Anyone want a stab at my dd's theology essay?

[Hakluyt]

"What criticisms might the classical atheists of the past make of the atheist thinkers of today?"

My firwt thought was that they might say they were thinking to no purpose- Marx, for example, thought of atheism as a freeing of the people from the control of the Church, Hume as an escape from superstition and who really knew what Nietzche really though, while the four Horsemen, for example, don't really have an aim.......

Not looking for "homework help" by the wqy- she's already written it. Just interesting, I thought.

Scary cats!

What level is this as it is a very vague title?

What do you mean by classical atheist? Many of the philosophers of antiquity were theists so you might mean philosophers of the enlightenment. Also who are the atheists of today that are being studied?

I must admit I can't see the point of the question. There have been a number of paradigm shifts in philosophy and theology so what Hume would have made of existentialism or post modern philosophy is anyone's guess although this is a lot of fun when trying to avoid essay writing.

existentialcomics.com/comic/35

Undergraduate- so the title is really guidance only.

Sorry, hermia- was it only an hour? Thought it was longer than that. I was doing other stuff, and thought I'd scared people off..........

It is still very vague. Essays are to prove that someone has done the reading and can show that they have got to grips with the aims and learning outcomes of the course. Without knowing what has been studied that is hard.

If you view essay titles at degree level as 'for guidance only' then you will not do well - I speak as someone who teaches at a university.

My answer to the question - badly phrased though it is - that recent atheists have added nothing is substance to the debate, and that all their criticisms of religion had basically been formulated by the end of the nineteenth century. For my money Nietszche makes the most damaging criticisms of Christianity and the most compelling case for atheism.

Dd apparantly based her answer on Marx, Nietzche, Hume and sombody I can't remember, and the 4 Horsemen basically as modern atheists.

It is interesting to consider what modern atheist thinkers are doing it for............They don't have to do the first principles thinking that their forbears did, or fight for the basic right to be an atheist in public life from a political/ practical point of view, although obviously that's still an issue societally.

Are you giving ideas and helping her write it?

No- as I said earlier, she's written it. And sh won't let me read it so I have to do my own thinking. I'm interested in this sort of thing- but this idea of modern and "classical" atheists and how they are similar/different had never occurred to me before.

Is this not an essay for your daughter?

I think this is the 4th time I've said she's already written it!

I used to love thinking about the essays my daughter had to write for university - it was great not having to write them but having the chance to think about them.

If you are going to consider Marx an atheist thinker you should probably also include Freud - who wrote a reasonable amount about religion. Moses and Monotheism and The Future of an Illusion are the key texts. I would also include some existentialism in there - Sartre's Being and nothingness for choice.

By the four horsemen I assume you mean Dawkins Dennett Harris and Hitchens, these seem to me to be philosophically speaking, lightweight - and in the case of the last one, even he would not style himself a thinker but a polemicist.

ImperialBlether's-I'm frustrated because she doesn't want to talk about this one any more because it's done, and I am not even remotely interested in thenext one!

Niminypiminy- thank you, but as I said, it's done and she's burned her boats whatever they are......[ grin]

Ok, I thought you wanted to discuss the question though? I was simply contributing my thoughts. But maybe you're not that interested.

Sorry- did I say something rude? I didn't mean to. What I was trying to say was that I mentioned those particular writers only because they were the ones dd used- I don't think they are the most relevant or most academically valuable. Or the ones thatmight make for an interesting discussion on here.

Oh, ok I misunderstood. Sorry .

When my atheist and philosopher DH and I talk about religion it's always Nietszche who has the most interesting and profound ideas - and the ideas that I find most challenging. The idea of Christianity as slave morality for example. FWIW he doesn't reckon much to Dennett and co.

I think the enlightenment atheists such as David Hume would be having a few sharp words with the four horsemen about philosophy 101. Hume was an empiricist so I'm not sure what he would make of the scientific rationalism of the new atheists.

Don't understand the point of the thread at all. You say you want to discuss it but when someone offers comments you say no need as DD already written her response