Skip to main content

Hart's The Experience of God "New Atheists" Introduction

In the introduction and first chapter of  Hart's book he makes it clear that he is not a fan of the "new atheist" approach to explaining their reasons for their disbelief in God. Hart speaks negatively about the well-selling but weak in reason new atheists books on why they feel believeing in God is no different than believing in an imaginary friend. Hart says, "The new atheists' texts are manifestos, buoyantly coarse and intentionally simplistic, meant to fortify true unbelievers in their unbelief; their appeal is broad but certainly not deep; they are supposed to induce mood, not encourage deep reflection"(5). One of Hart's purposes for writing The Experience of God is to get some atheists to think more critically about why they don't believe in a God. To do more than just react to belief with non-belief but to examine why they don't believe. He also wants atheists to have a "clear concept of what they claim not to believe in," that being God (2).  I agree with this aspect of Hart's opinion. I feel that everyone, believers and unbelievers alike should have a clear concept of why they believe what they believe. Atheists like believers have a system of beliefs and communities of others that share and reinforce those beliefs. Still, often we don't question what is being reinforced or even why we feel how we do. Atheists believe strongly there is no God, however, besides the same rhetoric and recycled arguments many atheists cannot present thoughtful rebuttals to those that question their disbelief but instead embrace insults and anger towards those that do believe. I think it is quite fair to hope that more people in general will attempt to gain a better understanding of what or who God is and what He/She means in a deeper sense before arriving at any concrete conclusions. I also think it's a good idea to discuss these matters with passion and conviction but without hostility and insults.

Comments

  1. UnknownOctober 5, 2017 at 8:22 PM

    I agree with you that discussing this topic takes passion becaus eit is an intense subject, and with so many different opinions. If an advocate for a position isnt strong willed enough to support their claim it will be washed away by the stronger voices. The hostility also should be left out, because I believe it belittles the argument at hand and turns it into an insult war instead of a discussion about philosophy.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Seven Ways

Udayana states that there are seven ways to prove that God is in existence; effects, atomic combination, suspension, human skills, authoritative knowledge, Revelation, and atoms. He also calls Him the "all-knowing, imperishable God." He is imperishable God because he is the only one who could create atoms because humans are not able to. Also, humans can not break atoms or destroy them and he is stating that the only person that can do that is God because he created atoms. He mentions the difference between the cause and effect to validate if there is a God. He brings up the argument that "Things like the earth must have a cause, because they are produced by a body (101)." Some deity had to have made the earth for their pleasure. He also relies on objections to prove that God is real. Udayana does bring up good ideas to prove that God is real. The best argument to me is that he created atoms. Humans are unable to destroy atoms or to create them; so they had to be...
1 comment
Read more

The Five Ways

How can we justify the existence of God? Aristotle proposed an argument of an eternal universe and a temporary universe. He questions if the universe is one that has always been or one that is temporarily here for a moment in time. Many ponder the question and often go back and forth between answers, but nevertheless, many can agree that either way, the universe must have a cause or an overall creator and this is what St. Thomas Aquinas argues in, "The Five Ways." The five reasons are as follows: “The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain and evident to our senses that some things are in motion.” Motion is caused by a movement of an object or person, but who does the initial movement? This is the question that must be answered. If there is motion, who is the mover? Who has created this cause and effect relationship? This leads us to the second reason of evidence: “The second way is from the formality of efficient causation.” Who started th...
2 comments
Read more

Is the Concept of Ultimate Reality Coherent

     Ultimate reality is dependent on a human beings's perspective. Ultimate reality, or the concept of God are compiled of different beliefs  and conceptual models. Questions are raised with  transcendent reality in  nature and existence. Chad Meister, addresses some of these questions. Humans desire to escape the suffering of this world with the faith and belief that another more perfect existence is obtainable where the flaws of this world does not exist (89). Wainwright states that from human beings needs and experiences came the concept of ultimate reality. Advaita Vedanta takes the Hinduism traditions of Upanishadic to interptet the concept of ultimate reality. Upanishadic traditions, such as the teaching of Brahman, could be traslated as ultimate reality. The world is simutaniously external and unchanging whole, and a individuated plurality that is constantly morphing or changing. Vedanta had taken up this particular insight and gives empahasis on th...
1 comment
Read more