Does Gnu atheism have any intellectual substance? I’m having a hard time finding it. From what I can tell, Gnu atheism boils down to this:
Claim 1: Religion is nonsense. This is “demonstrated” by arguing that science has shown God does not exist and insisting “there is no evidence for God.” I have considered both claims on this blog and found them to be rooted in confused, shallow thinking.
Claim 2: Religion is usually or always harmful. This is a claim that ignores scientific evidence and is propped up by cherry picking and emotional appeals.
Claim 3: We need to get rid of religion because it would make the world a much better place. This claim is nothing more than wishful thinking that is contradicted by the simple fact that the Gnu atheist community is not a “better place.”
Claim 1 and 2 are simply the expressions of a militant mindset and claim 3 is just the rallying cry of a socio-political movement that helps to make some people quite a bit of money.
So I think Gnu atheism is without substance. Instead, it is merely an emotion and a movement that is justified by confirmation bias and disconfirmation bias (creating the illusion of intellectual activity).
People say to me, “But Mike, you are supposed to consider the substance of the Gnu position!!”
I have.
On this blog.
And I have found it to be without intellectual substance.
Shadow To Light 