology.

In 1912, Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Bolsheviks eventually took the name communists. Mensheviks probably can be considered as socialists or social-democrats. The ideology of the communist party of the Soviet Union was the ideology of Bolsheviks, but the ideology of the contemporary Russian communist party is much more the ideology of Mensheviks, that is, they are actually socialists or social-democrats, even though they call themselves communists.

There were no religious people among Soviet communists. There were religious people in the Soviet Union, but they did not accept the communist ideology.

The theory of Marxism-Leninism consisted of three parts:
1. Marxism-Leninism philosophy,
2. Political economy,
3. Scientific communism.

In turn, Marxism-Leninism philosophy consisted of two parts:
1. Dialectical materialism,
2. Historical materialism.

Actually, historical materialism is based on the same principles as dialectical materialism. The main difference is that dialectical materialism deals with nature, while historical materialism deals with human society.

Both dialectical and historical materialism are based on atheism. In fact, the word "materialism" is synonymous to the word "atheism."

Although Western atheists and anti-theists may not like historical materialism, they will definitely like many ideas of dialectical materialism. In fact, they believe in many ideas of dialectical materialism already even if they have never heard this term.

What is the basic question of philosophy? Marxism-Leninism answers this way:

The basic question of philosophy is "the question of the relation of the consciousness and being, of the spiritual and the material in general. This question is the starting point of philosophical inquiry. Therefore, an answer to it, whether materialistic, idealistic, or dualistic, lies at the foundation of every philosophical doctrine. F. Engels wrote: “The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature … comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 21, p. 283). <...>

"Engels was the first to single out the basic question of philosophy and elucidate its role in the construction of philosophical doctrines (ibid., pp. 282–91). According to him, the basic question of philosophy is the theoretical summation of the intellectual history of mankind."

So, Marxism-Leninism starts with what it calls basic question of philosophy and with its answer which is materialism. In other words, Marxism-Leninism starts with atheism. This is why Karl Marx wrote, "Communism begins where atheism begins." And this is why only atheists may be communists.

Happy New Year!