For one, I never claimed that science is the only way of knowing. It is rather obvious that science doesn’t tell us about various sorts of value judgments. Science can explain why our brains are wired to desire certain values, for instance, but it doesn’t make those value judgments for us, that much is obvious.

Second, your charge that atheists don’t distinguish between differing types of theists is sheer nonsense. In my own post, I repeatedly make the distinction between liberal, “moderate” theism and extremist or fundamentalist theism. Clearly, the distinction between the two is made.

When you say that atheists “totally disregard” religion, as well, you are wrong. Many atheists are the ones doing the most prominent research on the psychology behind religion, for instance. Atheists are interested in why people believe in spiritual things for very obvious reasons.

Finally, you say that atheists “conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt” that there is no God. This is also sheer nonsense. My own post characterizes the New Atheism movement as one that embraces science, and what makes the method of science so successful is its fallibilism. That is, it is successful because it doesn’t seek absolute certainty, but instead continually questions and revises its conclusions. At best, an atheist of this stripe can say he is relatively sure God does not exist, but he cannot say this with absolute certainty, as you assert. This, too, is addressed in my post above, and the fact that you make such claims leaves me wondering if you have even bothered to read it.

Atheism doesn’t require conclusive proof that God does not exist. As you said, “The only sane conclusion is doubt,” and that is precisely what atheism is–doubt that God exists. In the absence of evidence where we would expect evidence, of course, the doubt can grow all the stronger, which is certainly the case with God’s existence.

As for your claims regarding alternative medicine, I won’t use too much detail here, but suffice to say MOST alternative medicine modalities are complete bunk, and studies show it (e.g., homeopathy, therapeutic touch, ear candling, intercessory prayer). Acupuncture has a few studies for a few problems that seem to show it works, but when these studies are examined closely the claims for acupuncture fall apart. As a recent example, one study claimed to have found acupuncture useful for headache, when in reality it performed just as well as the PLACEBO (i.e., the sham acupuncture). They interepreted this as showing that the placebo is just as effective as acupuncture, but the correct interpretation in placebo trials (as it is with any non-CAM modality), is that the intervention does not work. One of these days I’ll have to go more into detail on acupuncture, because many people seem to think the science overwhelmingly proves that it works, when in reality the data is not nearly so clear.

A Fundamentalist, is one who strictly adheres to any set of basic ideas or principles. In my opinion, it is not that atheists are extreme that is the problem, it is that they are ignorant.

The problem with atheism is that its followers do not adhere to its lofty goals of objective, rational reasoning. If this was false, than the author certainly would not have been able to group “alternative medicine, “spiritual” religion, conspiracy theories, and postmodernism.”

First off, alternative medicine may not be universally accepted by the scientific community, but therapy such as acupuncture or physiotherapy does wonders on pinpointing the underlying causes of human suffering, and does provide relief to those who practice it. Just because a healing technique focuses on Why, and not How, does not mean it should be totally disregarded, let alone grouped together with conspiracy theories.
When you have a broken arm, you go to the doctors. When you have muscle or tissue damage, it is much more effective to use medical practices that speeds the bodies healing processes instead of simply numbing it and letting time take its course.

Secondly, Atheism has a major fallacy in its particualr doctrine.

Human existence is not entirely rational.

Scientific research is an important method to understanding and categorizing our world. However, human beings are emotional creatures, and do not understand the world in terms of black and white.

Although logic is cold and rational, it is through artistic expression, metaphysical inquiry, and coming to terms with the irrationality of existence that we learn to understand the subtle shades of grey of human expirence, and the unanswerable questions that are persuasive through our lives. Abstract and intangible emotional experience is as important to a human beings development and understanding of the world as logic is. For a human being to understand morality is very important, but for them to truly feel that they should be moral, is essential.

Science and art, both struggle to understand our world. To place logic on a pedestal, above subtle and subjective understandings of our world, is to misunderstand humanities struggle.

Yes, we need to shy away from the dark ignorance of religious fundamentalism. However, to take the quality of a sub-group - religious nuts, and apply it to an entire group - the religious community, is a logical fallacy that any “rational” atheist should shudder at.

