New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

...another Salon article bashing Atheism

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#1  Postby Aca » May 16, 2015 4:01 pm

What's up with Salon articles about atheism?

here is yet another guy with tired old arguments....


New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance: The Glaring Intellectual Laziness of Bill Maher & Richard Dawkins

For all their eloquence, New Atheists show little interest in understanding how believers really think or feel.


Atheism has a storied history in the West. From the irreverent Voltaire to the iconoclastic Nietzsche, the godless have always had a voice. But the New Atheists are different. Religion, they argue, isn’t just wrong; it’s positively corrosive. If you’ve heard people like Bill Maher or Lawrence Krauss speak in recent years, you’re familiar with this approach.

New Atheism emerged in 2004 as a kind of literary and social movement. Led by such luminaries as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, New Atheism became part of the zeitgeist, a well-timed reaction against religious fundamentalism. The New Atheists are notoriously pugilistic. In print or on stage, they never run from a fight. Whatever you think of their tactics, they’ve succeeded at putting fanatics and moralizers on the defensive – and that’s a good thing.

But there’s something missing in their critiques, something fundamental. For all their eloquence, their arguments are often banal. Regrettably, they’ve shown little interest in understanding the religious compulsion. They talk incessantly about the untruth of religion because they assume truth is what matters most to religious people. And perhaps it does for many, but certainly not all – at least not in the conventional sense of that term. Religious convictions, in many cases, are held not because they’re true but because they’re meaningful, because they’re personally transformative. New Atheists are blind to this brand of belief.


continues http://www.salon.com/2015/05/09/new_ath ... d_dawkins/


After being called out by Jerry Coyne here, replied with this

Merry go around....

Image
on an island marooned in the Middle Ages
User avatar
Aca
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 3454
Age: 48
Male

Country: Malta
Malta (mt)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#2  Postby Matthew Shute » May 16, 2015 4:32 pm

He mentions Voltaire and Nietzsche, then goes on to say that it's new to point out how religion can be positively corrosive. Yeah. It's not like Nietzsche had anything to say about how much a corrupting influence Christianity can be.
:roll:

And Voltaire? Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities...?
"Change will preserve us. It is the lifeblood of the Isles. It will move mountains! It will mount movements!" - Sheogorath
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 3676
Age: 45

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#3  Postby scott1328 » May 16, 2015 5:48 pm

Atheists have been decrying the depredations of religion since long before Christians started their reign of terror

"Too often in time past, religion has brought forth criminal and shameful actions. ...How many evils has religion caused!"

"The nature of the universe has by no means been made through divine power, seeing how great are the faults that mar it."

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher."

"Fear was the first thing on earth to make gods."

"Not they who reject gods are profane, but those who accept them."

"We, peopling the void air, make gods to whom we impute the ills we ought to bear."

"There is no murky pit of hell awaiting anyone. ...Mind cannot arise alone without body, or apart from sinews and blood. ...You must admit, therefore, that when the body has perished, there is an end also of the spirit diffused through it. It is surely crazy to couple a mortal object with an eternal and suppose that they can work in harmony and mutually interact."


Roman poet Lucretius 9?- 55? BCE
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8849
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#4  Postby Blackadder » May 16, 2015 6:10 pm

Illing is another pompous prick talking down to the religious like they are all simpletons and berating atheists who want to actually engage the religious and openly challenge their beliefs. Coyne nails it, as usual.
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3845
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#5  Postby Animavore » May 16, 2015 6:14 pm

The part that really annoys me with articles like this is the lack of understanding from the author that most atheists were theists when they began.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 45107
Age: 45
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#6  Postby Onyx8 » May 16, 2015 11:25 pm

Some wannabe managed to get the grown-ups to notice him. Ah well.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 67
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#7  Postby laklak » May 17, 2015 12:01 am

When in doubt, kill the messenger.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 70
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#8  Postby proudfootz » May 17, 2015 12:47 am

What? Nothing about theism's fatal arrogance?

