The new atheism

Sunday's talk by Dr.Steven Phelps left a deep impression in my mind. There is still a lot I'm processing, and trying to organize in my head, but I wanted to quickly jot down the major points he made, some of which I'll discuss later in subsequent posts. But I wanted to put this down before I forgot the details :)

Steven started out by outlining the nature of the phenomenon of New Atheism (as propounded by thinkers such as Richard Dawkins), and the two pronged attack it launched on the foundations of religion - by questioning the existence of God, and by questioning the need for organized religion. The arguments presented in Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion, calling into question the existence of God include rational and logical refutations of some traditional arguments for the existence of God, such as the teleological, ontological, modern design argument etc. In terms of organized religion, atheists have, as Steven said, a field day, what with all the ills we currently see in society that are directly caused by fundamentalist and fanatical religious groups. Dawkins uses these arguments, combined with an evolutionary explanation of morality and the religious impulse, to repudiate the claim that religion is a necessary component of life.

Steven then went on to mention some of the responses theists had given to the questions posed by Dawkins and others. Some of these are:

• That the atheists aren't really being fair, because the ill effects of religion are caused by extremists, and not the average religious person


• That the positive effects of religion, such as moral qualities, goodness etc, are far more subtle and pervasive - and so less striking - than the ill-effects, and that these positive effects are essentially less newsworthy


• That we should not judge past religious laws by today's moral standards

There were a couple of others which I've forgotten, but the point Steven tried to make was that though all these arguments were right in their own place, all they served to do, really, was blunt the onslaught of atheism - but none really came out as a ringing endorsement of God and religion.

The second half of his talk was focused on the Baha'i perspective on these ideas, and how as a Baha'i, he found himself agreeing with all the arguments present by the new atheists - and yet disagreeing with their conclusions. These ideas throw the whole concept of God and religion in a new light, and make it possible to resolve the issues raised as problems by the new atheists. Again, i'll just summarize some of the ideas he threw out, without going into them in detail - and hopefully I won't miss any of them.

From the Baha'i perspective

• All religious/spiritual beliefs have to have a basis in rationality - one must make a commitment to this. As Abdul Baha says, "Religion must conform to science and reason; otherwise, it is superstition"


• God ceases to be viewed as this supernatural being that has the power and choice to intervene in the world He created. Bahá’u’lláh describes God as an “unknowable essence,” “sanctified above all attributes,” and “exalted beyond and above proximity and remoteness.” He is not a being in the sense we traditionally view a being, and therefore questions such as "Why is there suffering if God is omnipotent and benevolent?" have no real meaning. The true nature of God is one we'll never understand - so let's not even try :) From this perspective, it is therefore totally true that traditional proofs of the existence of God aren't convincing, for they all try to prove the existence of God, the being.


• The non-existence of the proof of something's existence does not imply its falsity - or in other words, not being able to prove God exists in a rigorously scientific way (as we know science today) does not in any way prove the falsity of the claim that He exists.


• God's essence being unknown does not mean that we can never know anything about Him - for His will and actions take the form of nature. Natural laws, including evolution, are all an extension of God's will.


• Baha'u'llah defines religion as the essential connections and necessary relationships which proceed from the realities of things. Interestingly, nature is given the exact same definition. As is science. Therefore the Baha'i view really encompasses nature/science and religion as one under its fold, instead of viewing them as distinct entities. The attempt is to move from a dichotomous view of science and religion to one where both are viewed as essentially describing the same thing.


• Religious truth is relative, not absolute, and divine revelation is progressive, not permanent. Context is very important. Religion and revelation, therefore, are also evolutionary, and contingent on the state of humanity and society at any point in time. There is a cyclic nature to religious evolution, much like the seasons of the year - and therefore there needs to be constant renewal and rejuvenation through new Manifestations.


• The Manifestations of God, who seem to come up in society at distinct points of time and prescribe seemingly arbitrary teachings are not really arbitrary, but rather a result of the very same, evolving natural order of things. A Manifestation is like "an all-knowing physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind, He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require." It is from these physicians that we get our concepts of morality that we hold so dear today, and which we can, in fact, separate from their original source (see my earlier post).


• The critical need of the day is unity, and though the situation might look bleak now, the end of winter is not far - and tiny shoots are starting to emerge through the frost, signaling the advent of a spiritual springtime.


• An atheistic framework can be self-consistent in itself - therefore there is no objective reason why one should choose to believe in the above framework over an atheistic one. There are only two reasons why one might do so - because there is a feeling of the sublime (in a very Kantian sense) that is aroused in one when one encounters the writings and teachings of these great teachers, and because of the effect of implementing these teachings not just on ourselves but also on the people around us. This is of course subjective to an extent, and therefore is something that cannot be argued beyond a point.

An example he gave of the effect of the sublime, and its dependence on context is described in this experiment carried out by the Washington Post.

Adding to that last point, I'd like to say that the only reason why I'd want to make that leap of faith is due to the existence of these Manifestations, who I believe to be qualitatively different from the rest of humanity, and possessing a remarkably deep insight into reality. And it is the potency of their teachings, the circumstances in which they come up, and their vision for the future - all combined with a firm belief in the existence of God - that enable me to take that initial leap of faith. A more detailed description of this idea can be found here.

In summary, the ideas above, Steven believed (as do I) enable us to resolve a lot of the apparent contradictions that exist between science and religion today, and hope for a future where our understanding of both would evolve to a point where the distinction between the two gets blurred beyond recognition. Considering human progress in the last 5000 years, and extrapolating this to another 5 billion years in the future (the expected lifetime of the sun, and hopefully our planet), the possibilities of where our knowledge could extend to are indeed staggering.