Keith Ward - What is the 'New Atheism'?

What’s ‘new’ about the New Atheists? Atheism has been around for a long time. There are surely new attitudes and confidence. Are there also new evidence and arguments? If you think that God exists, that is precisely why you should listen to atheists and follow their arguments. Because hope can trump reason, you could be entombed in false belief.

Keith Ward is a British philosopher, theologian, pastor, and scholar. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and (since 1972) an ordained priest of the Church of England. He was a canon of Christ Church, Oxford until 2003. Comparative theology and the relationship between science and religion are two of his main topics of interest.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[BooksForever]

To the extent that there’s a subset that can meaningfully be called ‘new atheism’, I suspect it applies to the aspect that has emerged to politically combat the ‘modern evangelicalism’.

[alwilsonwastheman]

Ill always remember what a doctor said to a lady at a hospital back when i was a kid. The lady said " Praise the lord his arm (her son) isnt broke..god answered my prayers"..the doctor replied " Go take a stroll through the pediatric cancer ward and the childrens burn unit and tell me why god never answered their prayers"

[stephenzhao]

1:00 ... what are some of the specific philosophical issues that the new atheists would either ignore ridicule or misunderstand 1:08 KW: ... 1:52 the new atheists reject the philosophical arguments or ridicule them and dismiss them totally you're telling me that those same philosophical arguments for God are largely rejected by even philosophers of religion although they understand it so what's the difference? 2:09 KW:

[Gramsci]

New Atheism was 20 years ago. But this was still a question worth asking.

[Andrew-losc]

I think the debate changed when people realized space and time itself evolves. 100 years of discovery isn't as long as people think.

[musicbyfriendsforfriends]

I just love it when theologian/philosophers spew their religious gobbledygook in answer to pointed questions.

[mikel]

By this guy's logic, we should accept that anything anybody says might be possible and requiring material evidence is an unfairly high bar. If not, where should we draw the line?

It seems that he thinks his line in the sand for where evidence is and is not required is the line that everybody must accept. No thanks.

[AnarchoReptiloidUa]

Great vid. Thank you for your great channel.
❤❤❤❤❤

[TheoSkeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*

And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.

1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._

ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.

I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*

I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[fanofentropy]

Once you find out Santa and the tooth fairy are not real, no amount of philosophy or 'metaphysical perspectives' will ever make it "not silly".

[joelharris]

Considering "New Atheism" the movement in part emerged as a response to the events of 9/11, to ask the question seems rather belated in my opinion, considering some of the figures Hitchens, Bennett and Victor Stengel have bitten the dust

[MAO-ibtc]

A wise person once said "philosophy is as useful to science as ornithology is to ducks"

[williambranch]

I met one online once? Denies theology, philosophy and psychology as well.

[pierrec]

Religion is the first attempt of mankind to understand and explain the world. We have made progress since those early times, but not everybody has followed progress uniformly. Contrary to science, religion does not easily tolerate change because it is dealing with certainties, and these should never change. Which is the wisest, he who says I know everything, or the one who claims he knows nothing?

[GM-oi]

It seems to me that there is not only New Atheism but also New Theism.

[alexeykulikov]

Stupid is a poor argument, regardless of smart attire

[thomasridley]

Even absolute certainty and faith has never made a god real.
But their god must be that one very convenient exception.

[jamesnasmith]

One senses a cosmos with an x, y, z, t point origin but “god creator” smacks of an anthropomorphic, tale from antiquity.

[MarkPatmos]

The universe self-forming without design, life from non-life, consciousness emerging from purposeless matter in motion, apparent purpose and design where there shouldn't be any, there are a lot of gaps in materialism that have nothing available to fill them according to materialism.

[LuisManuelLealDias]

Is this interview 15 years old or something? This issue has been resolved and largely won by the atheists that long ago.