The New Atheism-Victor Stenger (I)

In recent years a number of bestselling books have forcefully argued that belief in God can no longer be defended on rational or empirical grounds, and that the scientific worldview has rendered obsolete the traditional beliefs held by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The authors of these books-Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor J. Stenger-have come to be known as the "New Atheists." Predictably, their works have been controversial and attracted a good deal of critical reaction.
In this new book, Victor J. Stenger, whose God: The Failed Hypothesis was on the New York Times bestseller list in 2007, reviews and expands upon the principles of New Atheism and answers many of its critics. He demonstrates in detail that naturalism-the view that all of reality is reducible to matter and nothing else-is sufficient to explain everything we observe in the universe, from the most distant galaxies to the inner workings of the brain that result in the phenomenon of mind.
Stenger disputes the claim of many critics that the question of whether God exists is beyond the ken of science. On the contrary, he argues that absence of evidence for God is, indeed, evidence of absence when the evidence should be there and is not.
Turning from scientific to historical evidence, Stenger then points out the many examples of evil perpetrated in the name of religion. He also notes that the Bible, which is still taken to be divine revelation by millions, fails as a basis for morality and is unable to account for the problem of unnecessary suffering throughout the world.
Finally, he discusses the teachings of ancient nontheist sages such as Buddha, Lao Tzu,and Confucius, whose guidelines for coping with the problems of life and death did not depend upon a supernatural metaphysics. Stenger argues that this "way of nature" is far superior to the traditional supernatural monotheisms, which history shows can lead to a host of evils.
The New Atheism is a well-argued defense of the atheist position and a strong rebuttal of its critics.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• the
• new
• atheism
• victor
• stenger
• richard
• dawkins
• sam
• harris
• christopher
• hitchens
• atheist

[SOAS007]

I don't like this"new" prefix...

aTheism just rejects theistic claims. The only thing that is new is now more aTheists speak out more often, and it is becoming more mainsteam. Would Bertand Russel count as a ' new' aTheist? There is nothing new in what aTheism ,claims now. Nothing new, but still true.... probably:-))

[mironowak]

Unfortunate title of the book doesn't spoil its content.

As a non-god-botherer I have no intention of wasting my life proving or disproving the existence of an invisible, all-powerful(?) celestial puppeteer, who exclusively represents the interests of one particular (chosen) group of people be it Jews,Christians,Muslims,Mormon­s or Scientologists.

History of our civilisation clearly demonstrates that every new,man-made religion is merely a pathetic, usually eclectic parody of its predecessors.

[SOAS007]

@HELLawaitsall59 I am an atheist, because I reject all theistic claims. And an agnostic too. There are things I do not know. It is perfectly usual to be agnostic AND atheist. Not too unusual to be agnostic and theist. They are not esclusive ideas. BTW I would like to know how you can prove her existance philosphically. that is an unsubstantiated claim.

[HELLawaitsall59]

@SOAS007

I might be wrong, but I was reading the transcript of his debate with Fr. Copleston and He considered himself agnostic.

"C: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?

R: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic."

[serenitatismare]

@polymath7

"irenic" would

seem somewhat

erronic in this context

[polymath7]

@SOAS007 I find the prefix acutely irritating, if only because it more or less clearly contains the implication that one must furnish an indefinite supply of fresh reasons to reject ancient middle eastern creation myths, but that the myths themselves really need supply none at all.

This may sound like a straw man, but a skillful cross-examination will almost always reveal that this *is* the position of almost any person who uses "new atheists" in the pejorative.

[polymath7]

III.

... and though he used to infuriate me with what my teenage self saw as far too many qualifications like "I wonder if" and "it seems to me", speaking strictly in terms of his epistemology he gave no quarter.

Oh, and Gould was simply a buffoon. The more I learn about that irenic invertebrate the less I respect him. Rationalism lost considerably less than nothing at his passing.

[polymath7]

II. ...*somewhere* in the universe (and somewhere in the course of this is where I seem to remember him coining his aphorism) he nonetheless argued that there was not a shred of legitimate evidence that we were being or had ever been visited by extraterrestrials, and that furthermore the complete absence of such evidence was indeed good reason to seriously doubt that such visitations had ever taken place.

Sagan when discussing religion was very tactful (and magnificently eloquent)...

[polymath7]

I.

In fairness to Carl Sagan, as far as I'm aware his aphorism "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" was never uttered in the context if religious metaphysical claims. I could be mistaken but If I recall correctly, the phrase originates in the book version of 'Cosmos', and was employed in the context of claims that UFO stories and footage are evidence of extraterrestrial spacecraft.

He argued that although extraterrestrial life was very likely indeed to exist ...

[JiangZiyaTabooDays]

Let's see. Sam Harris would be Pestilence (sometimes "Conquest"), since the bow was associated with Apollo and Diana, who rule over diseases. Hitchens, of course, would be War. Dawkins is Famine, since the scale measures foodstuffs. Dennett is Death, with the pitchfork but usually a scythe, and the bony arms. They got the horses' colors wrong, though. Awesome picture.

[Foreverclever87]

I read his book "God: The failed hypothesis"

It's very good. I recommend it.