"New Atheists" attacked in the Irish Times

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

d'Oracle

I'm embarrassed by Dawkins.

The man is a fool.
His arguments against gods existence usually boil down to "Religions do bad things."

He also has a very arrogant demeanour and style of writing.

The Mad Hatter

d'Oracle wrote: »

The man is a fool.

Yeah, those foolish Oxford professors, always getting up to mad stuff.

His arguments against gods existence usually boil down to "Religions do bad things."

Those are arguments against religion, not arguments against gods.

mickoneill30

d'Oracle wrote: »

His arguments against gods existence usually boil down to "Religions do bad things."

I didn't get that from his books at all.

henryporter

That Reville fellow is always trying to achieve some sort of balance between science and religion. Most of his articles are unreadable because of that bias. The only point I agree with in this article is the aggression towards religion by the 'New Atheists' is uncalled for. I'm an atheist and a vegetarian, but I'm not going to demean my beliefs by attacking someone elses (unless of course they're wrong). Religion as Karl Marz rightly observed serves a purpose in keeping the majority sane and goodly hearted

5uspect

Remember, this is the guy who wrote that dumbass article on ID.

Shenshen

All I really see him do there is attack strawmen...

speedboatchase

I can't stand Dawkins. Now I'm an Athiest myself so obviously I would agree with him, but he comes across as the main spokesperson for us and unfortunately embodies all the stereotypes of Athiests - he's arrogant and goes overboard when he decries religions (the holocaust denier statement will be taken out of context by so many people). I think the writer makes a point that some Athiest like to organise themselves in much the same way as religious followers do and some are so in awe of Dawkins they may as well start worshipping him as a deity

Ickle Magoo

Atheism as a philosophy, although asserting that religion is based on a false premise...

If his starting point is an inaccurate & seriously biased definition of atheism then it's little wonder the ramblings that follow make so little sense...he doesn't like atheism, he objects to SCR on "ethical grounds", I'm guessing this guy is a theist?

checkyabadself

It always leaves me puzzled to hear well educated people, biochemistry proffessor William Reville included, arguing about the "deep need for religion".

I find it a sweeping statement, as I have a need for food and even a "deep need" for oxygen. I cant say I, or anyone else has a deep need for religion.

I do find theologans to be amazing orators, they should work in advertizing.

panda100

I am not at alll embarrassed by 'New atheists' such as Dawkins. I've read some of his books which I thought were very good.I also watched his tv programme on Channel 4 in which he came across as reasonable,balanced and very much in favour of robust,well-informed debate with theists.

I think the IT writer is making a lot of assumptions and uses massively sweeping statments such as his opening line. It's a very poorly written,generalisng article which I presume the IT put in to try and counter balance all the negative press the RC church has been getting.

Shenshen

checkyabadself wrote: »

It always leaves me puzzled to hear well educated people, biochemistry proffessor William Reville included, arguing about the "deep need for religion".

I find it a sweeping statement, as I have a need for food and even a "deep need" for oxygen. I cant say I, or anyone else has a deep need for religion.

I do find theologans to be amazing orators, they should work in advertizing.

I'm not sure, I've come across people who seem to have such a need. It's always puzzled me, to be honest.

MackDeToaster

What, I can scarcely believe it, my pc was hacked last night and now I find my latest 'work' has been published as twisted as that. Here's the original..

Religion clearly satisfies some deep human need. Throughout history some, but not all, societies have practised religion. But atheists have always existed also, and probably in fact far, far longer. So what is it about the religious mind that resists this deep-seated human tendency towards logic and scepticism ? The sociological study of religion has answered this question and explained the role religion plays in social dynamics many times. As Lee and Bullivant suggest, the founders of sociology – including Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), Karl Marx (1818–1883), Max Weber (1864–1920), Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) and Auguste Comte (1798–1857) – were all atheists and were preoccupied with explaining the “irrational” human tendency towards religion. Freud explains God as a psychological father figure, Marx famously described religion as “the opium of the people”, Durkheim explained religion as the human pursuit of social cohesion, and so on.

