David B. Hart on the New Atheism

Advertisements
This entry was posted in David B. Hart. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to David B. Hart on the New Atheism

  1. “But a true skeptic is also someone who understands that an attitude of critical suspicionis quite different from the glib abandonment of one vision of absolute truth foranother”say, fundamentalist Christianity for fundamentalist materialism or somethingvaguely and inaccurately called “humanism.””
    There is a book by one Frank Schaeffer Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back pointed out to me by my overtly fundagelical uncle about Schaeffer’s conversion from Evangelical Protestantism to Greek Orthodoxy. I keep trying to tell my uncle that he should do the same or similar…I mean seriously, at least he wouldn’t be such a…you know.

    I assume that the atheist that Hart was reading who claimed that John Wycliffe was burned alive confused the difference between burning a skeleton and burning a breathing creature? He was burned but it was only his bones that were burned.

    Like

  2. Vaal says:

    Unfortunately the actual quotes from Hart didn’t appear for some reason in my browser when first
    encountering this blog post. I wish it did as I would have engaged it more thoroughly at the time.
    Suffice to say: I am no more impressed with Hart’s complaints than he is with New Atheists.

    Hart for instance says:

    “A truly profound atheist is someone who has taken the trouble to understand, in its most sophisticated forms, the belief he or she rejects, and to understand the consequences of that rejection.”

    If by “most sophisticated forms” Hart means the God-Of-Metaphysics that he touts in his book, there is an inherently dubious implication. Hart, and the mono-theisms he defends, ALSO believe in a God who revealed Himself to mankind. Hence this leaves the odd implication that the “most cogent” reasons for believing God exists rests in dusted off metaphysics of mere human clergy, where God’s ACTUAL REVELATION is judged inferior.

    But if Hart means to include a defense of the belief in scripture, or claims of ancient resurrections, in his “sophisticated form” of theistic argument, then it’s up to him to actually show such a thing is possible. He doesn’t do this in his book, and New Atheists have routinely torn apart any such attempts even by “sophisticated Christians.”

    Vaal

    Like

Comments are closed.