The Undergraduate Atheists’ Thesis

[rug]

By Massimo Pigliucci | January 21st 2014 05:30 AM

I am not particularly friendly to the so-called New Atheism.

While I respect (and often respectfully disagree with) Dan Dennett, I have been a fairly strong critic of Dawkins, Harris, and the late Hitchens (not to mention other NA’s, such as Jerry Coyne).

I have even written a technical paper analyzing the NA movement from a philosophical perspective.

So it was with some interest that I recently read a piece by David V. Johnson at 3QuarksDaily, entitled “A refutation of the undergraduate atheists,” which promised to deliver some guilty pleasure for my weekend readings. It did deliver, but only in part. In the following I will outline Johnson’s arguments and where, I think, he goes astray. I have also invited him to respond here at Rationally Speaking, and he has graciously agreed, so stay tuned for a follow up.

http://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/undergraduate_atheists%E2%80%99_thesis-127842

[cbayer]

1. Learned a new word - scientistic!

Like it.

Really enjoyed that article, though he loses me when he starts referencing specific philosophies. My single undergraduate course really just skimmed the surface.

I think what I would call organized atheism, and what he calls NA, is in a fascinating growth stage.