New Atheism, a failed hamartiology?

mikhail

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/ (Long read)
The article above seems worth considering. It's lengthy, and my gut doesn't agree with all of it by any means, but I figure I'll post it here while I'm chewing it over.

Pherekydes

It's an unusual day when I have to look up the meaning of a word!

Quantum Erasure

yeah thanks

Hamartiology (from Greek: ἁμαρτία, hamartia, "missing the mark, error" and -λογια, -logia, "study"), a branch of Christian theology which is the study of sin

smacl

Interesting enough essay, though I'm personally of the opinion that attaching extra baggage to the word atheism to make New Atheism, Atheism+ etc.. is counter productive and creates a misnomer. Being an atheist does not involve having an agenda or a shared common set of values, nor does it make you immune to woo or various other flavours of bull**** nor imbue some kind of intelligence lacking in theists. I'm of the opinion that both theists and certain atheist groups would like to coral atheists off into a group that is equivalent to a religious group in terms of social and political ambition but think that group is better defined as secularists, even though many theists may also be secularists.

magicbastarder

it may also be that the latest generation are more likely to be 'passive' atheists - i.e. people for whom religion/god never really was something they considered, whereas an older generation would be 'active' atheists, people who were brought up as religious and more likely to have made a choice to turn their backs on it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Is it not also likely that a drop off in search terms shows success rather than failure?

After all do people not search for things when they do not know what they are, so they find out what they are?

Could a drop off in searches not therefore show that we have succeeded in educating people and they do not need to look it up for themselves any more?

looksee

Or it could be, since the whole argument appears to be based on search terms and their frequency of use, that people regard atheism as something they are familiar with and therefore do not have to look up.

Edit: Ah, N beat me to it!

Cabaal

Ok so I've decided to use the OP's logic on other stuff.

Brexit is no where near as much of a thing as its highest point in 2016
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=GB&q=Brexit

I mean its searched for, but it clearly doesn't interest people as much at all :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Is it not also likely that a drop off in search terms shows success rather than failure?

After all do people not search for things when they do not know what they are, so they find out what they are?

Could a drop off in searches not therefore show that we have succeeded in educating people and they do not need to look it up for themselves any more?

This is exactly it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Another issue is the scope of the graph. To make it look like there is a huge drop off, the graph STARTS with a peak. That is a pretty contrived use of graphing that is. 2004 is, for example, the year "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris was published.

It would be like looking at Marvel related searches on the net in a graph and judging the success of Marvel but ONLY starting the graph the year the first Avengers Film came out and tapering it off some years later.... rather than casting a wider graph.

Those films peaked the interest in Marvel as a whole and now the Avengers films are essentially over that interest will fall off. The question is how does over all interest in the Marvel Franchise stack now compared to before those films existed at all? My suspicion is it is UP.

Similarly comparing Atheism Searches today with those at the start of something that caused a peak..... rather than comparing it now against all time trends...... is a way to specifically get a graph that is going to suggest a decline.

So really I am not getting much from the graph at all other than a reminder at how easily statistics can be manipulated to an agenda or to a confirmation bias.

Cabaal

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Another issue is the scope of the graph. To make it look like there is a huge drop off, the graph STARTS with a peak. That is a pretty contrived use of graphing that is. 2004 is, for example, the year "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris was published.

My Brexit Graph looks far better taking your suggestion into account



Clearly Brexit isn't THAT important :pac:

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Interesting enough essay, though I'm personally of the opinion that attaching extra baggage to the word atheism to make New Atheism, Atheism+ etc.. is counter productive and creates a misnomer. Being an atheist does not involve having an agenda or a shared common set of values, nor does it make you immune to woo or various other flavours of bull**** nor imbue some kind of intelligence lacking in theists. I'm of the opinion that both theists and certain atheist groups would like to coral atheists off into a group that is equivalent to a religious group in terms of social and political ambition but think that group is better defined as secularists, even though many theists may also be secularists.

Surely the progression is natural once deciding to progress. 'Without belief in God' is a broad church. Someone somewhere won't want to identify with anti-Christianity (which is a distinct denomination in your church) and so might be expected to want to differentiate themselves from that church. Indeed, they may well object more to that athiest denomination than they do to any Christian one.

A '+' doesn't seem like a heavy price to pay. Get back when you've managed a Reformation or some such.

antiskeptic

mikhail wrote: »

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/ (Long read)
The article above seems worth considering. It's lengthy, and my gut doesn't agree with all of it by any means, but I figure I'll post it here while I'm chewing it over.

Interesting graph. It's probably the case that unbelief is the same as it ever was (I mean, cultural Christians of old, standing at the door to a packed church, having a smoke and a chat with mates whilst they conformed to the norm of the day .. and straight down the pub afterward .. were hardly ardent in their belief).

You can get a bit of a rise from folk for a while but if they never gave a crap about the matter before they'll probably quickly enough turn back essentials: job, mortgage, row with the in laws..

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Surely the progression is natural once deciding to progress. 'Without belief in God' is a broad church. Someone somewhere won't want to identify with anti-Christianity (which is a distinct denomination in your church) and so might be expected to want to differentiate themselves from that church. Indeed, they may well object more to that athiest denomination than they do to any Christian one.

Atheism isn't a church though unless you could consider something like 'not being a Man United fan' a church. Unlike Christianity for example, it doesn't imply any commonality beyond not believing in a god or gods. It doesn't even mean you're not a Christian, as illustrated by the person in your previous post having a smoke and a chat in the doors of the church on a Sunday morning.

The commonality that many people refer when talking about atheists typically refers to secular ideals which look to restrict the undue influence of organised religion in our society. Not wanting to live in a de-facto theocracy while having freedom of religious expression is a value shared by many theists and atheists alike.

magicbastarder

smacl wrote: »

Atheism isn't a church though unless you could consider something like 'not being a Man United fan' a church.

from what little i know of football, that's probably the worst example you could use from that sphere, given that ABU became a known acronym about twenty years ago; so people *did* define themselves specifically by not being a united fan...

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

from what little i know of football, that's probably the worst example you could use from that sphere, given that ABU became a known acronym about twenty years ago; so people *did* define themselves specifically by not being a united fan...

That's precisely the thing though, "not being a Man United fan" doesn't imply you're a fan of any other football club or have any interest in football whatsoever for that matter. If Christianity corresponded to following Man United, ABU corresponds to Atheism+ as viewed by the staunch Christian or active Atheism+ member. Just my opinion, but the world is a bigger place and the fanatics are relatively few.

robindch

mikhail wrote: »

hamartiology

Whatever else you can say about our religionist colleagues, by golly, they certainly have the best sounding words!

mikhail

robindch wrote: »

Whatever else you can say about our religionist colleagues, by golly, they certainly have the best sounding words!

You trying talking about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin for two millennia without inventing some bull**** terms.