Whatever about the religious generally, a new variety of religious, sometimes called New Smarmy Religiots, certainly seems to have a distinctive mindset. Religion as a philosophy, although asserting that atheism is based on a false premise, is not necessarily aggressively antagonistic towards atheism. But the Smarmy Religiots are aggressively anti-atheism and numbers some prominent er.. er.. theologians in its ranks. A prominent leader is William Reville, author of Much Mumbo Jumbo. Reville has attracted many prominent supporters, amongst them some grannies, fundamentalists, newspapers trying to stir up shyte and the gullible easily-fooled-by-titles-and-many-words-saying-very-little.

The New Smarmy Religiots attribute much of the bad manners in the world to atheism and they want to rid the world of all varieties of bad manners – even the mildest and most “reasonable” forms. Extreme forms of bad manners such as failing to drop the toilet seat, or bow down and kiss the popes ring are undoubtedly problematic to them, but the New Smarmy Religiots seem not to take into account that perhaps the only people who might moderate the religious zealots are the moderate, logical, thoughtful, considerate, atheists.

The mind of the New Smarmy Religiot is characterised by arrogant certainty, dismissing atheism as nonsense. This is demonstrated by basically all of them. Rather than come up with evidence for their position, they would rather attack the man and not the argument, when they fail to cope with logic they strike out as vitiperously as they can with shallow, meandering, tedious, boring soundbites.

I know many religious who disagree with atheists but respect their position. Some atheists return this favour, but others would see that they have no reason whatsoever to respect religion, no more than any other embarrassing belief which lacks evidence. I suspect that most religious are as embarrassed by the New Smarmy Religiots as thoughtful atheists and scientists are by young earth creationists, but then again, maybe not, they would rather stay cocooned in their warm fuzzy certainties and hide away from facing up to reality.

The Mad Hatter

That's quite an attack, though. I've come over quite faint, and shall have to sit down for a moment.

Galvasean

The mind of the New Atheist is characterised by arrogant certainty, dismissing all religion as nonsense. This was demonstrated by Peter Atkins, the renowned British chemist, in a recent debate at UCC with Irish Times columnist John Waters on science and religion.

I'm sorry, but there is just too much irony in any article that calls someone arrogant, only to mention John Waters without calling him arrogant too.

robindch

d'Oracle wrote: »

His arguments against gods existence usually boil down to "Religions do bad things."

Have you ever heard any of his arguments?

Dades

William Reville wrote:

mainline Christianity has always valued reason...

...as long as it's not focused on omnipotence, free will, natural disasters etc.

Or the fact that the whole concept is bananas.

Hang on.
Religions claim to understand the all the origins and secrets of the universe (and are quite often completely wrong) and claim that anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is doomed to be denied enlightenment at best or doomed to eternal suffering at worst.

But Atheists are arrogant?

ChocolateSauce

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well I never was impressed by William Reville, and he's hinted at this kind of opinion many times in the past. I would have thought that someone like him would know better that to use the term "New Atheism" though. He's obviously never heard of Diderot.

As for being embarrassed, as a scientist myself I'm actually embarrassed by scientists like Reville and Francis Collins, people who do good science but cannot apply the same standards to religion as they do to their work. Even more embarrassing is when they make sweeping and inaccurate (ie. baseless) statments like "Atheists are embarrassed by Dawkins", "in fact, mainline Christianity has always valued reason", "Religion satisfies some deep human need" and "The mind of the New Atheist is characterised by arrogant certainty".

As for Dawkins...well, to me he is a hero and a champion of sorts. Not perfect, but who is?

Zombrex

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

These discussions about Dawkins always start off talking about atheism but ultimately always end up attacking Dawkins and co for daring to suggest that religion can be a bad thing.

It is the same old argument again, we don't mind if you want to be an atheist but how dare you point out the flaws with religion. That is going too far, we won't tolerate you doing that.

This is really nothing to do with atheism, it is simply that atheists seem to be the only ones who can criticize a particular religion without coming across as hypocrites (and thus easily dismissed as hypocrites) If a Muslim criticizes Christianity, or vice verse, it is easy to say that your position is just as irrational as mine and they just ignore each other.

Theists can't do that with atheism. And this seems to be really really pissing them off

The odd thing is that religion seems to be so used to this privilege of not being criticized that You are criticizing religion seems to be a charge in of itself.

