I read Coyne's blog on and off but a recent post got me thinking: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...mmon-argument-of-religionists-and-faitheists/
Here Coyne summerises what he sees as the 'faitheist' argument -
Once I came to the strong atheist position, I saw no further point in arguing or reading more in God-debates and that realisation has somewhat ended my new atheist phase. It's no longer a subject I spend a great deal of energy on - although I do keep and eye on it and return from time to time.
And so to Coyne's confection. I know from my time in the new atheist movement that there are plenty of believers who are literalists. This is an important segment of the population and the new atheists are right to address it with the vigour they do. However, I would also like to see more emphasis placed on advocating alternate ways of living. Other graceful-life philosophies that people can adopt that will impact the way they travel, communicate, view art, educate, and live life in a similar way that religions do for the believer. I don't think it is a failure of new atheism that it does not provide this - it is not meant to. But Coyne's post makes me think the emphasis on alternate ways to live is massively under-emphasised by the atheist, skeptical, and freethought communities. I would love to see a much larger focus on this issue, without all the ridicule from the new atheists if possible!
Here Coyne summerises what he sees as the 'faitheist' argument -
Although this is a little over the top for me, I find myself agreeing with the sentiment! My atheist phase began late in high-school when I looked around the world and saw so many people adopting some sort of religious faith. I wondered if there might be something to it that I was missing and so I set out on an intellectual search to see if there was any truth to the religious claims. The religions I spent the most time on were Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Daoism with a little Hinduism thrown in. In short, I found no convincing evidence that I should adopt any of these belief systems. Furthermore, forum discussions and debates with Christians as well as videos and blog posts have left me pretty well convinced that there is no God in the sense of a single all-powerful deity.The New Atheist accusation that religion rests on literal beliefs is bunk. Dawkins and all you miltant atheists are always oversimplying things, and assuming that, for a believer, literalism is important. It isn't. The faithful run the whole gamut from almost complete Biblical literalists who take scripture at its written word, to those whose belief in the divine is deistic-,indeed, almost atheist. But what you are too militant and blind to see is that religion plays an important role in people's lives,a role infinitely more important than just believing in some "truths" of scripture. The problem with New Atheists is that you think that by eradicating false beliefs, the problem is solved. But you can't improve human lives that way! The onus is on you atheists to first descry the real role that religion plays in the lives of believers, and then use that knowledge to show people how they can live without faith. Dispelling falsehood is not enough. The failure of New Atheism is that it doesn't provide a transition into secular humanism, and so is a failure. Making religion go away is not enough.
Once I came to the strong atheist position, I saw no further point in arguing or reading more in God-debates and that realisation has somewhat ended my new atheist phase. It's no longer a subject I spend a great deal of energy on - although I do keep and eye on it and return from time to time.
And so to Coyne's confection. I know from my time in the new atheist movement that there are plenty of believers who are literalists. This is an important segment of the population and the new atheists are right to address it with the vigour they do. However, I would also like to see more emphasis placed on advocating alternate ways of living. Other graceful-life philosophies that people can adopt that will impact the way they travel, communicate, view art, educate, and live life in a similar way that religions do for the believer. I don't think it is a failure of new atheism that it does not provide this - it is not meant to. But Coyne's post makes me think the emphasis on alternate ways to live is massively under-emphasised by the atheist, skeptical, and freethought communities. I would love to see a much larger focus on this issue, without all the ridicule from the new atheists if possible!