“New Atheism is bad science “

has

My friend Debilis has since ceased writing on his blog <https://fidedubitandum.wordpress.com/&gt;, so I reblog one of her articles here:

Scientism is pseudoscience.

If that seems obvious, I can only say that there are many who still need to be told. It continues to strike me as incredible that so many people, who claim to be committed to a tough-minded scientific approach, can become so enamored with the idea that this unsupported (and blatantly incoherent) philosophy is the true spirit of scientific thought.

But what is particularly shocking is how often this kind of pseudoscience is promoted by scientists themselves. Richard Dawkins is, of course, the most obvious example, but there are others.

Still, as professor of the public understanding of the sciences, it was (specifically) Dawkins job to clear up muddles like this–rather than exacerbate the problem. The fact that he spent his career arguing for ‘scientific thought’ that was completely unsupported by any kind of scientific evidence did not help.

If Dawkins had understood this, perhaps scientism wouldn’t be running quite so rampant in modern culture. It rears its (vacuous) head every time someone demands physical evidence for a logical principle–or insists that materialism is true on the grounds of (completely arbitrarily) declaring that magic is the only other option.

One of the more popular incarnations is the appeal to the history of science. “We’ve never found any evidence for the non-natural” or so the phrase goes. I suppose there are dozens of responses to that, but the pertinent one is that absence of evidence is only significant if someone has actually looked for evidence at some point.

And there simply has never been a scientific experiment that tested for transcendence. To claim otherwise, or to claim that science shows things without testing for them is at least pseudoscience, if not downright superstition.

Yet this is exactly the kind of thinking being promoted by people who loudly claim to be the true champions of science. An actual understanding of science would be more careful about logical distinctions, slower to extrapolate philosophical conclusions from small amounts of data, and in general have a better grasp of what questions science is relevant to answer.

We see none of this in the New Atheists, and I find it astonishing that they haven’t been asked for evidence for their claims far more often.

New Atheism is Bad Science | Fide Dubitandum (wordpress.com)

Paarsurrey wrote:

• paarsurrey
  May 22nd, 2014 at 1:40 pm@boxingpythagoras : May 22nd, 2014 at 5:41 am
  “[However, I’ve sometimes heard the word “scientism” applied to the claim that the Scientific Method is the best method yet discovered for discerning and disseminating an understanding of the way in which reality operates. I would wholeheartedly disagree with classifying this claim as “pseudoscience.”]”Within the physical and material realms; I agree that scientific method is useful as a tool; out of this it is of no use; and those who try to fit it everywhere definitely believe in magic not in science.Even science does not claim it.RegardsReply
  • Debilis
    May 31st, 2014 at 4:14 pmYes, this does seem to the be the point that keeps being missed. I’m hoping that more start to see it.In any case, best to you out there.

OOO

• 
  Use of Scientific Method outside material and physical realms; is belief in magic not science | paarsurrey
  May 22nd, 2014 at 1:54 pm[…] https://fidedubitandum.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/new-atheism-is-bad-science/#comment-4308 […]Reply
• Belief in magic not in science | paarsurrey
  May 31st, 2014 at 8:48 pm[…] https://fidedubitandum.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/new-atheism-is-bad-science/#comment-4308 […]Reply
• “New Atheism is bad science “ | paarsurrey
  June 9th, 2021 at 7:26 am[…] https://fidedubitandum.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/new-atheism-is-bad-science/ […]

OOO

The News:

One will, perhaps, love to read the following:

“Holy War”: Is it Armageddon? with its ” Peaceful Version”!

“Holy War”: Is it Armegiddon / Armageddon? – with its “Peaceful Version”! 1 | paarsurrey (wordpress.com)

One will be taken aback to note that Armegiddon/Armageddon is nothing like as one would have imagined or known so far. It is not to be fought with any physical and destructive weaponry and or the lethal arsenal of the day. It is peaceful and in fact, I understand, had already been started and it is sown like a seed!

