4 ms·

Yes, Professor Alister McGrath (Oxford) has come to similar conclusions. Dawkins et al had an expectation that religion would be swept away within their lifetim

by robhu 15y ago

Yes, Professor Alister McGrath (Oxford) has come to similar conclusions. Dawkins et al had an expectation that religion would be swept away within their lifetime, and as this has not been achieved he has moved on to be much more direct and blunt as if to try to force it to happen. McGrath writes about this in his book 'Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty?' http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go-Away/dp/084994645X http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go-Away/dp/084994645X Here is a review of the book to give you a flavour of what conclusions he reaches http://mcdanell99reviews.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-god-wont-go-away-by-alister-mcgrath.html http://mcdanell99reviews.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-god-wont-g...

0x12 15y ago
That review completely weirds me out. Atheism does not have it's roots in the 9/11 attacks, nor is it 'new' by any definition. Sure, Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion' chronologically after 9/11. But that doesn't mean his views were much different before then, he's been an outspoken atheist pretty much all his life. As for the blatant attempt to tie all atheists to Nazism that's a first-order Godwinning right there. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515 Ahteists are no more violent than religious people, I think they're people just like all the others, you can expect something of everything. I hope the book is better than that that review lets on.
- robhu 15y ago
  I don't see any claim that atheism has it's roots in the 9/11 attacks. The reviewer states "[The rise of the New Atheists] to fame, McGrath suggests, begins with the attacks on 9/11 where radical Muslims turned commercial airplanes into missiles and managed to kill almost 3,000 people." He is referring to the 'rise to fame' of New Atheism. New Atheism and atheism are not synonyms of one another, the former is a member of the set of the latter. McGrath doesn't tie all atheists to Nazism (as the review might himself be implying), but deals with how the basic arguments of the form "Religion is bad, look at all these religious leaders who have killed people" doesn't work very well for quite a lot of reasons including how it could easily be turned around. In any case - I McGrath is a well respected intellectual in the UK (Oxford, along with Cambridge is our most prestigious university), and his writing is well worth considering.
  - 0x12 15y ago
    Regarding 'new atheism' as a movement, this is a pretty good read: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_30_3 http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&#38... I think that reviewer used the book to push his own viewpoints at the expense of the author, and does him a dis-service.

by robhu 15y ago

0x12 15y ago

That review completely weirds me out. Atheism does not have it's roots in the 9/11 attacks, nor is it 'new' by any definition. Sure, Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion' chronologically after 9/11. But that doesn't mean his views were much different before then, he's been an outspoken atheist pretty much all his life. As for the blatant attempt to tie all atheists to Nazism that's a first-order Godwinning right there. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515 Ahteists are no more violent than religious people, I think they're people just like all the others, you can expect something of everything. I hope the book is better than that that review lets on.

robhu 15y ago
I don't see any claim that atheism has it's roots in the 9/11 attacks. The reviewer states "[The rise of the New Atheists] to fame, McGrath suggests, begins with the attacks on 9/11 where radical Muslims turned commercial airplanes into missiles and managed to kill almost 3,000 people." He is referring to the 'rise to fame' of New Atheism. New Atheism and atheism are not synonyms of one another, the former is a member of the set of the latter. McGrath doesn't tie all atheists to Nazism (as the review might himself be implying), but deals with how the basic arguments of the form "Religion is bad, look at all these religious leaders who have killed people" doesn't work very well for quite a lot of reasons including how it could easily be turned around. In any case - I McGrath is a well respected intellectual in the UK (Oxford, along with Cambridge is our most prestigious university), and his writing is well worth considering.
- 0x12 15y ago
  Regarding 'new atheism' as a movement, this is a pretty good read: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_30_3 http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&#38... I think that reviewer used the book to push his own viewpoints at the expense of the author, and does him a dis-service.