Massimo's (and Others') Critique of the New Atheist Movement

  • 11 Replies
  • 9922 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« on: March 02, 2014, 07:43:42 pm »
http://philpapers.org/archive/PIGNAA.pdf

Quote
...As I said, Harris wants to deliver moral decision making to science because
he wants to defeat the evil (if oddly paired) twins of religious fanaticism and leftist
moral relativism. Despite the fact that I think he grossly overestimates the pervasiveness of the latter, we are together on this. Except of course that the best
arguments against both positions are philosophical, not scientific. The most convincing reason why gods cannot possibly have anything to do with morality was
presented 24 centuries ago by Plato, in the already mentioned (in the context of Dawkins’s book) Euthyphro dialogue, and which goes, predictably, entirely unmentioned in The Moral Landscape.

Needless to say, moral relativism, too, has been the focus of sustained and devastating attack in philosophy, for instance by thinkers such as Peter Singer and Simon Blackburn, and this is all to be found in the large ethical and metaethical literature that Harris finds so increases the degree of boredom in the universe.

Harris’s chief claim throughout the book is that moral judgments are a kind
of fact, and that as such they are amenable to scientific inquiry. First of all, the
second statement does not at all follow from the first. Surely we can agree that the
properties of triangles in Euclidean geometry are “facts,” in the sense that nobody
who understands Euclidean geometry can opine that the sum of the angles in a
triangle is not 180° and get away with it. But we do not use science, or any kind of
empirical evidence at all, to arrive at agreement about such facts. At the very least,
and without wanting to push an argument for moral realism, this makes the point
that “facts” is too heterogeneous a category, and that Harris needs to be much
more careful on how to handle it...

I think this is a pretty well intentioned yet deservedly hard critique from Massimo, himself an - IMO - honest skeptic. I'd often felt that Harris was incredibly lazy when it came to philosophy but my opinion was that of a layperson dipping their toes into the pool.

It's good to see I wasn't the only one.  ;D

Beyond that, I do wonder about the education of some supposed skeptics. There seems to be a subset (unclear how large) that is enamored by the Singularity and it's supposed virtual Promised Land, and that this group isn't necessarily educated on the continuing developments of science nor the various issues brought up by philosophy discussed in the Intellectual Bitterness thread. Massimo shares this concern:

Quote
I would actually go so far as to charge many of the leaders of the New Atheism movement (and, by implication, a good number of their followers) with anti-intellectualism, one mark of which is a lack of respect for the proper significance, value, and methods of another field of intellectual endeavor.

A clear cut example of this is the glorious mess that is Rational Wiki, wherein Searle is accused of racism because he doesn't think computers can be conscious entities.  :-\
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 09:53:03 pm by sciborg2 »

Callan S.

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Warrior-Profit
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
    • Philosopher Gamer
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2014, 12:07:48 am »
Quote
wherein Searle is accused of racism because he doesn't think computers can be conscious entities.
It seems heavy to jump in on that early.

But I can see the validity to it - who'd be happy with skynet treating us as disposable animals?

Phallus Pendulus

  • *
  • Suthenti
  • *
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2014, 02:47:45 pm »
New Atheists,  with their moral crusading against religion, are the complete opposite of true atheism. They're manchildren still stuck in their kiddie-rebellion phase, for the most part.

Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2014, 08:08:49 pm »
Quote
New Atheists,  with their moral crusading against religion, are the complete opposite of true atheism. They're manchildren still stuck in their kiddie-rebellion phase, for the most part.

Interesting. Who do you consider to be the Conan of atheism? Instead of these manchildren I mean :)

Have not read many of these New Atheists, only Sam Harris and Hitchens.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2014, 09:55:29 pm »
Prof Brian Cox: physicist or priest?

Many popular scientists are atheist, so why are they so happy to use the misty-eyed language of religion?

Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists

Quote
The atheist spring that began just over a decade ago is over, thank God. Richard Dawkins is now seen by many, even many non-believers, as a joke figure, shaking his fist at sky fairies. He’s the Mary Whitehouse of our day.

So what was all that about, then? We can see it a bit more clearly now. It was an outpouring of frustration at the fact that religion is maddeningly complicated and stubbornly irritating, even in largely secular Britain. This frustration had been building for decades: the secular intellectual is likely to feel somewhat bothered by religion, even if it is culturally weak. Oh, she finds it charming and interesting to a large extent, and loves a cosy carol service, but religion really ought to know its place. Instead it dares to accuse the secular world of being somehow -deficient.

Callan S.

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Warrior-Profit
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
    • Philosopher Gamer
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2014, 09:54:57 am »
Just going off the quote: An accusation of the secular world being deficient of something is like an accusation of a donut having some kind of hole. It's kind of the point.

Phallus Pendulus

  • *
  • Suthenti
  • *
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2014, 08:32:16 pm »
Interesting. Who do you consider to be the Conan of atheism? Instead of these manchildren I mean :)

Atheism, being a lack of religious belief, doesn't need a "prophet", lol. That's kinda the point.

If I had to decide on a "Conan of atheism", Daniel Dennett is far superior to Dawkins and Hitchens.

Quote
Have not read many of these New Atheists, only Sam Harris and Hitchens.

Harris is okay, although a bit of a misty-eyed moralist who sometimes uses religious terms when it suits him.

Hitchens was annoying and smug, he was like the older generation of the Amazing Atheist. More fit to be a stand-up comedian than an intellectual
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 08:34:32 pm by Phallus Pendulus »

Phallus Pendulus

  • *
  • Suthenti
  • *
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2014, 08:48:25 pm »
What's even more childish and laughable is "Atheism +", a movement of whiny bloghags that tries to combine New Atheism with sentimental bleating and various social justice issues.

These guys are pretty well summed up by this pic:

« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 08:59:02 pm by Phallus Pendulus »

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2014, 08:10:57 am »
"I haven’t been thrilled by the atheist movement. First, who is the audience? Is it religious extremists? Say right-wing evangelical Christians like George Bush (as you rightly point out)? Or is it very prominent Rabbis in Israel who call for visiting the judgment of Amalek on all Palestinians (total destruction, down to their animals)? Or is it the radical Islamic fundamentalists who have been Washington’s most valued allies in the Middle East for 75 years (note that Bush’s current trip to the Middle East celebrates two events: the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, and the 75th anniversary of establishment of US-Saudi relations, each of which merits more comment)? If those are the intended audiences, the effort is plainly a waste of time. Is the audience atheists? Again a waste of time.

Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven? If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs. Is it those who have religious affiliations and beliefs, but don’t have to be reminded of what they knew as teenagers about the genocidal character of the Bible, the fact that biblical accounts are not literal truths, or that religion has often been the banner under which hideous crimes were carried out (the Crusades, for example)? Plainly not. The message is old hat, and irrelevant, at least for those whose religious affiliations are a way of finding some sort of community and mutual support in an atomized society lacking social bonds. Who, in fact, is the audience?

Furthermore, if it is to be even minimally serious, the “new atheism” should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim — arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere. In brief, to be minimally serious the “new atheism” should begin by looking in the mirror."
- Noam Chomsky

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2014, 04:16:22 pm »
Curb your enthusiasm: High priests, holy writ and excommunications – how did Humanism end up acting like a religion?

http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/michael-ruse-humanism-religion/

Quote
...I, like Dawkins, am a non-believer. Yet I, like Williams, refuse to put science and religion at war. This is partly because I do not think they have to be — I see them as asking different questions. But it is also because I think there is something socially and psychologically unhealthy about the course that the debate has taken, especially by those on my side of the fence. I do not think the faults are all on one side, but let me speak to the side to which I might naturally be expected to belong....

