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

The New York Academy of Sciences - March 23, 2011

Are we immortal? Do our souls exist beyond our bodies? What scientific evidence is there for mystical experience? These questions and others are addressed from a cultural, historical, and scientific perspective by evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller and theologians John Haught and Nancey Murphy, in a discussion moderated by Newsweek's Lisa Miller.

This is an excerpt from the third in a six-part series, Perspectives on the Self, which brings together experts from the sciences and the humanities for conversations on the evolving meaning and experience of the Self.

To view the full-length video, and for more information about this series, visit http://www.nourfoundation.com/self

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• soul
• self
• science
• immortality
• philosophy
• religion
• theology
• evolution
• atheism
• afterlife
• life
• after
• death
• spirituality
• Christianity
• Nour
• Foundation

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.