What is wrong with New Atheism? They criticize religion! The horror, you are not allowed to that!.

The question of whether they actually have a point isn't even reached. Very few actually get to the point where they defined religion from these charges, it seems that they think it is simply enough to point out that New Atheism has dared to do this.

We get into all this nonsense about lack of respect and arrogance. How dare you criticize religion, who are you to do this! You don't even believe in a religion!

And then when that doesn't work they fall back to the old familiar, atheism is actually a religion and it is just as irrational as mine so you can't say anything about mine (as they would do with a Muslim or Hindu)

It is quite funny to watch actually.

amacachi

I ****ing despise Dawkins.

That article is a yawnfest tbh.

Zillah

I can't count the times I've heard it claimed that Christianity respects reason and rational thinking.

You can make all the claims you like but I'm going to regard you with scorn until I see these claims put into action. I see it as an untenable position for a person to claim simultaneously that they respect reason and that they are eating magic bread that has been turned into the flesh of Christ.

amacachi

Zillah wrote: »

I can't count the times I've heard it claimed that Christianity respects reason and rational thinking.

You can make all the claims you like but I'm going to regard you with scorn until I see these claims put into action. I see it as an untenable position for a person to claim simultaneously that they respect reason and that they are eating magic bread that has been turned into the flesh of Christ.

I get the impression that most European Protestant movements are pretty damn tolerant, though I don't pay the most attention I'll admit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Osgoodisgood

amacachi wrote: »

I ****ing despise Dawkins.

Why?

Glenster

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is no God.
Why?
Because there is no evidence that there is.


...OK....Then there is a God
Why?
Because there's no evidence that there isn't.

SSSTTTTRRRRAAAAAWWWWWMMMMMAAAAANNNNNNN!!!!!!

Hey everybody this credulous theist just did a strawman!



Annoying.

I know it's not actually a strawman, but when has that ever stopped you?

amacachi

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Why?

He comes across as unbelievably arrogant. He refers to himself as a "Darwinist" as though it lends more credence to his opinion. To me it almost comes across as though it's his "Religion".
The rare times I've bothered to watch one of his documentaries all the way through he tends to interview the nutjob religious people most (or show more of those interviews) and the less hardcore he shows little of what they say, usually a line or two which supports his own viewpoint, when he obviously spent a lot longer than that with them. He shouldn't need to pick and choose to prove his point. Though I accept it's a trait of television production.
Also he just comes across as a complete dick to me.

doctoremma

checkyabadself wrote: »

It always leaves me puzzled to hear well educated people, biochemistry proffessor William Reville included, arguing about the "deep need for religion".

I find it a sweeping statement, as I have a need for food and even a "deep need" for oxygen. I cant say I, or anyone else has a deep need for religion.

The "deep need for religion" is turning into an agenda, in my opinion. It would be very convenient for theories based on the evolutionary advantage of a mindset that is suceptible to religious belief to be used to demand that religiosity be accepted as a biological fact that should not be ignored and demands full respect. In fact, has anyone come across an argument suggesting that atheists are denying their biology?

Now, what will be most interesting is the response by the homosexual community to this argument.....

Daftendirekt

checkyabadself wrote: »

It always leaves me puzzled to hear well educated people, biochemistry proffessor William Reville included, arguing about the "deep need for religion".

I find it a sweeping statement, as I have a need for food and even a "deep need" for oxygen. I cant say I, or anyone else has a deep need for religion.

I do find theologans to be amazing orators, they should work in advertizing.

Absolutely. Some people may have a need for religion, but it's only as 'deep' as my need for a cup of coffee in the morning...

Antbert

The usual "Waaaaaaaaaah the mean atheists are criticising meeee" argument.

Earth shattering stuff.

Antbert

amacachi wrote: »

He comes across as unbelievably arrogant.

URGH! This is so irritating. Someone speaking logically about something like religion is always accused of being arrogant. Why? Because it's easier than saying "probably right". They come across as arrogant (I guess) to theists (sometimes) because they're speaking in a matter of fact way about most religious concepts being ridiculous.

People don't usually accuse someone speaking with absolute certainty about his Metro starsign of being arrogant because they're fully aware that he has no basis for it.

