The Atheist Disaster: New Atheism

A few passages from the book 'Why God won't go away' by Professor Alister McGrath.

I have submitted this as a video response to a lecture given by Richard Dawkins on the 'New Atheism' on the Richard Dawkins profile on YT. I seriously doubt whoever runs that will link it but let's see shall we?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Dawkins
• New atheism
• Hitchens
• Harris
• Dennett
• McGrath
• god
• theism
• atheism
• anti-theism
• religion
• Christianity
• monotheism
• delusion
• debate

[TheCartesianTheist]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo

How wonderful to hear someone calling themselves an 'old atheist'!

I'm glad you found the timing okay. Thanks for the feedback.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

Aside #2: Anyone who would go around declaring themselves to be a "bright"... isn't.

Aside #3: Nice editing and timing on the vid. I only had to pause once to continue reading, which is unusally good given how many pages of text were in this vid.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

I was totally down with what McGrath was saying... until he added the petty stuff about the lawsuit, which didn't speak at all to the vitriol of the New Atheism, but was just reminding his reader of a scandal that made his "enemies" look bad. That's cheap. Still, I think McGrath's main point is correct. (I suppose that makes me an Old Atheist).

Aside #1: I think Baggini is the author of "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction", which is an excellent book.

[TheCartesianTheist]

@atheistram

Explain please?

[atheistram]

@TheCartesianTheist By the same logic, the Christian Disaster are prosyletizing Christians.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@JCrownwell cumon buddy think about it. Its so simple.

[JCrownwell]

@TheSelfishAltruist

If there is a positive correlation between religion and crime, it is either due to:

1. Error: chance or bias

2. Confounders

3. Causal relationship: unilateral, reverse or reciprocal

Out of all of these categories, only proof of a unilateral causal relationship is sufficient in refuting the argument that "religion reduces crime." If the correlation is due to errors, confounders or reverse/reciprocal causation it is clearly insufficient to do so.

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@JCrownwell So you think the data is inaccurate?

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@JCrownwell I think you are suggesting that the relationship might be unrelated? Is that what you are getting at?

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@JCrownwell So are you claiming that all of the data is wrong due to bias?

[JCrownwell]

@TheSelfishAltruist

Basic error no. 3: Because of these problems your reasoning collapses:

Notably, you ARE in fact assuming a positive CAUSAL correlation between "religion" and "crime" when you state: "I go for 'causal association' personally"; "So two things can be inferred if the data is universal ... religion is not good for society"

In direct contradiction to your claim that: "I have made a non hypothesis [sic] driven suggestion"; "I never claimed religion is harmful"

[JCrownwell]

@TheSelfishAltruist

Basic error no. 2: You don't understand the term "correlation does not imply causation"

Causality, in this context, refers to whether that correlation is causal in and of itself ("is the independent variable causally affecting the dependent variable?")

NOT whether there is a scientifically justification for that correlation to have arisen ("why is there a correlation between the dependent and independent variables?")

[JCrownwell]

@TheSelfishAltruist

Let me outline, again, where you're going wrong:

Basic error number 1: Increasing sample size does NOT correct for bias and confounding.

You claim: "Each time the experiment is repeated ... bias and confounding factors become less relevant"

This is wrong: Sample size only attenuates the effect of chance (random error).

Confounding and bias IS affected by measures such as: double blind protocols (in observational studies), randomisation, stratification

[TheSelfishAltruist]

@JCrownwell You really don't understand it do you? Im not being rude but your missing my point entirely. Maybe I'm not being clear, ill try again and I pray someone else can help

For arguments sake lets assume the data is accurate. The correlation between religion and crime tells us that the statement 'religion makes society have less crime' is a inaccurate statement. It is not true.

However, the claim that 'religion causes crime' is not necessarily true (but it might be)

Do you understand?