Scholars Over and Under 45

[Patrick]

@Mlkluther

You’re Dawkins is showing

Scientism…

Secular Humanism.
American Progressive

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

Why don’t you get real secular training and certifications? I am sure you could make an excellent social worker, conciliator etc. Have you ever heard of The Clergy Project? You have a lot to offer in the secular world.

Oh @patrick, you are such an evangelistic atheist. Maybe you should start a missions group and start a prayer list?

[Randy]

Yes just read that in Randal Rauser.

[Mlkluther]

@Patrick

Why don’t you get real secular training and certifications? I am sure you could make an excellent social worker, conciliator etc. Have you ever heard of The Clergy Project? You have a lot to offer in the secular world.

My training after sem8nary training in grief and death was secular.

I’d suggest that while you dismiss the religious/metaphysical…many, many people who may not claim to be religious…do not. I think I’ll be quite busy doing what I do for quite a while yet…and wait until the Baby Boomer generation begins dying and an entire secularized generation is faced with true existential questions for the first time.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@dga471

And me. I was never on a par with those big names, but I was a madly typing proponent of the New Atheism. Now, though…that period is the deepest regret of my life (not that that means much, I’ve been lucky to live a life with few regrets). I’m still a strong atheist, and will be on my deathbed, and I do not regret promoting godlessness and a reason-based life, but I was unfortunate to be part of that traveling shit-show before I realized it’s destination was where it is now: a shambles of alt-right memes and dishonest hucksters mangling science to promote racism, sexism, and bloody regressive politics.

Wow.

The train wreck that was the New Atheism

We are seeing the end of the New Atheists. Keep in mind, also, that ID was formed as a reaction as against the New Atheists, and BioLogos was a reaction against ID and YEC. With the fading of the New Atheists, we are seeing the beginning of a generational changing of the gard. If DI does not adapt, its place will diminish. If BioLogos does not adapt, the same is true for them.

It will be very interesting to see how things shape up from here. That is one reason the scholars under 45 are going to be important. We are the ones who are going to map the new ways forward. Our opposition is, in a very short amount of time, going to be no longer in the conversation.

[Patrick]

@Mlkluther

My training after sem8nary training in grief and death was secular.

That’s great. There is a real need for you in this area. Human grief is very real. I hope your empathy is appreciated by those you reach out to.

@Mlkluther

I’d suggest that while you dismiss the religious/metaphysical…many, many people who may not claim to be religious…do not. I think I’ll be quite busy doing what I do for quite a while yet…and wait until the Baby Boomer generation begins dying and an entire secularized generation is faced with true existential questions for the first time.

I agree. I can tell you from experience that a Catholic funeral mass and service is not comforting at all.

[Mlkluther]

@Patrick

I can tell you from experience that a Catholic funeral mass and service is not comforting at all.

I’m sorry that was your experience.

We Lutherans and Roman Catholics have had our differences these last 500 years, and continue to have them (Not only would I make a terrible Baptist, I’d make a terrible Roman Catholic). However, I count Roman Catholics friends - even as technically they must still count me a heretic

The scientific/secular/materialist worldview, if consistent, has nothing to say with the existential and metaphysical questions that have been part of human experience since…well, I’ll allow the scientists to tell me when humans would have begun thinking such things. I did as little science as possible in my B.A. because it wasn’t my interest. I did mostly psych and Phil instead. I find it remarkable how inconsistent secularist/materialists are when it comes to these kinds of questions as they deign to give perspectives on these issues.

[Mlkluther]

The train wreck that was the new atheism is a very interesting article, thanks for posting it. However, it seems to me to be written through the lense of American politics. He seems to reject the new atheism because, in his opinion, it led to some distasteful political results and affiliations.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Yes, but think of the meta-picture here. New Atheism was, at its core, a moralizing movement. Their argument was that religion was immoral. They, however, had no way of determine what was and wasn’t moral except by moralizing. Movements like this are doomed to collapse, usually quickly. What you are seeing in PZ’s post is that his narrative is just no longer the New Atheist narrative. He wants to moralize a different way and they have no process for figuring out what to moralize about except seeing who can moralize loudest.

[Mlkluther]

@swamidass

Yes, but think of the meta-picture here. New Atheism was, at its core, a moralizing movement.

True. Very true. And rather curious.

I must say that the Christianity that Dawkins objects to is a Christianity I object to as well. In fairness to him, it is the Christianity that seems to get the most airtime.

However, the discussions between Dawkins and Lennox were very revealing. Dawkins couldn’t help himself from calling into question the morality of God’s actions (an odd thing for a materialist to do). As if such questions had never been raised before he happened to be struck by them. It’s as if he’d never read the book of Job or the Psalms…or an essay by another Oxford professor of yesteryear entitled “God in the Dock.”

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mlkluther

I must say that the Christianity that Dawkins objects to is a Christianity I object to as well. In fairness to him, it is the Christianity that seems to get the most airtime.

Yup, and that is why @patrick often calls me a “Christian Secular Humanist.” Much of American Christianity is objectionable, but Jesus? He is still good.

[Patrick]

@swamidass

Yes, but think of the meta-picture here. New Atheism was, at its core, a moralizing movement. Their argument was that religion was immoral. They, however, had no way of determine what was and wasn’t moral except by moralizing. Movements like this are doomed to collapse, usually quickly. What you are seeing in PZ’s post is that his narrative is just no longer the New Atheist narrative.

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett were needed to confront religion head on. They pretty much accomplished this in the years after 911. But today’s situation is very much different. It has more to do with the Nones. The Nones don’t even want to hear anything from their parent’s religion. They have their own problems trying to live in a rapidly changing world. They really don’t care what happened 2000 years ago nor what will happen in the next life. It is THIS life that matters most - here and now.

[Mlkluther]

@Patrick

They have their own problems trying to live in a rapidly changing world. They really don’t care what happened 2000 years ago nor what will happen in the next life. It is THIS life that matters most - here and now.

Ths rapidity of the changes in our world today is bewildering for all, even as it is exciting and full of promise…or catastrophe. Who knows?

Focusing on the here and now is nothing new (I.e. Epicureanism, etc). Nor is such a focus necessarily a bad thing. However, many of the “nones” or materialists eventually bump into existential angst, as have most humans through history. I’m not suggesting that they will necessarily come running to my church…you might be surprised how often I have pretty deep philosophical/theological chats with atheists who are stuck on a few questions .

[Patrick]

@Mlkluther

you might be surprised how often I have pretty deep philosophical/theological chats with atheists who are stuck on a few questions

Deep philosophical chats are great. But deep theological chats are useless with most apathists.

[Guy_Coe]

[Mlkluther]

Guess who often raises the theological questions? You’d think it’s the guy wearing the clerical collar, but…you’d be wrong.

[Patrick]

I enjoyed Francis Collins.

[Patrick]

@Mlkluther

Ths rapidity of the changes in our world today is bewildering for all, even as it is exciting and full of promise…or catastrophe. Who knows?

Focusing on the here and now is nothing new (I.e. Epicureanism, etc). Nor is such a focus necessarily a bad thing. However, many of the “nones” or materialists eventually bump into existential angst, as have most humans through history. I’m not suggesting that they will necessarily come running to my church…you might be surprised how often I have pretty deep philosophical/theological chats with atheists who are stuck on a few questions .

I’m all for working together for the benefit of people. What do you want to work on with an atheist?

[Guy_Coe]

The old guys still have the chops…

[Mlkluther]

@Patrick

I’m all for working together for the benefit of people. What do you want to work on with an atheist?

I’m happy working with anyone for the benefit of people regardless of creed, or lack thereof.