Of course, those who take religious texts literally cause untold amount of harm to the world. But what atheists fail to realize, is that not every person who is religious fails under this category. Eastern religion, speaks of a never-ending void that all things spring out of and fall into, but does not speak of a personal creator. Buddhism, does not focus on creation at all, but rather the eternal suffering of existence and the choice to understand and shy away from experience.

Further more, If “New Age” Atheism is rational and objective, than I fear for the scientific and logical community. To understand the major shortcoming of mainstream organized religion is essential. To totally disregard any exploration into human spirituality because of the perversion and empty rituals that the organized religion has forced onto the masses is fatal.

The reason people dislike atheists, is not always because they feel their believes are threatened. The smug, all knowing smile of someone who is so wise that they can laugh in the face of someone who has the audacity to claim that god exists, will never totally understand the sweet irony in their own neurotic inability to grasp the possibility of a light at the end of the tunnel.

Certainly, there is no conclusive proof that a personal god, or some creative force, exists. However, there is no conclusive proof that it doesn’t. To laugh and disregard human spirituality is to use the same closed minded logic as any fundamentalist christian.

The only sane conclusion is doubt. Through subjective experience, an individual will come to suspect of being part of a greater force, or the lack of one. To conclude that you are right beyond a shadow of a doubt, is to fall into delusion.

The arrogance of the non-believer is almost as funny as the arrogance of the other.

Anyway, it was a brilliant read. I would send it off to several relatives of mine but I don’t think they have the intelligence or stamina to digest it properly, and I fear that may be doing injustice to your brilliant work.

True quality. I will definitely be keeping in touch with your work.

I appreciate the article a lot, but your missing one vital element of perspective; Why the religious moderates and extremists alike fear athiesm. You say that Atheists desire and are fighting for a society in which everything even religion itself can be questioned (which I do), but that is overly idealistic. The problem is that in a society as such, religion ceases to exist. Religion could not tolerate the continual barrage of skepticism, and people would no longer want to be believers. In fact that is why its religious people fight for every inch of ground the atheists gain. It ends the era of self-attributed meaning in the universe that just happens to answer all our questions. Another problem is that many people find it much easier to answer these questions with faith right now. Atheism seems less appealing if you dont like to think.

But again, thank you so much for the article. I like this site so much, I have told a few of my buddies.

I just thought the Monbiot was apropos.

Engineer Poet. Are you on Twitter? My username: theadividual

“Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.” - George Monbiot

If atheist extremism means Dawkins or Hitchens upsetting someone who is not used to having their mythological beliefs questioned, all the better.

The existence of any or all deities is either true or not true. While such a large proportion of our planet are being misinformed and accept myths unquestioningly as the truth, the voice of reason is not shouting loud enough.

Cheers to the author, btw; excellent article.

However, I agree that religious liberals are not primarily motivated by faith in their actions. The problem isn’t that they are motivated by faith, but that they still talk of faith as if it is a positive value and a legitimate way of knowing about the world. Scientists like Francis Collins, who do good science but occasionally dive off the deep end into crazy theological nonsense, are not bad people out to destroy atheists. And atheists should accept their help if they wish to fight against the intolerance faced by atheists and others as a result of religious oppression. But these religious liberals should not expect atheists to thereby refrain from criticizing their own religious views, as the criticism of fundamentalism on epistemological grounds is just as applicable to religious liberalism. If this alienates them and they remove their support, that’s a sad but necessary outcome. Ultimately, if we are honest with ourselves, the moderates of the religious world are just as kooky as the fundamentalists—just not as dangerous—but regardless our criticisms apply just as well to them. We critique violence not on the basis that violence is universally wrong—because violence can be justified—but on the basis that violence motivated by factually incorrect or unreasonable ideas is wrong. This is not to say, of course, that religious violence is not motivated by other factors much of the time (political or otherwise), but removing an unnecessary and irrational religious justification from the long litany of silly justifications for violence is certainly a step in the right direction.