Advertisement

Who Are We Are and What Are We Doing When It Comes to New Atheism?

  • Jonathan Tuckett
Chapter
Part of the Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures book series (SCPT, volume 21)

Abstract

One of the great difficulties about considering New Atheism is that many of the names associated with the movement have come from the scholarly ranks. This raises some difficult questions for how it is we, as academics and scholars, respond to them and treat their treatment of religion. In this reflective final chapter I look back over the previous contributions to the volume from the perspective of philosophy of social science—positioning myself halfway between our philosophical contributors and our social scientific contributors. Looking at what it is the New Atheists themselves might be trying to achieve, I investigate the ways in which we have responded to them and what this might say about us as a “scholarly group”. Ultimately the fact that some of the New Atheists come from the ranks and engage so willingly with the general public we must address the fundamental questions of what it is to do philosophy and what it is to do social science.

Keywords

Philosophy of social science Phenomenology Public intellectuals Social science Philosophy 

References

  1. Barnes, Barry, et al. 1996. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
  2. Burawoy, Michael. 2005a. For Public Sociology. American Sociological Review 70: 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 2005b. The Return of the Repressed: Recovering the Public Face of U.S. Sociology, a Hundred Years On. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 600: 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 2009. The Public Sociology Wars. In Handbook of Public Sociology, ed. V. Jeffries, 449–473. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  5. Delanty, Gerard, and Piet Strydom, eds. 2003. Philosophies of Social Science: The Classic and Contemporary Readings. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Geertz, Armin W. 2009. New Atheistic Approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion: On Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell (2006) and Richard Dawkins the God Delusion (2006). In Contemporary Theories of Religion: A Critical Companion, ed. Michale Stausberg, 242–263. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Gordon, S. 1991. The History and Philosophy of Social Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Gregory, Brad. 2012. The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularised Society. London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gurwitsch, Aaron. 1974. In Phenomenology and the Theory of Science, ed. L. Embree. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Heidegger, Martin. 2010. Being and Time. trans. by J. Stambaugh. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  11. Husserl, Edmund. 1965. Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy. Ed. and trans. By Q. Lauer. London: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 1970. The Crisis of European Science and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. Trans. D. Carr. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 1988. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. trans. by D. Cairns. Kluwer. London: Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Martin, Luther, and Donald Wiebe. 2012a. Religious Studies as a Scientific Discipline: The Persistence of a Delusion. Religion 2: 9–18.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2012b. Why the Possible Is Not Impossible but Is Unlikely: A Response to Our Colleagues. Religion 20: 63–72.Google Scholar
  16. McCutcheon, Russell. 2001. Critics Not Caretakers: Redescribing the Public Study of Religion. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2012. A Direct Question Deserves a Direct Answer: A Response to Atalia Omer’s “Can A Critic be a Caretaker too?”. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 80: 1077–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meier, Klaus. 1981. On the Inadequacies of Sociological Definitions of Sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 16: 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merton, Robert. 1973. In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, ed. N. Storer. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ruane, Frances. 2012. Public Intellectuals in Times of Crisis: The Role of Academia. In Reflections on Crisis: The Role of the Public Intellectual, ed. M.P. Corcoran and K. Lalor. Royal Irish Academy: Dublin.Google Scholar
  21. Scheler, Max. 1989. Sociology and the Study and Formulation of Weltanschauung. Trans by R. Speirs. In P. Lassman and I. Velody Max Weber’s “Science as a Vocation”, 87–91. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  22. Schutz, Alfred. 1962. Collected Papers I: The Problem of Social Reality. ed. by M. Natanson. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  23. Tuckett, Jonathan. 2014. Alfred Schutz’s Postulates of Social Science: Clarification and Amendments. Human Studies 37: 469–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———. 2015. The Contradiction of Democracy and Science. BASR Bulletin 127: 16–22.Google Scholar
  25. ———. forthcoming. Orthodoxy Is Not Scientific: A Phenomenological Critique of Naturalism. In J. Blum (ed.) The Role of Methodological Naturalism in Religious Studies. BrillGoogle Scholar
  26. Weber, Max. 1946. In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. H. Gerth and G. Wright Mills. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Wiebe, Donald. 1999. The Politics of Religious Studies. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent ScholarEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations