What the 'New Atheists' Get Wrong - John Haught, Nancey Murphy & Kenneth Miller

[b991228]

The "new atheist" know that William Lane Craig will not have his Damascus moment. What they are hoping to do is to create an environment where a person does not feel that it is an obligation to have religious belief and an obligation to live under a tyrannical imposition of religious belief in everyday life. In our society all people have a right to believe what they want no mater how irrational it is but they also have an obligation to respect the belief or lack of belief of others.

[TheJsmith422]

@EnlightenedReader And it was the Catholic Church who deemed their work heretical. Go figure.

[ndzoko]

@EnlightenedReader Christianity has a record of obstructing progress and innovation. A few exemples :They objected to toiletpaper, lightning rods( interruption of gods punishment) Anatomy, cremation, cell-stem research. in-vitro, etc.

[cjunk351]

I dont care about their PHD's.......religion is not an intellectual pursuit ....its pure fantasy.....unrealistic. these people seem to be completely unaware of how their retarded religions are playing out in every day life. the New atheists are not ignoring how their stupid religion of christianity and the like, are playing out in REALITY.

[tcktrc]

These all seem to be well spoken, intelligent, and thoughtful human beings. However, Haught's claims of the Universe being a infinite of love, truth, beauty, power, etc. is nonsensical. Also, Miller's point that the monotheistic tradition encourage scientific progress is ahistorical. Dogma cannot coexist with alternative explanations. This is historical fact. Because modern Christianity has rejected much ancient dogma doesn't mean it's finally correct or full of truth. Just that it changes.

[berettaNZ]

This would have been a MUCH shorter clip if it was called "What the New Atheists get Right."

[HConstantine]

The New Atheists rightfully do not care about these tame theologians shuffling in and out of classrooms at University--they are worried about a pack of ignorant bible thumpers that could conceivally elect a crazy person like Bachmann president, and also provide cover for the control of society of by the rich.

That said, Haught's pompous self-importance and clulessness is nauseating. The pantheism he espouses here is both unrelated to reality, and a heresy. How did Miller stand it?

[sam51092]

They can argue that science and religion are compatible, but they need a better argument. If the existence of people who believe science and religion are compatible are evidence that science and religion actually are compatible, then the existence of people who DON'T believe science and religion are compatible would, by the same logic, have to to be evidence that science and religion AREN'T compatible. You can't argue one without arguing the other, but both arguments negate each other.

[logician360]

If scientism includes not just the physical sciences (biology, chemistry, physics), but also includes the formal sciences (logic, statistics, mathematics), then I think that scientism is the only way to reliably discover the truth. The physical sciences, grounded in public empirical evidence, provide content, while the formal sciences provide structure to one's worldview. Any claim that is meaningful and supported by public empirical evidence, or a cogent argument is supported by science.

[FightBack96]

@logician360 I agree, I'm not sure what they mean when they say that scientism is not intellectually respectable. If scientism is not intellectually respectable, then on what basis is religion intellectually respectable? If they use scientism (as defined by you, partially or otherwise) to justify religious claims... If Dr. Haught is trying to build an argument, then he is doing a poor job in doing so.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@FightBack96 Scientism isn't intellectually respectable because at its base it is self-refuting in its belief that all meaningful & true knowledge comes from science. The obvious question is; what scientific evidence is there for the stance. i.e.What empirical test can you do that shows that "All meaningful & true knowledge comes from science." Of course there isnt a test because that is not a scientific question but rather a philosophical question. It fails in the rationale it wants to support.

[Grimtheorist]

@BeatMasterPhil I think the fact that the word science literally means 'knowledge' should perfectly explain why we can say that any truth we are to have should come through science. We can't *know* (have truth) without knowledge. The "-ism" is just the belief in that. If believing in knowledge isn't intellectually respectable, then... that'd suck.

This is why I can't understand why anyone ever would ever, ever, ever not want science at the forefront of life. I believe in knowing.

[Kaddywompous]

@FightBack96 I don't know what you were watching. Haught never said implied that scientism wasn't respectable. He simply made the arguement that it was incomplete.

[MrFletcherChase]

@logician360 are you implying that an argument that you have put together in your head is equal or greater to the sum of empirical evidence? Either I'm misunderstanding you or you are giving me a very good laugh.