I don’t believe a word of that non-sense .  Just because a deluded concept of reality has persisted for thousands of years does’t make it true .

I think a great many people in this world are interested in science and more people would be interested were it not for the blinders of religion being installed at birth .

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I agree with aliensmack.

While Mr. Crane is right when he mentions that there are more religious views in the world as opposed to science, he fails to mention that religious belief has had, at least, two-thousand years of a head-start. He also fails to mention how self-deception faith can disrupt a globalized society; to back this idea up, all one needs to do is turn on the news TV.
Religious belief, along with its archaic concepts, falls short when it comes to even moral questions.

We can do better than stick with religious incompetence; and while skeptical scrutiny does have its limitations, it rests as the best tool we possess.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Mark Twain: Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.
Nietzsche: Faith is not wanting to know the truth.

I think it’s worse than that: Faith is not caring what is true.

It’s something I think a lot of people don’t understand - the belief in truth and honesty is not universal. A lot of people just don’t care.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Mr Crane is wrong when he says that regular people can´t understand basic science. My major was Communications and I did a masters on the same subject. However, i understand the scientific method and of course can tell the difference between those things I know and those I belive. There are many more like me thanks to people like Sagan and others, like Dawkins, that work on the public understanding of science. You begin to understand once you take off the blinding veil of myth and rekigion from your eyes

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Some philosophers have said that religion is so unlike science that it has its own “grammar” or “logic” and should not be held accountable to the same standards as scientific or ordinary empirical belief. “

This is simply an excuse for people to believe in whatever they want to believe in order for life to make sense to them.  It’s cowardly and pathetic.

One would hope as a species we would have grown out of this by now.  Unfortunately we haven’t and I’m afraid it may lead to our demise.  Not necessarily religion per se, but this mode of thinking that allows us to simply believe (or not) something we’re not comfortable accepting regardless of the evidence.  Any action for remediation that will require sacrifice will be rejected by most.

Anyway, I love this cascade of philosophers coming our attacking the new atheists.  Guess what asshole, far fewer people care about philosophy than they do science.  Now go back to your circle-jerk.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think interest in science is universal , it can be seen in children . They are just like little scientists full of questions . Then religion comes along and subverts that interest .

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

buybuydandavis wrote “the belief in truth and honesty is not universal. A lot of people just don’t care.”  I think that’s right.  We atheists get worked up over questions like “how can you believe this just because it gives you comfort??!”  But some people just don’t care whether their belief is true or not.  I can’t understand this, but it’s true.  I think that Sam Harris is trying to research this topic.

Lobeiro wrote: “Mr Crane is wrong when he says that regular people can´t understand basic science”.  I disagree.  Science is definitely much harder to grasp than religious tenets.  I’m not even talking about mind-bending stuff like relativity or quantum mechanics.  I think there is a significant portion of the population that would not be able to grasp the basics of high school biology.  But the dumbest guy would be able to “get” what his pastor preaches.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m a committed atheist/rationalist and a devoted fan of the Four Horsemen, but frankly, I think this is not Hall of Shame material. All Mr. Crane seems to be saying is that the values and emotional states that generate religious claims are fundamentally different from those that inspire the pursuit of systematic knowledge. They are also far more common, and in obvious ways “easier.” Is this news?

If we want our values to triumph—the values of rationality and realism—we have to honestly assess the values that oppose them (in the current cultural scheme—not in all possible schemes). We cannot assume that the joys of logical consistency automatically trump the joys of “belonging” and “mystery.” (I use quotes around value words we might try to pry away from the religious.) Perhaps it is possible for scientific thinking to become the norm for human beings, but it isn’t now—that’s just an empirical fact.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What does Time Crane really say in his text? Many complex answers have been offered, but in the end they come down to this: it’s a mystery

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I got the impression that he was basically summing up that ignorance is bliss.

He appeared to be making the claim that because the religious “feel” the presence of a god, then it cannot be judged in scientific terms.  How ridiculous!

A mate of mine once believed that aeroplanes produced the clouds in the sky (by the trail they leave behind them).  So, because he “felt” that, then it cannot be scientific?