It was a debate between the Pauline-Christianity (represented by Mr. Abdullah Atham) and the Second Coming 1835-1908 , that took place in Urdu language and was published then by the name “Jang-e-Muqaddas” in 1893 ( 22 May 1893 to 5 June 1893) in the then British India and has been recently translated and published in English by the name “The Holy War”:

Click to access The-Holy-War.pdf

Right?

From: a peaceful Ahmadiyya Muslim

Sects/denominations/kinds of Atheism!?

Love for all; hatred for none

The Atheism people give the impression (or they are not aware) that they don’t have any sects or denominations and they have a collective stance in Atheism. The fact is, I understand, they are as many sects and denominations as their total numbers. Every one of them is different from the other and they don’t have any rules to bind them together, inside and outside they are in shatters, but they cannot expel one who differs . Right?

One may like to join discussion on the following interesting thread on RF- my favorite discussion forum, and view my post :#74 @:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/various-kinds-of-atheism.242511/page-2#post-7042199

paarsurrey wrote: Post #74

Various kinds of Atheism

Denominations/Sects of Atheism are on the increase to the liking or disliking of the Atheism people, they cannot stop it, as I understand.
For example if one states one’s religion as “Christian Atheist” etc., it adds one denomination/sect to Christianity as well as one denomination/sect to Atheism. Right?
It is an individuals prerogative to declare one religion as per the
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Right?
And no “ism” or “ianity” can deny this right to an individual, please.
Right?

Regards

#3 <<<<<Axxxx, wrote: 

3-2-1 dictionary definitions of atheism and inability to understand words in context incoming… 

For me though, militant atheism is pretty much synonymous with outspoken antitheism.

I guess people can be antitheists but not “militant atheists” if they don’t really care to spread their views to others.

A militant atheist is sort of the equivalent of an evangelical, they think others adopting their view would make the world a profoundly better place and thus want to spread the “good news”.

paarsurrey wrote vide post #120

Well, even the non-believers- the Atheism people have many sects/denominations but like our friend @xxxxxxx they would deny it perhaps to show it that they stand united, please. Right?
I would like that all Christian denominations (the old one’s like the Catholics and or Protestants) and the new ones (like JWs, LDS and the Bahais) become true followers of Jesus, instead of the incorrect one’s, as I understand them to be because of following (sinful) Paul and or his made-up Pauline-Christianity whatever the denomination they belong to, to become one , please. Right?

Regards

oxxxxxxx said: I didn’t know that.
Could you tell me a couple of atheist sects to get me started? I’d like to make that list up.

paarsurrey wrote vide post #130

Welcome to get started to list them up.

Atheism – Wikipedia

https://www.dummies.com/religion/atheism/different-types-of-atheism/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2013/jul/15/six-types-of-atheist
https://www.salon.com/2014/09/25/7_different_types_of_non_believers/
https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/15/the-six-types-of-atheists/

Regards

Equal access to students of Religion/No-Religion in Schools/Colleges

Please view paarsurrey’s post#139 on Religious Forum by clicking <<< the post number to get right in to the discussion going on the topic of the thread ” The concept of non practicing a religion “:

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxx said: ↑

 

1. atheism isn’t something that is “taught”. There’s nothing there to teach about. Just like one doesn’t “train” to “not play football”.

 

2. skepticism/agnosticism, is the opposite of superstition.

You should look up what “superstition” means….
If you think religious beliefs don’t fall in that category but skepticism does, then I can only inform you that you have it exactly backwards.