Why does his arrogance bother people so much anyway? The hypothetical arrogance of aforementioned astrologer doesn't bother me. This makes me suspicious.

Sam Vimes

Antbert wrote: »

URGH! This is so irritating. Someone speaking logically about something like religion is always accused of being arrogant. Why? Because it's easier than saying "probably right". They come across as arrogant (I guess) to theists (sometimes) because they're speaking in a matter of fact way about most religious concepts being ridiculous.

To quote Jimmy Carr: "I'm not arrogant. The word you're looking for is correct"

Zillah

amacachi wrote: »

He comes across as unbelievably arrogant.

Mild mannered professor dares to tell religious people they're wrong, religious people become offended and make ad-hominem attacks. More at ten.

He refers to himself as a "Darwinist" as though it lends more credence to his opinion.

He deals with people who reject Neo-Darwinian evolution, this term is used to describe someone who accepts it. I fail to see how you've managed to be offended by this.

The rare times I've bothered to watch one of his documentaries all the way through he tends to interview the nutjob religious people most

He criticises religion for its extremes, it makes perfect sense to show the worst that religion has to offer. If I was making a documentary about crime in Dublin would you prefer if 50% of my footage was of perfectly normal law abiding citizens walking around not breaking the law?


Basically your entire position boils down to this: You're making an ignorant knee-jerk judgment of a man without understanding him, his goals, his methods or the context in which he operates.

Erren Music

amacachi wrote: »

He comes across as unbelievably arrogant. He refers to himself as a "Darwinist" as though it lends more credence to his opinion. To me it almost comes across as though it's his "Religion".

He only comes across as arrogant because you cannot argue logically for religion.

amacachi wrote: »

The rare times I've bothered to watch one of his documentaries all the way through he tends to interview the nutjob religious people most (or show more of those interviews) and the less hardcore he shows little of what they say, usually a line or two which supports his own viewpoint, when he obviously spent a lot longer than that with them. He shouldn't need to pick and choose to prove his point. Though I accept it's a trait of television production.
Also he just comes across as a complete dick to me.

He doesn't need to pick an choose.

"the nutjob religious people" believe in such stupid ideas, that they have nothing to argue for in defence of their beliefs.

amacachi

Zillah wrote: »

Mild mannered professor dares to tell religious people they're wrong, religious people become offended and make ad-hominem attacks. More at ten.

It's the smug look, his insidious questioning.

He deals with people who reject Neo-Darwinian evolution, this term is used to describe someone who accepts it. I fail to see how you've managed to be offended by this.

It's way he says it, and the amount he says it. Where did I say I was offended?

He criticises religion for its extremes, it makes perfect sense to show the worst that religion has to offer. If I was making a documentary about crime in Dublin would you prefer if 50% of my footage was of perfectly normal law abiding citizens walking around not breaking the law?

It's the very fact that he's making these shows purely to get his own point across and to paint everyone else as a complete idiot. He doesn't linger on the non-nutjobs, despite his being a scientist.

Basically your entire position boils down to this: You're making an ignorant knee-jerk judgment of a man without understanding him, his goals, his methods or the context in which he operates.

How dare I have a different opinion of a person than you do?

Erren Music wrote: »

He only comes across as arrogant because you cannot argue logically for religion.

Not my reasoning at all.

He doesn't need to pick an choose.

"the nutjob religious people" believe in such stupid ideas, that they have nothing to argue for in defence of their beliefs.

Exactly, my point is that he focuses on them, not on the moderates. Do we really need an evolutionary biologist to let us know that bible-bashing rednecks are mental?

Erren Music

amacachi wrote: »

Exactly, my point is that he focuses on them, not on the moderates. Do we really need an evolutionary biologist to let us know that bible-bashing rednecks are mental?

You misunderstood.

ALL religious people. There is no moderate. You cannot only slightly believe in fairies.

Erren Music

Erren Music wrote: »

He only comes across as arrogant because you cannot argue logically for religion.

amacachi wrote: »

Not my reasoning at all.

Misunderstanding again. The "you" is intended to mean anyone.

MikeC101

amacachi wrote: »

It's the smug look, his insidious questioning

He's arrogant because he "looks smug" and asks questions....(evil nasty treacherous questions though they be)?