Just because we don’t know the answer and because many people don’t understand the scientific method (a claim that I disagree with), does not allow a notion to be exempt from rational scientific scrutiny.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I don’t believe that bit about the poor, etc, not having the intellect to know any better.  How, then, did I at age 4 “know” that the religious bunk given to me in Sunday school was a bunch of hog-wash?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

read “god and religion”, by Russell, edited by Siekel; all you need to know, so to speak.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Kellmo,

You are right in thinking that, by all rights, this should not be included. It is a pro-atheist and makes some of the same assertions of the new atheism. I think they reason is in the Hall of Shame is the cursory gesture to NOMA at the end. Any piece that doesn’t end in irrational ridicule will end up in Sam’s dog house.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

In response to Kellmo and poet:
  Tim Crane is the Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, which is - according to the recently published QS world university rankings - the preeminent university in the world. He is also a self professed atheist. In this article he wrote:

“... it is because I reject the factual basis of the central Christian doctines that I consider myself an atheist.  But I do not reject these claims because I think they are bad hypotheses in the scientific sense.”

The Reason Project asks that submissions to the Hall of Shame be “egregious examples of unreason on the part of otherwise reasonable people.”

Crane’s argument, as well as that which he fails to argue,creates the kind of environment in which evidence and reason become secondary and scientific and religious ways of knowing are on equal ground.

Shameful, indeed!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I want to take issue with this label ‘New Atheist’ as mentioned in the Tim Crane article “Mystery and Evidence”.
Direct quote as follows: “Certainly this is the way that today’s “new atheists” tend to approach religion. According to their view, religions — by this they mean basically Christianity, Judaism and Islam”.
Firstly, there is no such thing as New Atheism and if one can be an atheist at all it is because one is without any religious beliefs irrespective of denomination. Atheism is by no means a new way of looking at the world and I am surprised that such an eminent intellect of Tom Crane’s standing would propose such a silly argument. Sure, I agree that impoverished and uneducated folk around the world believe and see the world in a different way to educated wealthier communities. However, the key issue must still remain that religions are inconsistent with basic truths and it amazes me still as to how the GOD concept prevails in any nation with a serious intellectual capacity.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Clifford,

He means, by the use of New Atheists, the common use of the term as a shorthand for the movement headed by Dawkins, Harris and many others. To hold the belief that their is no such movement show an incredible lack of respect for the evidence. What website did you comment on? Those best sellers echoing the same arguments, are they simply illusions. Would you have preferred he use Coyne’s term, Gnu Atheists? Man, you sound as reasonable as a young earth creationist, ignoring the truth by closing you eyes.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

You’re not asked to believe in quantum mechanics.  In fact, you don’t even need to understand it.  However, you cannot doubt the validity of quantum mechanics because it is capable of repeatedly yielding verifiable results that are subsequently confirmed with 100% success rate.  You have no choice but to accept it unless you’re capable of rejecting reality.

Religion, on the other hand, just asks for your blind faith.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Poet
Your comment doesn’t really make it clear what “team” you’re on, but it IS pretty clear that you’re not thinking clearly about the term New Atheist (NA).  People who use it do so as a sort of insult.  “Those NA, a gang of self-aggrandizing hoodlums!”. The term is probably also intended as an attempt to demote atheism to “fad” status.  Coyne writes “Gnu Atheism” to poke fun at those who try to use NA seriously.  Atheism is NOT new, as Clifford pointed out.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hmm…I did not read the entire thread before commenting.  I suppose Poet does make it clear in the earlier comment that s/he does in fact come down on the atheist side of the fence.  And perhaps English is not his/her primary language?  That might account for the issue regarding the use of the moniker ‘New Atheist.’

Poet - let me assure you that to native English speakers,’ New Atheism’ comes across as a derisive term, and not a legitimate term for a real, discreet movement in atheism.  Also, this article does indeed belong in the HoS.  NOMA is BS any which way you look at it.  People who give this notion (noma) currency need to be corrected.

Also, my screen name should have appeared as JS1685 in the above post.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Yes, NOMA is BS—as an intellectual project. The problem is that most people do not undertake intellectual projects. Crane says: “If [Gould] meant by this [NOMA] that religion makes no factual claims which can be refuted by empirical investigations, then he was wrong. But if he meant that religion and science are very different kinds of attempt to understand the world, then he was certainly right.”

I propose that Crane got himself into the Hall of Shame by his misuse of a single word, “understand,” in this sentence.