“atheism isn’t something that is “taught“”

#139<<<<< paaarsurrey Wrote:
If they don’t have something to teach, they just don’t do it, but they needn’t prohibit others as an excuse. Why should the students be deprived of introduction to religions? Keeping the students ignorant is not appropriate.
My emphasis was on the following points:

• “As far as the Atheists, I am not against them in their persons and I am in favor of equitable treatment to them by every Religion.
• The better idea as I visualize is that there should be periodically seminars in the schools/colleges in their halls on the subjects about religion/no-religions.
• I don’t say that there should be teachers to teach every religion in the schools. I say that there should be seminars in the schools/colleges where representatives of religions/no-religions should give lectures on the selected topics and then there should be provision of a question answer session for the students. These seminars should be conducted by moderators of the City officials.
• As somebody has to manage such events to provide equitable opportunity to every religion/no-religion that is interested in the event. The issue of moderators could be sorted between the school/colleges and the cities locally.
• My point is that the students get equal access/information to the religions of believers as also to the non-believers be they Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism or any shades of them. Under the name of Secular-ism, which means equitable treatment to everybody they should not remain ignorant of Religions/No-Religions.”

Right, please?

Regards

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/what-was-your-religious-education-in-public-schools-by-state.225626/page-7#post-6357469
________________
Posts #2,,#17, #42,#68,#82,#86 , #116,#117, #118,#120

Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills?!

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/atheists-outperform-theists-at-nearly-all-reasoning-skills.219942/page-12#post-6088758

#221 paarsurrey

Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills

So, what? Does it prove that Atheism is reasonable, please.

Regards

Agnosticism/Skepticism/Atheism are totally wrong

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/why-i-could-never-be-a-christian-or-muslim.220091/page-5#post-6085973

#90 paarsurrey

Why I Could Never Be a Christian (or Muslim)?

There is no compulsion in Quran/Islam/Muhammad, so why should one become a Muslim? Please remain with Agnosticism/Skepticism/Atheism till one realizes that Agnosticism/Skepticism/Atheism are totally wrong . Right, please?

Regards

 

“How Should Atheism Be Taught?”

The endowment of the country’s first college chair for the study of the subject draws attention to the complexity of nonbelief in America today.

By ISABEL FATTAL JAN 31, 2018

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/how-should-atheism-be-taught/551885/

Paarsurrey comments:

I find following points interesting in the above article:

1. 61 percentof “nones” said they believe in God
2. When the New Atheism movement began, campus organizations such as the Secular Student Alliancestarted to grow in popularity, said Stephen LeDrew, a sociologist of secularism and atheism. After a while, though, many young people turned away due to what they perceived as the Islamophobia and misogyny of the New Atheist movement, a movement that they expected would align with progressive values. These kinds of concerns are compounded by the fact that self-identified atheists are disproportionately white, male, and highly educated when compared with the general public.
3. “a philosophical approach to the world that emphasizes the methodologies of science, logic, and reason in facing up to questions of … how we should act in the world today,”
4. Appignani was adamant that it is “strictly academic”; he said the point is that young people will now be “exposed” to the study of nonbelief and will “be able to choose” what they agree with—“and not be ostracized in the process.”https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/how-should-atheism-be-taught/551885/I

I agree with the point # 4 above that the students should have a chance to know about Atheism  and the Religion in the schools, colleges and the Universities before they are engaged in the pursuit of their active life and the professions .

 

 

“The Christian Right’s Relentless Assault on Public Education”

“The Christian Right’s Relentless Assault on Public Education”
JANUARY 22, 2018 BY ED BRAYTON

Patheos- Nonreligious: Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/01/22/christian-rights-relentless-assault-public-education/#8brcTSB3WC7tYGGY.99

I have read the above article and have noted the following points:

1. All people have inherent worth and equality and are ‘endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,’” Zahn said.
2. “These foundational and historical American values did not spring from the cornucopia of ‘world religions,’ but specifically from the Judeo-Christian scriptures.”
3. But in reality, those ideals required a rejection of historical Christianity as it was conceived up to that point for hundreds and hundreds of years.
4. Those ideas came largely from Enlightenment humanism and their opposition came primarily from the churches. It was only long after they were adopted almost universally that Christianity was redefined and they claimed credit for what they had rejected for centuries.
5. considering a billto allow old-fashioned creationism in science classrooms as an alternative to the teaching of evolution.

