“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

Atheism: Isn’t it leaping into the dark?

The Religion doesn’t claim that all its adherents are perfect persons. Rather the truthful Religion says categorically that every individual has to follow the truthful path, if they fail to do so they are as guilty as those who don’t follow it. Some or many could falter, to err is human.

Taking their example if one gets disgruntled with a religion or is dissatisfied what they say or do, it is one’s right to search for the truth afresh, rather one is to continue one’s research and be on look out for the Truth.

But to go to Atheism (or the like) without checking the dangers it has with it is a leap in the dark, I understand. Right?:

Atheism: 10 points of their sluggishness. Right?

Kindly view paarsurrey’s post #171 @ < https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/various-kinds-of-atheism.242511/page-9#post-7045506 >

paarsurrey wrote :vide Post #171  :

Various kinds of Atheism

Well, however they (Atheism) deny:

1. A-theism presupposes theism
2. and it fractures their claim of default position/no-position
3. as long as ism is a part of their name, they are an ism
4. so far they have failed to find any suitable name/title/label, they have tried many, but to no avail
5. they were slack to research and hence they
6. leapt into the dark pit without knowing of any merit in it
7. since they took a new position/no-position out of the norm, so the entail the burden of it to prove, but out of slackness they try to shift it on others, but to no avail
8. they had no justifying methodology of research of their own to prove to the believers that their cause is correct
9. as a drowning man catches at a straw they favored Scientific Method, while
10. they could never demonstrate that it ever proved their ism any better

Right?
Those who agree with me, they are welcome to add more points voluntarily, please. Right?
Kindly correct me if I am wrong, please. Right?

Regards

____________________________________________________

#225

“atheism”

ism
See definition of ism *

• congregation
• denomination
• faith
• religion
• sect
• society
• affiliation
• body
• chapter
• communion
• connection
• creed
• cult
• doctrine
• faction
• gathering
• order
• persuasion
• schism

* noun
a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice:

Synonyms of ism | Thesaurus.com

Right ?

_____________________________________________________

Notes for further research: Search term <Atheism presupposes Theism >

Point-1 of the Post :A-theism presupposes theism

Antitheism Presupposes Theism (And So Does Every Other ‘Ism’)

Antitheism Presupposes Theism (And So Does Every Other ‘Ism’)

One of the most interesting arguments that Van Til made was that “atheism presupposes theism.”

https://shanekastler.typepad.com/pastor_shanes_blog/2013/07/how-atheism-presupposes-theism.html

Professors of philosophy and religion Jeffrey Robbins and Christopher Rodkey take issue with “the evangelical nature of the new atheism, which assumes that it has a Good News to share, at all cost, for the ultimate future of humanity by the conversion of as many people as possible”. They find similarities between the new atheism and evangelical Christianity and conclude that the all-consuming nature of both “encourages endless conflict without progress” between both extremities.^[167] Sociologist William Stahl notes: “What is striking about the current debate is the frequency with which the New Atheists are portrayed as mirror images of religious fundamentalists”. He discusses where both have “structural and epistemological parallels” and argues that “both the New Atheism and fundamentalism are attempts to recreate authority in the face of crises of meaning in late modernity”.^[168]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism

ANTI-THEISM PRESUPPOSES THEISM

– Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge p.18A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Anti-theism presupposes theism, antithesis, Apologetic methodology, No neutrality, TAG, The one and the many, Ultimate commitmentCornelius Van Til, Presuppositions, TAG, Two step approach, Two step method, Van Til

https://corneliusvantil.wordpress.com/category/anti-theism-presupposes-theism/

Point -2 of the Post: “and it fractures their claim of default position/no-position: Search terms < fractured Atheism claim of default position/no-position ?

Atheism is the default position aka nonsense

https://www.news24.com/news24/mynews24/atheism-is-the-default-position-aka-nonsense-20160315

This sort of argument is very relevant to the issue of which of atheism and theism is the appropriate “default” position. If theism has a sufficiently low intrinsic probability, then atheism is arguably the correct default position in the sense that ambiguous or absent evidence will justify, not suspending judgment on the issue of God’s existence, but instead believing that God does not exist. This is why Le Poidevin’s argument for agnosticism includes, not just a premise asserting that the relevant evidence is ambiguous, but also one asserting that, at least in the case of versatile theism, we are in the dark when it comes to the issue of which of theism and atheism has a higher intrinsic probability. Unfortunately, much discussion of the issue of which position is the correct “default position” or of who has the “burden of proof” gets sidetracked by bad analogies to Santa Claus, flying spaghetti monsters, and Bertrand Russell’s ([1952] 1997) famous china teapot in elliptical orbit around the sun (see Garvey 2010 and van Inwagen 2012 for criticism of some of these analogies). The low priors argument implicitly addresses this important issue in a much more sophisticated and promising way.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

