Comments on: Stephen Prothero Talks About Atheist Fundamentalists

By: Todd

Todd — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:42:42 +0000

It is interesting that Prothero attempts to frame atheism as a form of religion. I’ve seen this argument several times recently (as I’m sure the rest of you have as well), the main thesis being that atheism is an article of faith because there is no “proof” that a god does not exist.
The reason this argument – and the related argument by creationists that “Darwinism” is a religion – is interesting to me is that it seems to illustrate a fundamental (no pun intended) lack of ability to understand belief systems or thought processes which are distinct from religious faith. In other words, many (most?) religious people cannot conceive of a system of understanding the world that is based on fact, reason, and evidence, and since they have such difficulty with such concepts, they default to an association with faith.
Operating under the assumption that there is no god because there is no evidence for one is not equivalent to believing there is a god despite the lack of evidence. (The onus is on the believer to provide “proof”, as the saying goes, not the atheist. There is no evidence that unicorns exist, but the default position most people take is not belief in unicorns.) For a multitude of reasons, it seems that religious folks so often cannot conceptualize any thought process that is outside the scope of religious faith.
The other component of these kinds of arguments that is interesting is that they are often used to deflect criticism rather than offer a sound rebuttal. As a scientist, I see this all the time in the “debate” between scientists and creationists: Creationists often trot out the argument that “Darwinism” (i.e., belief in evolution) is a religion which requires faith. Again, the two are not equivalent; evolution is an observable, testable, natural phenomenon supported by scientific evidence, while creationism is a concept for which there is no evidence, is not observable and cannot be tested. Despite these glaring fundamental differences, creationists still try to equate the two. The argument then becomes one of applying criticisms of religious belief to atheism, in this case specifically that both atheism and religious belief require a leap of faith, the implication being that religious belief is flawed, but so is atheism, and in the same ways. How odd.
In any event, I know I’m coming to this discussion late, but if anyone is still following this thread, I’d love to hear what your thoughts are about all this.
Thanks!

By: Hitch

Hitch — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 02:49:07 +0000

Sorry I forgot to give the serious answer too.

All categories are hard to define if you want to have crisp categories. Gender, class, race? All hard to define if one applies standards that experimental social scientists don’t apply.

No, religion is an easy category exactly because it is easy to do studies.

People will understand when you ask: “Are you religious?”. Census forms contain information about religion. This is about as good a category as one gets in social science that is not biologically grounded. It is much better a category than those that have to do with less culturally ingrained dimensions of identity.

That doesn’t stop religious studies folks to be horribly confused about “what religion really is?”. You are not trying to define religion as a social category but as a concept. That’s a completely different thing.

But yes, much confusion ensues among those who don’t know the difference.

By: Hitch

Hitch — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 02:37:38 +0000

Oh I have no doubt that “religious scholars” like Prothero are confused about the definition of religion.

Heck Stephen Prothero is confused about what atheism is, where pretty much any commenter here could give a sensibly good description.

Let me offer a new quote on Quantum Mechanics (or religion, or Prothero): “Just because you are confused does not mean that you have understood it.”

By: Gibbon

Gibbon — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:39:17 +0000

Hitch

The definition of religion is quite clear.

…

Sociology is complex, but the definition of religion is really much less so.

You’re deluding yourself if you think religion is easy to define. It’s not. Hundreds of different definitions have been offered by social scientists and there has yet to be any form of consensus as to what religion is. Some have offered functionalist definitions, others have presented essentialist ones, while some have altogether rejected the idea that religion is in fact anything due to the difficulty in defining it. And one of my lecturers in a Religious Studies course I took at university last year, in trying to describe what religion is said that all he could come up with was ‘overlapping’. And if you read the literature from religious scholars, which Prothero is, you will see that there is just as much confusion, and these people have studied it and know the subject better than anyone else.

Drawing inspiration from the remark on quantum physics: “If you think you know what religion is, then clearly you don’t.”

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:09:24 +0000

Extremists and fundamentalists exist regardless of the whether the medium is religion or atheism. It’s just that simple.

Some are also very rude and very intolerant in the process, but that is entirely beside the point.

Under fundamentalism, some atheists, no less than theists, want to suppress what they do not believe is true, or what they think is dangerous. And, atheists are just as capable of anger, intolerance, tyranny and violence as anyone else.

There’s nothing about “new atheism” that distinguishes it from “old atheism” or that morality under atheism will develop towards greater perfection and a diminution of violence, or why humanity should develop in this direction at all.

The cause of fundamentalism isn’t specifically religion. It’s arrogance, ego and fear with regard to beliefs, even metaphysical naturalism. And atheists are not unique, exempt or special in this regard.

ref: Michael Martin, Atheism : A Philosophical Justification (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990)

By: Breaking Spells » The Culture Wars Between Atheists and Theists

Breaking Spells » The Culture Wars Between Atheists and Theists — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:20:04 +0000

[...] Stephen Prothero Talks About Atheist Fundamentalists (friendlyatheist.com) [...]

By: Anna

Anna — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:38:20 +0000

Speak of the devil, Stephen Prothero showed up on The Colbert Report last night promoting his new book. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/312500/june-14-2010/stephen-prothero Seriously, Prothero just needs to stop mentioning atheists if he's going to keep saying inane things like this:

I wrote the book because religions are horribly misunderstood. They're very, very important in the world, but we have these atheists who are saying "Oh, all religions are the same and bad" and these multiculturalists who are saying "Oh, all religions are the same and good."

Honestly, what atheist thinks all religions are the same? They're not the same, not even remotely. As for being bad, sure, some atheists might think all of them are bad, but not all of us are anti-theists, and not even the strongest anti-theist could legitimately claim that all religions are harmful to the same degree.

By: Brian Macker

Brian Macker — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:44:44 +0000

“I’ll give him a lot of credit — you can agree or disagree with his remarks, but I think he knows more about our community than just about anyone else I’ve seen outside of it.”

Hemant really? When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door at 7 am? Do you give him credit for understanding that aspect of the atheist community?

By: Brian Macker

Brian Macker — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:42:34 +0000

The reason many non-believers don’t choose to call themselves atheists is because there is deep bigotry against us. It’s not a bad brand because of angry atheists. It’s not even a brand. It’s a stereotype that’s the problem. The stereotype that atheists are evil, and it’s one that is directly taught by the religious leaders.

By: Brian Macker

Brian Macker — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:39:38 +0000

Can I pull a Stephen Prothero?

There are two kinds of people. Those who throw people into two categories on complex issues and those who do not. I think Stephen Prothero is one of the former, and therefore not a very deep thinker. I also believe that will make him think, since I’m an atheist, that I’m an angry one.

Based on what I’ve read he’s full of baloney.