For what it’s worth this late in the party, skepticism is, by its very definition, not a world view.

Your explanation of the moths illustrate my point very well. As to physical and mental handicaps, I would make the point that the black moths could have been considered a physical handicap.

I realize though that you’re probably talking about more severe handicaps. Well, genetics and the environment are incredibly complex. We know that technology can alleviate the hardships faced by the handicapped, like mechanical spring legs outpacing normal runners now, so physical handicaps might not be as harmful as once thought.

We also don’t know if a “harmful mutation” might be beneficial a generation later. What if that mutation also yields a natural resistance to a super-flu bug? What if that mutation is harmful, but allows a future generation to have a further mutation that is beneficial and represents a leap forward?

My point was that the greater the diversity, the higher the odds that some parts of humanity will survive large changes in our environment. The idea that atheists want a pure species, devoid of handicaps, is ridiculous. How many atheists wouldn’t support Stephen Hawking?

“If I could prove to you that the e-mail really did increase charitable donations from people, would YOU believe it?”

I meant, would you believe that the e-mail was TRUE, that the IRS really would forgive those taxes, just because it made people more charitable?

If not, then even if religious people are more charitable — which I seriously doubt — then that is no argument against atheism.

-Alex)

First, I am really very curious to know how donations from atheists compared to donations from religious people after the Katrina disaster. (The comparison to French donations after the heat wave are completely useless because the disaster was so different – nobody was homeless from the heat – and because different countries are different even apart from religiosity – Italy is more religious than France but not more charitable.)

I mean, about 5% of Americans are atheist and so I would guess that about 5% of the donations after Katrina came from atheists. The author of this book and the author of the review seem to assume that atheists would have given less. But, I don’t know, maybe they actually gave MORE! (Before you jump to conclusions, remember that some televangelists were telling their followers that God had punished New Orleans for its sins, and that atheists like me gave money precisely because we believed that it was up to people to help those in need because there is nobody else to do it!)

As I said, I think it would be very interesting to see the numbers on that. My own experience leads me to believe that atheists are much more charitable than the prejudices against them would suggest…but I honestly don’t know because I do not have any data on it.

However, whether that prejudice is justified or not, I do question the whole logic of this argument.

Suppose someone came up with a lie which was guaranteed to make anyone who believes it donate more money to charity. For example, suppose there was an e-mail being forwarded around on the Internet which looked like an official message from the IRS promising that anyone who gives twice as much in charity in 2010 as they did in 2009 would owe NO taxes at all this year. Anyone who believed it would give a lot more in charity, right?

Now consider these two questions:

If I tried warning people that this supposed promise of a reward from the IRS was actually fake, would you criticize me for doing so?

If I could prove to you that the e-mail really did increase charitable donations from people, would YOU believe it?

If you answered no to either of these questions, then you ought to rethink the logic behind the idea that discussing whether religious people are more charitable than atheists is a reasonable way to critique the “new atheists”.

Anyway, this sounds like an interesting book. So far, I’ve only read the review. I hope to find time to read the book also.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention,

Alex

Actually, give the Brights enough (air) time and they’ll voluntarily dim themselves.

As for generosity of Christians? It’s not hard to give to your church. You are giving the money to yourself. Hymnals, choir robes, books, films quarterlies, parking lot, sanctuary, salaries, playing fields and etc. But less than 1 percent goes to charity and most of that to members of the church in need. Charity, generosity. Bulogna!!!

I’m confused as to what evolutionary advantages the handicapped possess. You say they increase biodiversity, and this means that the species as a whole can adapt better.

Imagine those famous black and white moths. Because they had a lot of biodiversity, they survived. As the story goes, before the Industrial Revolution, most of the moths in England were white, while only a few were black. The black ones were easily spotted, and were at a disadvantage. You might say they were handicapped.

But along came the Industrial Revolution with smoke stacks and coal and soot, turning lots of places a dark black. The black moths that were once at a disadvantage are now perfectly camouflaged, the white moths are the ones that are ‘handicapped’. But because the species was biodiverse, it survived much better than if there were only white moths or only black moths.

I just can’t imagine the conditions under which the physically or mentally handicapped have an evolutionary advantage.

You can certainly argue that there is much more to ethics than ensuring the future of the species, or that Eberstadt’s argument is a Reductio ad absurdum. But to cite the logic used against the Bright position and claim that it actually vindicates it is cheating, I think.

Side note: The Aztecs actually sacrificed their own people as well as ones they conquered.

As to having a god that invented laws which go against what we want to do… it brings up Plato’s question, is it moral because your god said so? i.e. the stance taken by the author was refuted thousands of years ago. Way to beat a dead horse.

As to quoting the “New Atheist” authors directly, I failed to see any of their writings that describe “the atheists’ sexual mores” that “now rule college campuses.” Do the New Atheists write some erotica that I’ve missed?

I am a Skeptic, a worldview which includes being skeptical of atheism. I would be interested in logical and well thought out arguments against atheism, however this review makes it appear as if the book is just filled with strawman arguments.

ex. Atheists aren’t interested in marriage? Really? Then why do married atheist couples have a lower incidence of divorce than Christians?

The book actually quotes the New Atheist authors directly. The point on Freud and why would we invent a god who was so hard to live with involves the fact that this God invents laws which go against what we want to do.

The mention of the Aztec gods seems to be a red herring here. The sacrifice of the captured for example don’t have a bearing on the behavior of the Aztecs… what was done was done to other people, so if one embraced the morality of sacrificing others, it didn’t really affect what they did themselves.

For example, why would man invent a god that is hard to live with? I don’t know, but there have been worse gods that had been invented in the past. Look at the Aztecs who had human sacrifice on a regular basis to appease their gods. I think they were a little hard to live with too.

The strawmen that all atheists now are pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-”rejects” is just slanderous atheist-bashing. Or is that the satire?

All atheism is, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. I am not “pro-abortion” and I’m a “new Atheist”.

The idea that atheists are against the handicapped is also ridiculous. The greater the biodiversity of people, the better chance at long term survival of humanity. The writer’s views seems to indicate a poor understanding of evolutionary theory.

Again, I will read the book, but I am already starting to wince.

Perhaps you should read the book and not just the review …

… just sayin’ …