“1 out of 5 Atheists in the U.S believe in a “higher power” “: Pew Search

This is ,I understand, as the Atheism people of the West don’t believe Jesus-God of Christianity (God-in-Flesh, God-in-Human-Form) which is only mythical and is the creation/invention of Paul and Pauline-Christianity. Jesus also did not believe in such God that is why Jesus always worshiped and prayed to God-the-Father, never to Jesus-God of Pauline-Christianity. Mary also never prayed or worshiped Jesus-God of Christianity.

Please view paarsurrey’s post #30  on Religious Forum.

fxxxxxxxx said: What does “Higher Power” mean in these two articles?

1. 10 facts about atheists
2. Americans’ beliefs about the nature of God

I understand that Atheism is not believing in any theism or even anti-theism. Its pretty simple. But the atheists seem to grapple with the fact that some atheists yet believe in a “higher power”. That goes against the definition atheism. But this is normal as anything can become an identity statement. But some atheists are fighting to redefine and reinterpret “Higher Power” to defend the tribe. I find it highly contradicting because atheists claim they are not a religion, while they also claim the religious people do just the same thing they are doing.

Thus. Let me ask again.

What does “Higher Power” mean in these two articles?

1. 10 facts about atheists
2. Americans’ beliefs about the nature of God

paarsurrey wrote :vide Post #30 : < (Please click on the post # to get right into the discussion to join in , please)

Thanks for sharing it. It is the fact 2 in the Pew Search which is noteworthy:

2 The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. And the vast majority of U.S. atheists fit this description: 81% say they do not believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind. (Overall, 10% of American adults share this view.) At the same time, roughly one-in-five self-described atheists (18%) say they do believe in some kind of higher power. None of the atheists we surveyed, however, say they believe in “God as described in the Bible.”
10 facts about atheists

I appreciate one for sharing it with us.

Regards

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

“Is there a war on Christianity in America’s Left?”

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/is-there-a-war-on-christianity-in-americas-left.220245/page-14#post-6086987

Indigxxxxxxxx said: ↑

First of all, I am not a Christian. I have no dog in the race. I am a Jew. If anything, you would think I would have a bias against the Christian church given our history.

There are two forces marginalizing Christianity. The main force is Islam.

Now Muslims in my own country are just fine. They’ve grown up here, and have assimilated American values like freedom of religion. They are horrified when people of other religions are persecuted.

That is not what things are like in Muslim countries around the world. In fact, just today I was reading that Christians in Egypt are going through yet another round of heavy persecution. When I say persecution by Muslims, I mean destruction of churches. I mean the execution of those who convert to Christianity. I mean false charges against Christians for so called blasphemy against Muhammad. In these countries, a Christian can die for being a Christian. The terrorists in Sri Lanka targeted Christian Churches in particular, you know.

The second source of religious persecution is coming from the secular left, especially anti-Theists. Using revisionist history, they seek to marginalize Christianity and remove it from public existence. IOW, they would like to emasculate it, so that it cannot function in a way that effects civic and cultural life. They do this primarily by trying to shame it, presenting only one side of its history, and removing from history all of the good that it has accomplished, and the fact that it has been central to our culture and therefore even to the secular government that sprung from our culture.

They have passed laws that have consistently placed rights NOT embedded in the constitution over the right to freedom of religion, which IS expressly protected by the constitution. A business literally had to take it all the way to the Supreme Court that given their religious beliefs, they should not be forced to provide a gay wedding cake. It is absurd that this kind of religious discrimination goes on.

Click to expand…

#263 paarsurrey

Does one mean that people with No-Religion whatever nomenclature they have are inclining towards Extremism, please?
It is too bad. The world needs peace and justice. Right, 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 .

 

 

Indiana School District Sticks to Its Guns

“Indiana School District Sticks to Its Guns After Atheist Group Demands Pastor-Led Program Be Banned”

https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2018/01/1055313-indiana-school-district-sticks-to-its-guns-after-atheist-group-demands-pastor-led-program-be-banned/

 

Paarsurrey comments:

Instead of complaining against religious education the Atheism people should ask room for imparting their own no-creeds stance. They don’t have anything like that so they only insist on not giving any religious education. In a way it only acknowledges their failure of their viewpoint. Right, please?

Regards