...What I am concerned with here is the self-proclaimed world-view of Humanism (which I capitalise to make this distinction). This is the movement that makes claims about science — and evolution in particular — that interest me. And it is this kind of Humanism that makes me uneasy. It doesn’t just define itself against religion; in some respects, it has taken on aspects of religion. Perhaps it is a kind of religion....

...I, and others of my ilk, am reviled in terms far harsher than those kept for the real opponents like the Creationists. We are labelled ‘accommodationists’ for our willingness to give religion a space not occupied by science. We are put down in terms that denote powerful emotion, way beyond reason. In The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, I am likened to Neville Chamberlain, the pusillanimous appeaser of Hitler. Jerry Coyne, the author of both the book and the blog Why Evolution is True and an ardent fan of Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, wrote about one of my books in terms used by George Orwell: ‘There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.’ The Minnesota biologist PZ Myers, who writes the blog Pharyngula, has referred to me as a ‘clueless gobshite’. And if I had a dollar for everyone who has made a pun out of my last name, I would be a very rich man. Because I will not toe the line absolutely or bow down in praise of Dawkins and company, because I laugh at their pretensions and positions, I am anathema maranatha....

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2014, 09:12:37 pm »
Remembering Albert Camus and Longing for the Old Atheism

Quote
To begin with, Camus was humble about his unbelief, recalling Benjamin Constant's caution that there is something "worn out" about being too intensely against religion. Camus freely admitted that he didn't believe in God, but he chose to speak "in the name of an ignorance that tries to negate nothing." In other words, his own lack of faith did not presume that others must be wrong about theirs -- certainly not in a way that he could prove with certainty. For this reason, he resisted "atheism," adopting instead the mantle of the "unbeliever" (incroyant)

One need not be religious, nevertheless, to appreciate how religion contributed constructively to civilization and contemporary life. As a young university student in French-Algeria, Camus completed a thesis exploring the relationship between Neo-Platonic and Christian metaphysics. A central figure in this study was St. Augustine whom, as a fellow Algerian, Camus held a great affinity. According to biographer Herbert Lottman, St. Augustine was, for Camus, "the 'bishop' of North African writers, whether believers or non-believers. Camus saw in this saint the artist with all the strengths and weaknesses of the 'African' Camus felt himself to be." Camus was especially taken by Augustine's searching inquiry into the problem of evil. Contrary to new atheists like Hitchens -- who suggests that religion is the carrier of plague -- Camus recognized that evil is a human problem. As Dr. Rieux remarked in Camus's superb novel The Plague, "each of us has the plague within him; no one, no one on earth is free from it." Camus, like Dr. Rieux, shared the same questions religious believers ask; he just couldn't accept their answers -- or their hope. He found consolation not in the faith of Job or the salvation of Christ but in Sisyphus: the prospect that, through rebellion and endurance, Sisyphus could be happy.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2014, 08:53:08 pm »
Retrospective by Gary Wolf on his refusal to join up with the New Atheists:

The Church of the Non-Believers

Quote
Prophecy, I've come to realize, is a complex meme. When prophets provoke real trouble, bring confusion to society by sowing reverberant doubts, spark an active, opposing consensus everywhere – that is the sign they've hit a nerve. But what happens when they don't hit a nerve? There are plenty of would-be prophets in the world, vainly peddling their provocative claims. Most of them just end up lecturing to undergraduates, or leading little Christian sects, or getting into Wikipedia edit wars, or boring their friends. An unsuccessful prophet is not a martyr, but a sort of clown.

Where does this leave us, we who have been called upon to join this uncompromising war against faith? What shall we do, we potential enlistees? Myself, I've decided to refuse the call. The irony of the New Atheism – this prophetic attack on prophecy, this extremism in opposition to extremism – is too much for me.

The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But, so far, their provocation has failed to take hold. Given all the religious trauma in the world, I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn't necessarily mean we've lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong.