Le nouvel athéisme: Une réponse bahá'íe

The success in bookstores by this movement that comes from the United States may seem like a stroke more likely to religion. The author, philosopher and professor of philosophy itself, by a careful reading shows the weakness of the arguments of the new atheists, ignorance - sometimes surprising - the most basic philosophical concepts and the retrograde side of their struggle that smells of the nineteenth century. Introduction Since the publication by Sam Harris, in 2004, The End of Faith, a number of books touting atheism have been successful, including: God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett. Other titles did not have the success of these quatrelà. These books adopt a pugnacious tone and sometimes contemptuous of religion and theists of all kinds. Even the most moderate, Daniel Dennett, in Breaking the Spell suggests that atheists should follow the advice of the network Brights and adopt this as a bright (intelligent, informed) which implies, of course, that theists are less intelligent that them. Next new atheists as they are called, the only acceptable are those truths of modern science. They completely reject the existence of supernatural or supersensible aspects of reality. They criticize the various philosophical proofs of the existence of God, develop theories of pathological origin of religion, insist on the crimes committed by religions and question the link between religion and morality. The following is a response to the philosophical pretensions of the new atheists, that is to say an analysis of the philosophical foundations of their beliefs, the logical point of view and in relation to Baha'i writings. Their works are severely defective in a philosophical point of view and logical, as one might expect, often at odds with the Bahá'í writings. Yet we find a number of points of agreement. We will focus on key problems without giving any factual errors, without identifying any errors logiques1 many different devices or polemics or rhetoric they use to promote their views. It will not be surprised to find that the differences far exceed the similarities between the new atheists and Baha'i writings. Writers seeking the total abolition of religion and of all supernatural or supersensible concepts can hardly have anything in common with the writings of any religion, even of a religion that accepts evolution, rationalism, the essential harmony of religion and science and believes in the independent investigation of truth. Remember that the new atheists are trying to put as much distance as possible between their ideas and religion. Finding common ground does not interest them. Faced with this amount of disagreement, and not to mention their aggressive and contemptuous tone, one wonders if there is an opportunity to debate with the new atheists. The answer is a qualified yes: the dialogue can be established on the basis of a number of agreements. We could also agree to explore our views to improve mutual understanding, but a contempt in which they are theologians and theistic philosophers allows only cautious optimism. However, no hope for an agreement is possible because their philosophical absolute negation of all reality supersensible prevents base with a religion. In other words, it will be no agreement on the essential and fundamental, we can agree