 

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/01/22/christian-rights-relentless-assault-public-education/#8brcTSB3WC7tYGGY.99

I have my reservations on the above points and I intend to comment on them on the above website and give them here also for the readers.

Paarsurrey wrote:

“All people have inherent worth and equality and are ‘endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,” Unquote.

All people born in this world without exception have worth and are equal as human being. It is a global truth. Religion, whatever religion it is, they have a right to claim that these have been endowed by God. The Atheist could deny it as their own right. Right, please?

Regards

“God does not exist” can be dismissed without evidence

Does one’s parents (father and mother) exist/existed? What evidence one sought of them when first time one got to know that they were/are one’s father and mother? At what age one got to know it, please?

Thread: ““God does not exist” can be dismissed without evidence “Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Philosophy

Post 1:

Paarsurrey Wrote:

The assertion “God does not exist” can be dismissed without evidence  “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens Right, please? Regards

Post 4:

Mr.X wrote: What if someone gives their reasoning that God doesn’t exist?Also, by the same logic, the assertion “God DOES exist” can be dismissed without evidence Paarsurrey wrote: Does one’s parents (father and mother) exist/existed? What evidence one sought of them when first time one got to know that they were/are one’s father and mother? At what age one got to know it, please? Regards

“Evidentialism disapproves Atheism. Does it?”

“How can the New Atheists employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism?”
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence 

Thread: “Evidentialism disapproves Atheism. Does it? “Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Philosophy

Post 1:

Evidentialism disapproves Atheism. Does it, please?  Paarsurrey wrote: “How can the New Atheists employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism?” https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_EvidenceMichael Antony also repudiates other usual non-arguments of Atheism: 1. Atheism Isn’t A Belief 2. You Can’t Prove A Negative like “God doesn’t exist” 3. The Burden of Proof Is On The Believer 4. Ockham’s Razor 5. Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence Antony’s conclusion: “The five ways which atheists sometimes claim exempt themselves from providing evidence of their belief all fail. Unless they make no statements about God at all, they have as much a requirement to support their statements with evidence as anyone else does” Regards ____________ Dr Michael V. Antony Michael Antony is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Haifa, Israel. He is writing a book on how to approach the question of whether there is a divine reality, and what it might be like. “Where’s The Evidence?” Michael Antony argues that the New Atheists miss the mark. https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence

Post 2:

Paarsurrey wrote: As soon as the Believers and Atheism people go into a discussion/debate the Atheism people see a Tea-Pot flying on their head or they start believing in Zeus or the like or suddenly an elephant intrudes in their garage or a Bigfoot , that exposes the hollowness of Atheism. Isn’t it, please? Regards

Sub-sets of Atheism or its denominations

Atheism is not a one body, out of confusion/doubt it is divided into divergent branches, disorders, schools of thinking; some of them claim to belong to Atheism (Agnosticism/Skepticism) from the position of ignorance while others from the position of knowledge as they claim. Right, please?
Why they be called sub-sets and why they cannot be called sects or denominations for understanding, please? Is there a language barrier/restriction, please? 

Thread: “Science does not support Atheism, does it? “Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Philosophy

Post 21:

X——- wrote: [Replying to post 19 by paarsurrey1] X——- wrote: There may be similarities but I don’t think it is necessary to equate subsets of theism or atheism as ‘denominations’. Denominations would be subsets of subsets of theism. Paarsurrey wrote: I am not equating them.Atheism is not a one body, out of confusion/doubt it is divided into divergent branches, disorders, schools of thinking; some of them claim to belong to Atheism (Agnosticism/Skepticism) from the position of ignorance while others from the position of knowledge as they claim. Right, please? Why they be called sub-sets and why they cannot be called sects or denominations for understanding, please? Is there a language barrier/restriction, please? Anybody, please Regards