http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2010/06/an_agnostic_manifesto.html
I would not go so far as to argue that there's a "new agnosticism" on the rise. But I think it's time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. Indeed agnostics see atheism as "a theism"—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.
So atheism, the belief that there is no god, is now a faith based belief and so a sort of theism? Has the author demonstrated that atheism is a faith based belief system or worldview?
Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsuwpported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)
Here the author is clearly attacking the lowest common denominator of atheism. Experts in the field of philosophy of religion have written books and defended them in journals which conclude that there is no god or that the god of the major religions does not exist or that very probably god doesn't exist. Has the author refuted the arguments in these books and papers?
When the author claims that atheists are certain that they can or will be able to explain how the universe came to be, certainty here refers to psychological certainty rather than epistemic certainty. Facts about our mental attitudes towards a proposition do not affect the truth value of said proposition. Cosmologists propose explanations: self contained universes, multiverses, etc., and philosophers question the assumption that the default is something rather than nothing. So far the evidence points towards an atheistic world and science gets us close to explaining the origin of the universe. Either way not being able to explain or know the origin of the universe with epistemic certainty, as the author seems to require of us, does not mean we are not justified in believing that science or philosophy can and will get us near or to that explanation. This isn't faith, it is confidence in methods of inquire that have so far been very productive.
Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing. But the question presents a fundamental mystery that has bedeviled (so to speak) philosophers and theologians from Aristotle to Aquinas. Recently scientists have tried to answer it with theories of "multiverses" and "vacuums filled with quantum potentialities," none of which strikes me as persuasive.
Science won't answer this philosophical question, philosophy will, or will not. But not being able to answer this question doesn't entail not being able to answer whether there is a god or not or whether specific gods exist or not. So not being able to answer this question doesn change the fact that atheiosts are justified in their belief that there is no god. Yes it is a logical impossibility for something to create itself. But the claim that there is no god or that the universe has no cause doesn't entail that the universe caused itself.
You can tell how uninformed the author is when he states that "the question presents a fundamental mystery that has bedeviled (so to speak) philosophers and theologians from Aristotle to Aquinas". The author has ignored almost 800 years of philosophical progress since Aquinas. And he states that none of the scientific theories or hypotheses scientists have put forth strike him as persuasive. Who the fook is this guy? Who care whether he is persuaded or not? What we want to know is whether these theories are confirmed or not or how probable they are, etc.
This is—or should be—grade-school stuff, but many of the New Atheists seemed to have stopped thinking since their early grade-school science-fair triumphs. I'm thinking in particular here of the ones who like to call themselves "
the brights." (Or have they given up on that comically unfortunate term?) The "brights" seem like rather dim bulbs when it comes to this question. It's amazing how the New Atheists boastfully stride over this pons asinorum as if it weren't there.
Again attacking the lowest common denominator. It is also ironic because the author is wrong and confused about almost everything he has said here. He expects science to answer philosophical questions, makes invalid inferences, doesn't understand what science is, etc., so it is ironic that he thinks atheists are ignorant.
In fact, I challenge any atheist, New or old, to
send me their answer to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I can't wait for the evasions to pour forth. Or even the evidence that this question ever could be answered by science and logic.
Here again the author shows his ignorance. Science or logic will might explain the universe, but the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a philosophical question. But since he has been ignoring all the philosophy for the past 800 years since Aquinas it doesn't surprise me that he is ignorant of proposed answers to this question. Again, why would anyone waste their time with such a presumptuous and ignorant person?
