Except for Sam Harris, I intellectually respect these gentlemen as advocates of irreligion but not of soundly reasoned atheism itself. Not even the philosopher Daniel Dennett (whose "belief in belief", while deflationary, seems too psychologistic (even hehaviorist)).Dawkins is one of the new atheists. He is one of the 'The Four Horsemen: Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitch[ens] and Sam Harris. — Jack Cummins
'Supernatural claims' must consistently account for nature (which is ineluctable and universally accessible to us as natural beings) or else such 'claims' – a category which includes "God" – do not make sense, at best, and are false otherwise.I am wondering how the perspective of such writers fits into the question of God' s existence, or if the nature of the question needs formulating. How much is about understanding causal reality and its sources?
You will have to specify that "concept"; otherwise, underdetermined, it is too vague to "imply" anything intelligible.What does the concept of God imply, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of the concept of God in thinking about how life works and the nature of reality?
Not much. Other than Stenger (& Dennett on his better days), I think "new atheists" traffic mostly in journalistic polemics that are readily rebuffed – rationalized away – by well-worn JCI apologetics.How important is 'The New Atheism' in connection with the historical belief in God within the Judaeo- Christian tradition and other traditions and philosophies?
'Supernatural claims' must consistently account for nature (which is ineluctable and universally accessible to us as natural beings) or else such 'claims' – category which includes "God" – do not make sense, at best, and are false otherwise. — 180 Proof
Dawkins, in his emphasis on " natural selection" has simply replaced the idea of God with that of chance. — Jack Cummins
:up:As far as I understand, he was not proposing his ideas to imply atheism itself. — Jack Cummins
At the time, I was not even aware of the movement of new atheism. — Jack Cummins
especially the Ukrainian situation... — Jack Cummins
You will find Stenger very clear in his arguments, because he takes a firm stand on Naturalism. You could even call his inflexible position Dogmatism. If you agree with his Naturalist premises though, you must agree with the logic of his Atheist conclusions. But philosophers tend to be open to other interpretations of Nature, that may not be of interest to empirical scientists. Especially, regarding Ontology and questions about "something from nothing".I will look out for the writing of Dr Stenger because it is worth looking at the idea of the new atheism from a wider angle. — Jack Cummins
:roll:Naturalismtakesthe existence of this physical worldfor granted.— Gnomon
"Ironically, the Wiki quote below says he also used a statistical probability argument, for which the data must be imagined, to prove that our world is nothing special. Hence, not created by an omniscient deity. However, other scientists have used similar anthropic logic to prove just the opposite. — Gnomon
How important is 'The New Atheism' in connection with the historical belief in God within the Judaeo- Christian tradition and other traditions and philosophies? — Jack Cummins
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.