Keith Parsons is Just Old. That Explains Why He Favors the Old Atheism.

Evangelicals seem to love Keith Parsons. And he likes it. When it comes to writing something in Christian anthologies he's the go-to guy. That slap on the back must feel good. Now he's a good guy I'll admit. But even Edward Feser likes him. Something's gotta be wrong! ;-) They agree in that they both want to return to that old time religion, er, atheism. I understand why Feser wants to live in the past, but Parsons?

Look, I am not interested in merely having a discussion. I'm interested in changing minds. Karl Marx spoke for me when he quipped, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

At issue are the differences between Old Atheism and New Atheism. Parsons prefers the Old Atheism as does Feser. My view is they both want to live in the past. One must accept the changes and move on into the future. There is no going back. Christianity is dying. Why in the world would Parsons want to return to the good old days when Christianity had a huge monopoly in American academia, and where it was considered a respectable faith? There is at the present time a massive exodus from Christianity by young people. I just learned today that over half the people in Scotland are non-religious. As that happens in westernized countries we no longer need to respect faith-based reasoning, but rather tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about religion.

What are the unique differences between Old Atheism and the New Atheism?

The Old Atheism existed before September 11, 2001.
Afterward the New Atheism arose, where intellectuals got serious about the irrationality of faith.

The Old Atheism took the arguments of believers seriously in order to convince them they are wrong. In doing so they stayed strictly within their own disciplines.

The New Atheism represents intellectuals who are so convinced religious faith is wrong from within their own disciplines that they will venture outside their disciplines, disregarding the fact that people like Feser and Parsons will call them ignorant for doing so. They are not attempting to persuade people like Feser, since delusional intellectuals like him cannot be reached. They are reaching out to others.

The Old Atheism was respectful toward belief.
The New Atheism can and will ridicule religious faith. Faith deserves little or no respect because of the harms of faith. We have passed the point of no return. Now is the time to ridicule Christian faith and other faiths in our world, just as we ridicule the dead religions and gods of the past. That doesn't preclude reasonably dissecting the beliefs of Christians, which I do daily, but it is now acceptable. [See tag "Ridicule" below]

Science has progressed past the tepid passions of the Old Atheism.
Science is now destroying faith which provides New Atheism with new found passion.


To see a really good example of what I do here at DC on a regular basis, look at my recent example of how to ridicule Christianity. This is how we do it folks! That's what I do Keith Parsons, yeah! Thanks for responding. You nailed me. To a tee! Ouch!