If, like me, you occasionally find yourself engaging “people of faith” for no better reason than that they are related to you (and have drunk too much to drive), perhaps you’ve had this experience: You are trying to convey your astonishment and delight that so much of the universe can now be “understood” on the basis of “evidence” and these people grin in triumph. Their “evidence and understanding” trump yours, they assert, because they are based on feelings. A different world view indeed!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Anyway, I love this cascade of philosophers coming our attacking the new atheists.  Guess what asshole, far fewer people care about philosophy than they do science.  Now go back to your circle-jerk.”—pdskep

I keep reading posts like this on this website that are hostile to philosophy. Do the readers of this site really think that philosophy is one of the problems here, and that it is otherwise irrelevant and without use? That philosophy doesn’t contribute importantly to our understanding of these issues? In response, does it matter at all that Sam Harris has a BA in Philosophy from Stanford (do people on this site even know this)? Or that Daniel Dennett, one of the “New Atheists,” is a professional philosopher at Tufts University? The list could go on…..When Galileo served as advisor to the Grand Duke of Tuscany in the 1600’s, he requested specifically to be appointed with the title “the court mathematician and philosopher.” Does it matter that there is a volume on Albert Einstein (which he agreed to and wrote responses for) in a series called The Library of Living Philosophers (Open Court Publishing, 1973) along side with other philosophers like Karl Popper? It is just amazing the kind of ignorance about philosophy people exhibit on this post.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

couch- My comment still stands, hardly anyone cares about philosophy.  Did you read the original article?  The implication was that popularity of a world-view gives it credibility.  That’s asinine especially coming form a philosopher and why it’s in the Hall of Shame.  The quote I gave is an example why I think much of philosophy, not all, is one big circle jerk.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

pdskep—

There are several things I don’t quite understand about your comment.

1. “Some philosophers have said that religion is so unlike science that it has its own “grammar” or “logic” and should not be held accountable to the same standards as scientific or ordinary empirical belief.”

Does it matter that right below this in the article Crane then adds the comment that this view “grossly misrepresents some central phenomena of religion.” This is hardly to *endorse* the quote, as you suggest. If you want to quote Crane out of context you can, but this isn’t very persuasive.

2. Nowhere in the article does Crane imply that “the popularity of a view” gives it credibility. In his discussion of the popularity of religion he is making a descriptive claim about people, not a prescriptive one. The view you attribute to him is asinine of course. A good rule of thumb is that if your interpretation of an author has them coming out holding an asinine view (especially a Cambridge professor), then maybe you have misunderstood something. A little charity would help here.

3. It seems to me that I can find some eminent scientists who’ve said exactly the same thing as your quote (S. Gould). So should we infer from this that “science is one big circle jerk”? Are you really suggesting that we generalize about a whole discipline on the basis of one example? I’m sure we could all find individual scientists who’ve said something we disagree with.

4. I don’t think we should be evaluating philosophy based on its popularity (which is what you seem to be suggesting—strangely, isn’t that exactly the fallacy you criticize Crane for?) It seems to me that philosophy is quite relevant to the new atheism for the reasons I gave. We can ignore the fact that Harris and Dennett are trained philosophers if we like, but that doesn’t seem very helpful.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I dont think the fact that faith donot needs proof came across on his mind..God want you to believe him ,just believe!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Crane’s a smart guy and this article is helpful in understanding the religious project.  We all know the feeling that applying scientific standards to religion somehow misses the point.  Religion has different motives and it is important that we face that.

Having said that, I am an atheist precisely because I do understand the religiously motivated.  They want to say how the universe is, then torture logic and facts to maintain this comforting position.

I am an atheist largely on moral grounds.  The problem of human suffering is the biggest reason.  It would be wrong for me to keep my comforting god while millions of my fellow humans are abandoned to horrific fates.  Since I can’t tell Haitian children, pinned under the rubble, about my loving god, I had to leave such beliefs behind myself.

Crane is right that “Mysteries are accepted as a consequence of what, for the religious, makes the world meaningful.”  But he makes no comment on the social or moral rightness of such a position.  My view is that it is morally wrong to deny Nature’s facts and our fellows’ suffering so that we can have a ‘meaningful’ universe.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The only intelligent choice: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/who-created-god/

You don't have permission to flag this entry.