I've always thought Dawkins to be fairly mild and polite when he's debating about religion - he's hardly Christopher Hitchens - but when I see the amount of times he's called "arrogant" I'm starting to see that anybody daring to question religion is going to be called so. Still, I'd expect slightly better reasoning than "he has a smug look". What do you want him to do? Hamstring his ability to present his case for fear of looking arrogant?

amacachi

amacachi wrote: »

It's the smug look,

That's the definition of an ad hominem.

Maybe he should dress in sweats and a backwards cap.
But then I suppose he'd be pandering.

amacachi wrote: »

his insidious questioning.

Cause asking pointed questions is unbecoming of a critic.

Can you point out a question you feel is "too insidious"?

amacachi wrote: »

It's way he says it,

And how does he say it exactly?

And this is the first time you've mentioned tone.

amacachi wrote: »

and the amount he says it.

Yea how dare a prominent atheist talk about his atheism and his books on atheism in platforms that ask him about his atheism and books.

I for one am tired with how much Carl Sagan talks about science and astronomy.
I mean the amount he talks about it...

amacachi wrote: »

It's the very fact that he's making these shows purely to get his own point across and to paint everyone else as a complete idiot. He doesn't linger on the non-nutjobs, despite his being a scientist.

Or maybe he thought that people could tell the difference between normal religious folk and crazy ass fundamentalists?

Seriously you seem to be taking offence just to take offence.

amacachi

Erren Music wrote: »

You misunderstood.

ALL religious people. There is no moderate. You cannot only slightly believe in fairies.

Really? Could've sworn most European Christian sects accept Evolution.

Erren Music wrote: »

Misunderstanding again. The "you" is intended to mean anyone.

I didn't misunderstand, I didn't suggest anyone can argue logically for Religion.

King Mob wrote: »

That's the definition of an ad hominem.

Maybe he should dress in sweats and a backwards cap.
But then I suppose he'd be pandering.


Cause asking pointed questions is unbecoming of a critic.

Can you point out a question you feel is "too insidious"?


And how does he say it exactly?

And this is the first time you've mentioned tone.


Yea how dare a prominent atheist talk about his atheism and his books on atheism in platforms that ask him about his atheism and books.

I for one am tired with how much Carl Sagan talks about science and astronomy.
I mean the amount he talks about it...


Or maybe he thought that people could tell the difference between normal religious folk and crazy ass fundamentalists?

Seriously you seem to be taking offence just to take offence.

Sweet Jesus. I assumed that the tone of someone was inherently linked to whether or not someone found them arrogant. It's the aura of arrogance from the man I'm talking about. Obviously plenty others don't agree, and fair enough.
Why is it so hard for so many people here to accept that someone dislikes Dawkins? I dislike Mourinho even if he is an excellent manager, I still have to mute the telly if he's on.
I dunno, I didn't think Carl Sagan had been speaking an awful lot lately.

And would please tell me where the **** I'm taking offence?

Bottle_of_Smoke

amacachi wrote: »

It's the smug look, his insidious questioning.

He's never come across as arrogant to me. Actually think one of his downfalls is he comes across a bit too tame in person.

It's way he says it, and the amount he says it. Where did I say I was offended?

Well how should he be saying it? What exactly is wrong with the way he says things?

It's the very fact that he's making these shows purely to get his own point across and to paint everyone else as a complete idiot. He doesn't linger on the non-nutjobs, despite his being a scientist.
How dare I have a different opinion of a person than you do?

Not my reasoning at all.



Exactly, my point is that he focuses on them, not on the moderates. Do we really need an evolutionary biologist to let us know that bible-bashing rednecks are mental?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ0WinCWtLs

MikeC101

amacachi wrote: »

Sweet Jesus. I assumed that the tone of someone was inherently linked to whether or not someone found them arrogant. It's the aura of arrogance from the man I'm talking about. Obviously plenty others don't agree, and fair enough.
Why is it so hard for so many people here to accept that someone dislikes Dawkins? I dislike Mourinho even if he is an excellent manager, I still have to mute the telly if he's on.

