Atheus Evangelismus--the Varieties of Evangelical Materialists*

Militant Atheism--modified from Wikimedia Commons

"Many people may be comforted by the idea of a powerful being who cares about their lives and who determines ultimate standards of right and wrong behavior.  Personally, I am not comforted by that at all;  I find it extremely off-putting."--Sean Carroll

 “[Religious] Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.” ― Richard Dawkins

 "Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."--Stephen Hawking

"I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but I'd much rather live in a universe without one".--Lawrence Krauss

 "When people organize their lives around these [religious] beliefs, and then learn of other people who seem to be doing just fine without them--or worse, who credibly rebut them--they are in danger of looking like fools. Since one cannot defend a belief based on faith by persuading skeptics it is true, the faithful are apt to react to unbelief with rage, and may try to eliminate that affront to everything that makes their lives meaningful.” --Stephen Pinker 

Scientism, the belief that science can explain everything about the world and ourselves, is a religion, although not formally expressed as such.  By being a religion, I mean that it is founded on faith, a faith that its proponents say proceeds from rational processes, but which in fact denies many rational objections.

There are many scientists who write books, justifying their scientism;  whether they do this to gather people into the fold or just make money is a question I won't attempt to answer.    Some--I'm thinking of Richard Dawkins in particular--are so convinced of the righteousness of their belief and the evil of religious faith that they would prohibit the practice of religion.    Others--I'm thinking of Sean Carroll--take a more balanced view, conceding there are legitimate reasons for belief in God, but those reasons aren't for them.  

Now I'm more familiar with the works of Carroll, Dawkins and Hawking, but I do know something about what Krauss and Pinker have written about religion.   So, I thought it might be instructive put their quasi-religious beliefs into correspondence with some Christian sects.   So, here they are:

Carroll    <----> Unitarianism Universalism

Dawkins <----> Catholic Geocentrists 

Hawking <----> Low Church Anglican

Krauss    <----> Missouri Synod Lutheran or Southern Baptist

Pinker     <----> United Methodist

These correspondences are, I'll admit, arbitrary to an extent.   I've assigned them on the apparent willingness of proponents to argue reasonably and to acknowledge possible merit of those who do believe in God.   

What's your take?

NOTE

*My wife, my beta-reader, said on reading this, "It isn't really a  post, it's more like a comment".    I agree, and the only two legitimate correspondences are those for Sean Carroll and Richard Dawkins--the three others are sort of put in just to get some more people and denominations in the list.

There's more to there than physics: a review of Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos"*

"The aim of this book is to argue that the mind-body problem is not just a local problem...but that it invades our understanding of the entire cosmos...I believe a true appreciation of the difficulty of the problem must eventually change our conception of the place of the physical sciences in describing the natural order." Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos:  Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception
of Nature is Almost Certainly False

What?  An eminent philosopher of the mind, Thomas Nagel, a professed atheist,  taking up the theistic argument that  "the materialist, neo-darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false"--who wood-a thunk it?

In a nutshell, Nagel argues that current belief that there is a physical theory of everything--a theory that includes human mentality and values--is unbelievable:

I find  this view [reductive materialism and neo-Darwinism] antecedently unbelievable--a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense. Thomas Nagel, "Mind and Cosmos", p. 136

This disbelief is founded on the following propositions:

• physical science cannot account for the incredibly unlikely beginning of life;
• physical science and the neo-Darwinian model cannot account for the development of consciousness;
• physical science and the neo-Darwinian model cannot account for the development of cognition from consciousness;
• physical science and the neo-Darwinian model cannot account for the role of value in human activity.  

The fundamental difficulty with the currently accepted physical picture, according to Nagel, is that the ways in which materialism and neo-Darwinism try to account for mentality are inadequate.

 The first way is to deny that the mental is an irreducible aspect of reality, either (a) by holding that the mental can be identified with some aspect of the physical, such as patterns of behavior or patterns of neural activity, or (b) by denying that the mental is part of reality at all, being some kind of illusion (but then, illusion to whom?). The second way is to deny that the mental requires a scientific explanation through some new conception of the natural order, because either (c) we can regard it as a mere fluke or accident, an unexplained extra property of certain physical organisms – or else (d) we can believe that it has an explanation, but one that belongs not to science but to theology, in other words that mind has been added to the physical world in the course of evolution by divine intervention. [emphasis added] Thomas Nagel. The Core of Mind and Cosmos (NY Times Opinionator)

Nagel rejects divine intervention, both for the presence of mind and for the beginning of life.   Instead he  proposes a teleological principle that operates to achieve values (undefined) that include consciousness and cognition;   mutations that work to such an end are preferred, that is have a higher probability.    Nagel terms the failure of materialism and neo-Darwinism to account for the above "a materialism of the gaps".     The arguments Nagel gives  to support the above propositions are  involved.   Were I not already convinced of his propositions, I would find his arguments unconvincing.    Since a detailed examination of these arguments would require an article almost as long as the book, I'll not do that.*   Instead, I invite the reader to go to the book, or if you don't want to spend the bucks, look at Chapter 4 of the book, on Cognition (it's available online for free--use the link).

Finally, I wonder why the addition of a "teleological principle" is not more ad hoc than that of a creating God.    It does seem to be the case that for many atheists, their faith  (or non-faith?)  cannot be shaken.

*Note added 20 July.   William (Matt) Briggs has pointed out that the eminent philosopher, Edward Feser has, in fact, given such an extensive review in his blog.   See Mind and Cosmos Roundup.