So I feel as though my stance towards atheism in this thread may have come across as overly antagonistic and as casting atheism with a broad, homogeneous brush, I recognise that this forum has many atheist users, such as @T_aquaticus and so I thought I’d clarify things.
The problem I find is not atheism, agnosticism, irreligion or atheists. The problem I have is with the brand of atheism promoted by scientists who are mostly right as far as science is concerned, but have little to no knowledge of history, theology or religion and yet think they do know, and feel the need to make statements on it, where they reveal their naivety. Their knowledge of the Bible seems to be based on unconditional wooden literal-ism, even for areas of the Bible such as the Psalms and Wisdom Literature, which even Christian Conservatives will advocate a Non-literalist reading of. This ignorance is what leads to them assuming that religion and science cannot be reconciled. It should go without saying who these figures are, so I won’t mention any names.
I have so much respect for those who recognise their BS, and call them out for it. Jordan Peterson, Hunter Maats, Tim O’Neill and others call them out on their dreadful knowledge of history and other subjects. And the New Atheists can’t stand it. They are forced to resort to straw-mans, as the only way of rationalising away what they don’t wan’t to be true, that religion, Christianity in particular, may have done some good things to Western Civilisation. Jordan Peterson, as I have mentioned before, has correctly pointed out that it ‘is’ through biblical metaphysics, particularly the notion that humans are created in God’s image, that Western civilisation gained the notion that life has value. He (and I) is not arguing that we need religion to rationalise that humans have some value (as some internet atheists want to think he is), only that the Ancients evidently didn’t. I have heard Jordan Peterson be called a ‘creationist’ and ‘bible literalist’ who ‘cries that people are atheists’ by a YouTuber who whined about Peterson having a biblical lecture, which he clearly hasn’t watched a second of. For if he had, he’d have realised that Peterson is neither, he acknowledges (correctly or not) that the bible is a contradictory book edited together over thousands of years, and has acknowledged the prescientific cosmology of Genesis (which creationists do not). In fact Peterson, when asked if he believes in God, instead answered that, rather than believing in God he ‘acts’ as though there is a God.
It is important to point out too that I disagree with Peterson that we need to ‘act’ as though there is a God (if that ‘is’ what he is arguing for). I believe that though these ideas do originate within the Bible, it is possible to rationalise these ideas with our own reason. I cannot emphasise it enough that atheism is not the issue. In fact, those atheists who are knowledgeable in history and religion (such as Bart Ehrman, R Joseph Hoffman, Greg Epstein and maybe Robert Price) DO NOT hold such antagonistic views against religion. So at the end of the day, my issue is not at all with atheism, it’s more with ignorance, which is unfortunately contained within the atheism of many of it’s modern advocates.