Dear Peter, I fear you have been distracted by the title which promised a few excursions into ‘new atheist’ territory. I also fear you have missed the point about bridge-building with gum. But, the point of introducing relativism was as a response to my own opening line about many kinds of truth. The article then went on to clarify the kinds of, or aspects of, truth that we need to think of. If you are aware of some of the discussions of atheism whether new or same old, you will recognise that the attacks come from within these various categories. But more of that later—perhaps I can request ‘patience’??

Peter Bolt,

I still don’t get why your header and article talks about “New Atheists” while focusing in relativism. Are you trying to say those are related or are you trying to associate those in the minds of your readers?

When the “New Atheists” talk about “religious truth” they don’t actually mean that religious dogma etc. is “true”. It is a short hand of something else. The “New Atheists” also know that bridge builders are not absolutists claiming that the bridge will hold no matter what and they know that there is no single absolute answer which material is the best for bridge building. Using reinforced concrete or steel as a material depends on engineers’ opinions (Choosing the amount and used material is relativistic).

Even “not being relativists” does not bring you closer to the truth. The “New Atheists” are glad that their doctor is not faith based absolutist claiming that there is only one way to treat cancer by using faith healing.

To Peter Turegum:

You said:
“The “New Atheists” are glad that their doctor is not faith based absolutist claiming that there is only one way to treat cancer by using faith healing.”

My question: Where is Peter Bolt suggesting that “Faith healing” is a good way to treat any medical condition?  Phrasing it like that, seems to be a straw-man argument - I don’t think Peter Bolt is suggesting that Faith healing is a good thing, but rather he is criticizing the view that “religious truth” can be relative [true for me, but not for you”] by comparing it to scientific truth [which most people agree is true or not-true].

But perhaps, the “New Atheists” [if by this phrase we mean the likes of Richard Dawkins], are not really prone to this kind of relativism - they [Dawkins et al] are more modernists rather than post-modernists.  “New Atheism” if it refers to the resurgent vigourous atheism is probably a return to modernism - possibly [but I’m not certain about this] after a growing dissatisfaction with the philosophical solutions profferred by post-modern theories.  However, for individuals [such as Dawkins] this may not hold.  In general terms, there are probably some disillusioned post-modernists amongst the new atheists.  Others such as Dawkins may never have been post-modernists in the first place.