I am an atheist. I am not interested in what Dawkins, Harris or anyone pontificating on the topic says. The simple fact is that I do not believe in any god or religion. I do not condemn people who believe in religion, I do not try to proselytize for atheism. I do not want atheism to be treated as dogma, but to be regarded as lacking dogma. Just as I do not want religious people trying to shove their ideology down my throat, I do not believe in strident activism pushing atheism.

"If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion?"

i believe i may have been charged with being a new atheist recently. not directly, which i find distasteful as i didn't even know what it was, but whatever, i'm distasteful in much of my commentary. touche.

first, i have never changed my position on evolution. period. indeed evolution has never changed evolution's position. i had no belief system when i learned about it. i already did not believe in god when it came up. it was taught to me as Science. i am really curious to know which branch of science you think it ISN'T for twelve year old children throughout history to have reasoned their ways out of religion, never looking back. logic is taught.

not to mention i don't have to argue that it disqualifies religion. i will never get to the head of the line to say my piece because i will be behind the thousands upon thousands of present christians who still take the bible literally (anectodal, but guess what about his American south? that'd be some of them that take it literally, or partially literally, or whatever they take it to be...) point is christians claim and have claimed for a century that evolution is not compatible with their religion. denounced it. some still do. some smart ones put a square religious peg in a round scientific hole after the theory is introduced or accepted (creationism?) where the god is now somehow responsible for the theory to be possible. never mind it doesn't jive with the book and took a fossil record, and year upon year upon year of the theory becoming established Science. real life repeatable experiments i think i read or heard about as well. other science advances, see nasa and how they're understanding planet formation. honestly i don't need to do this.

that book is taken less and less literally every generation. it is wrong about the age of the earth and many order of other things with respect to many other scientific and logical things in addition to evolution. further, to my earlier point that i did not change, religion did. you cannot argue for centuries something is the literal word of god and then modify it as needed in response to an ever growing body of knowledge in addition to it and against it. rather you can, but the response will be a growing dismissive.

could we be seeing the popularization of atheism with the 'new atheist' where the second generation, or beyond or even population in the age of the internet where all you have to do is look a position up is what the theist is going to come up against? may be the day when they won't even debate a christian god with him? when the points of view of the guys in the post ruse vilifies are mainstream points of view, you will get ever increasingly dismissive responses. that is a wild ass guess, but i think you may have to get used to it. you don't even have to read the dawkins books. all you have to do as watch all of his clips. if you already don't believe, you're a certain expert.

in addition: separation of church and state was and is an idea that has been encroached on by christians since the founding of this country. status quo is not separation of church and state. what exempts my "belief"? the lack of a religion and the separation of church and state happen to coincide within the set of state (or constitutionally they should.) also there was that landmark court case in this country to teach evolution. go read that, mr. ruse.

show me separation of science and state. also qualifies it as exempt. show me the knucklehead that doesn't want to teach it... the science that is... please, show me. point them out and i will make sure my kids and anyone else that will listen hears me say that he or she is not to teach my children. with contempt.

trust christians to advise? me too. listened to both parents until the days they died. both religious christians. work with some i am sure. only ones i know for sure are the ones that volunteer it. plenty do, but NOT because i ask. i avoid it as long as i can. some friends, they know not to touch it. i accept their advice as well. i find most devout christians are offended by "i don't believe in god." it's all down hill from there for me.

i wonder where on mr. ruse's list the invoking of the bible and a snowball on the floor of congress in a debate about climate change ranks for why a growning number of people might, don't give a flying fuck if they are offensive? that is not stupid or bad? whether you believe in the science surrounding climate change or not. to use the bible as a debate point about climate science is laugable. and is both stupid and bad. i honestly will not apologize for whatever camp they lump me. i will not waste my time on "proving god does not exist." their book makes erroneous claims, without evidence for a dwindling number of other points. it used to be the literal word of god. now it isn't. these are not my claims. they are claims out of the mouths of innumerable christians. let them decide amongst their factious selves to determine who and what god is and then debate it with the agnostic theists. then when they lose that, let the agnostics come for the atheists.

"...that all religion is necessarily evil and corrupting. This claim is on a par with golden plates in upstate New York."

That is false to the point of being a lie. Hitchens and Dawkins go to great lengths to justify their claim by citing example after example. Ok Mr. professional philosopher, tell us all how Hitchens and Dawkings are on par with Joseph Smith.

"Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously." Yeah, right. Doesn't seem like you shy away from being condescending, except that your arguments suck.

"Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims."

Seriously? You seriously believe the 'New Atheists' to have been ignorant when they spent so much time challenging believers with, "Well, what caused God?" Yeah, I'd love to hear more of your efforts to understand the Christians efforts to explain God's intrinsic nature. Let's see just how deep that cesspool isn't.

I really, really hate trolls.

The only difference between old atheists and new atheists is that these new atheists don't shit up when the religious tell them to. Being silent on the matter has made this country more and more religious. No one claims that science refutes religion. It does however refute certain claims made by religion. I'm sorry if you have trouble telling the difference.

I so agree with this on all levels....but I have lived all over the world. Having been exposed to different cultures, having been the minority in some areas of the world, having seen both good and bad in religion, I am a seeker of knowledge rather than a berated of believers.

At the moment I’m in the process of reading Crossan’s “The Birth of Christianity”. I also enjoy reading Karen Armstrong’s books.

I'm one of the old atheists.

Yeah, facts trump beliefs. Period.

Anyone who uses the phrase "the new atheists" is suspect.

I am an agnostic - anti-theist.

I'm with Penn Jillette on this:
Agnostic and atheist answer two different questions:

We cannot know fur shur how our universe started: agnostic (without knowledge)

There ain't no all-powerful invisible critters fucking with humans on the earth: atheist (there is no reliable proof of such beings)

And I agree with Sam, and Christopher,... I am an anti-theist because I oppose religionists imposing their mental illness on all us good folks.

You've put a lot of thought into all that, but as a professional journalist I'd suggest to you what I would to a lot of people on here: figure out what your unifying point is, and lead with that. Then lay out your premises and build your case.

“Professional philosopher “ to me means “don’t pay attention to this one, (s)he has their head so far up their own ass they have lost touch with reality”

It seems Academia would have nothing to bang on about if we accept all Religions are clap trap.

YOUR WORDS: the young men who flew into the World Trade Centre towers were infected by the alienation and despair of the young in Muslim countries in the face of poverty and inequalities.

May I add that you seem to dismiss the fact that their belief in Allah and having many virgins in their heaven was a great motivating factor in their suicide and murder of thousands, so what someone believes is extremely relevant and excuse me if I use the word DELUSION to describe their belief and hold them in contempt.

Their "beliefs" are not exempt. But the understanding of the theory of Evolution is not a belief. It is fact. It can be measured and verified and observed and calculated and otherwise known or predicted with amazing accuracy. It is a hard science. That is why it should be taught in school over religion, which is NONE of those things. Tell the author to quit being obtuse. It's unbecoming.

Weird statement:

"Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery.

“Jonathan Sacks, author of The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning, feels the new atheists miss the target by believing the "cure for bad religion is no religion, as opposed to good religion". He wrote:

Atheism deserves better than the new atheists whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science.”
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

An Atheist is someone who finds no need to capitalize the word ‘god.’

Thanks for posting. Ruse nailed Dawkin's irrational tribalism. As a former educator in biology, I find the last paragraph particularly germane. God is not a falsifiable concept. Tell students up front that scientists cannot take a stance on the existence or nonexistence of god because it's an idea that can't be experimentally tested. It is only within a framework of mutual respect that you can hope that students will be open to hearing all the evidence that supports evolutionary theory.

I think that there is a great deal of truth in what Mr. Ruse writes in this piece. I wouldn’t say I agreed with him on every point, but with the vast majority of them, I do. It’s quite wrong to think that everything that has been done in the name of religion has been bad, there are countless examples of the benefit to humanity which religion has brought. There is a balance to be made though, and the benefits must be weighed against the deficits of religious indoctrination....and in my opinion the deficits outweigh the benefits. I believe there is a religious expression which we should use as an analogy...” hate the sin, love the sinner “. I believe we shouldn’t demonise believers, because they are our fellow humans and as such deserve respect, even if we feel they are misguided. They are not all stupid, and many learned people do have a belief in god, how they manage to reconcile their belief I marvel at, but they have obviously thought it through, so it’s no good us just telling them that they have not used reason. We should however, thoroughly condemn the institutions and hierarchy when they prey on the ignorant and less well educated who have no defence against their dogma and superstition, especially in poorer countries.

Is the basis of his argument not semantical? I think he is saying that atheists are agnostics and new atheists are atheists.