Speaking for myself, I was just wondering what it is about Dawkins as a person that would inspire this:

amacachi wrote: »

I ****ing despise Dawkins..

That's all. I'm not demanding you like him or anything, but I would have considered his character to be relatively inoffensive, though certainly his opinions seem to inspire vitriol in a lot of quarters.

amacachi

amacachi wrote: »

Sweet Jesus. I assumed that the tone of someone was inherently linked to whether or not someone found them arrogant.

And people can infer alot from perceived tone.
Especially if they want to infer something in particular.

And I don't think just because you have a British accent it makes you arrogant.

Can you provide a single example of him being arrogant?

amacachi wrote: »

It's the aura of arrogance from the man I'm talking about. Obviously plenty others don't agree, and fair enough.

Ah, it's an aura?
Of course.

Here's me thinking you have based your opinion based on some wishy washy stuff like his actual opinions.

amacachi wrote: »

Why is it so hard for so many people here to accept that someone dislikes Dawkins? I dislike Mourinho even if he is an excellent manager, I still have to mute the telly if he's on.

Because your reasons for disliking him aren't exactly well thought out or make much sense.
And as pointed out above, easily disproven.

amacachi wrote: »

I dunno, I didn't think Carl Sagan had been speaking an awful lot lately.

Cut and paste in any person and the field.
Mourinho and football.
Bill Gates and software.
Jon Stewart and political humour.

Can you honestly say these people are talking too much about football/software/political humour?

amacachi wrote: »

And would please tell me where the **** I'm taking offence?

I assumed that taking offence was inherently linked to whether or not someone found them arrogant.

Erren Music

amacachi wrote: »

Exactly, my point is that he focuses on them, not on the moderates. Do we really need an evolutionary biologist to let us know that bible-bashing rednecks are mental?

They are all Mental

Zillah

Erren Music wrote: »

They are all Mental

You're the closest thing I have ever encountered to what I might describe as a fundamentalist anti-theist. You are, literally, our equivalent of a bible thumper.

The Mad Hatter

Zillah wrote: »

You're the closest thing I have ever encountered to what I might describe as a fundamentalist anti-theist. You are, literally, our equivalent of a bible thumper.

Yeah, Erren, now go blow something up!

robindch

Erren Music wrote: »

They are all Mental

Have you met them all? Or are you just venting again?

Either way, calm down. You'll bust a vein if you continue like this!

ChocolateSauce

amacachi wrote: »

It's the smug look, his insidious questioning.

Not questions! *Faints*





I've always felt Dawkins is nothing but polite and respectful. He can't help it if his good natured and fair questions expose religion as being totally devoid of any intellectual strength, which in turn hurts the feelings of people. Unlike Hitchens, he doesn't go out of his way to insult people; they're insulted by the mere act of questioning their faith, something he shouldn't be held accountable for.

Mad Hatter wrote:

Yeah, Erren, now go blow something up!

Statistically, I think this fundie is far more likely to write an angry book.

equivariant

The mind of the New Atheist is characterised by arrogant certainty, dismissing all religion as nonsense.

This "argument" is frequently trotted out by the detractors of the so called 'New Atheists'. Of course, it is rarely folowed by any attempt (there is certainly none by Reville) to rebut the new atheist arguments. So what if someone perceives them as arrogant? That is an entirely subjective conclusion. As many others here have pointed out, what comes accross as arrogant to the likes of Reville, is merely intellectual honestly to many others. Reville has nothing interesting to say about any of the new atheist arguments. He merely finds it arrogant that some people are willing to point out the irrationality of religious belief. So what Willie?

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

You're the closest thing I have ever encountered to what I might describe as a fundamentalist anti-theist. You are, literally, our equivalent of a bible thumper.

And coming from Zillah...:D

MrP

equivariant

amacachi wrote: »

Why is it so hard for so many people here to accept that someone dislikes Dawkins?

For the same reason that I am skeptical of teenagers that always complain that their teachers are mean nasty people. I believe that many people find it uncomfortable to have their beliefs challenged in a way that they cannot easily dismiss. Many people actually resent being asked to think clearly and this often manifests itself in the form of an attack on the person who is asking them to think. That may not be the case with you. But I do find it suspicious that someone can f**king despise a person like Dawkins.