I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11041

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#9  Postby Calilasseia » May 17, 2015 1:34 am

So Salon needs more click bait?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22628
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#10  Postby Matthew Shute » May 17, 2015 7:38 pm

Give it a few hundred years, and,

"New Atheism has a storied history in the West. From the irreverent Dawkins to the iconoclastic Hitchens, the godless of the internet age have long had a voice. A calm, thoughtful voice of understanding, unused to saying boo to a goose. In no way has it ever been a shrill or strident voice, and never has it lacked... nuance. The New New Atheists are different. Religion, they argue, isn't just wrong; it also isn't necessarily the best thing since sliced bread or Redtube..."
"Change will preserve us. It is the lifeblood of the Isles. It will move mountains! It will mount movements!" - Sheogorath
User avatar
Matthew Shute
 
Name: Matthew Shute
Posts: 3676
Age: 45

Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#11  Postby Oldskeptic » May 18, 2015 7:09 am

If Illing really wanted to understand why people insist on believing absurdities and are so heavily invested in their religions he should have gone into psychology instead of political science.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#12  Postby Darwinsbulldog » May 18, 2015 7:12 am

It was a most lack-lustre troll IMHO.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 69

Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#13  Postby Moonwatcher » Jun 23, 2015 3:23 am

I understand that there are reasons to believe in a religion that have nothing to do with whether it is true. I would even go as far as to say that almost all of the reasons have nothing to do with whether it is true. There is a need to believe it is true because, for most people, it would be worthless to them if they did not believe it was literally true.

It's essentially the old argument that, even if we know it's not true, maybe we should just shut up because most people need to believe it is true. But some of that is because we are conditioned to have that need. Having come out of a religious background myself, there was a "need" but it is not insurmountable. It's like saying drug addiction is a good thing because withdrawal will be difficult as will be the realization that there is a life and happiness without the drugs.

I am not unmindful of the fact that there are people who cannot cope or will not successfully do so and "losing their religion" will be a pit they will never crawl out of. I grant that we need more people who understand the why of people's belief in things that are not true.
We're holograms projected by a scientist riding on the back of an elephant in a garden imagined by a goose in a snow globe on the mantel of a fireplace imagined in a book in the dreams of a child sleeping in his mother's lap.
User avatar
Moonwatcher
 
Posts: 2018
Age: 66
Male

Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#14  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jun 23, 2015 3:43 am

Religions are a lot like turds-as an adult one must refrain, wherever possible, from doing them in the public square. It is simply the polite thing to do. Most religionists do not hold themselves in check, but proudly flaunt their atavistic turds in public. Like children. True, loosening one's religious bowels in public has traditionally not been regarded as bad manners, but it is. History shows that. Strict secularism, which protects the right to private belief, but forbids the interference of religion in the public square, has not really caught on as a default principle in society. So the public world has to suffer from religious dysentery.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 69

Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#15  Postby Rumraket » Jun 26, 2015 8:56 am

If the New Atheism had "fatal" flaws, we should be seeing atheism decline, not increase.

We see it increase, so whatever New Atheists are doing they're doing it right.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#16  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Jun 26, 2015 9:03 am

Not really, considering a lot of atheists desperately want to distance themselves from those referred to as "New Atheists".

Being an atheist doesn't mean I support Bill Maher's dumb ass or that I'm not put off horribly by it.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13595
Age: 35
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#17  Postby THWOTH » Jun 26, 2015 9:36 am

salon.com wrote:...But the New Atheists are different. Religion, they argue, isn’t just wrong; it’s positively corrosive.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/09/new_ath ... d_dawkins/

What's wrong with expressing this opinion exactly?

salon.com wrote:... Religious convictions, in many cases, are held not because they’re true but because they’re meaningful, because they’re personally transformative. New Atheists are blind to this brand of belief.

No they're not. In fact many 'new atheists' have said that while the religious undoubtedly find meaning in their faith religion is still socially corrosive.

salon.com wrote:It’s perfectly rational to reject faith as a matter of principle. Many people (myself included) find no practical advantage in believing things without evidence. But what about those who do? If a belief is held because of its effects, not its truth content, why should its falsity matter to the believer?

Because those 'effects' are socially corrosive and are held without reference to evidence. One has to wonder what this supposed 'transformative' kind of religiosity has, or is, actually transforming people into?

salon.com wrote:God is an existential impulse, a transcendent idea with no referent in reality. This conception of God is untouched – and untouchable – by positivist science; asking if God is true in this sense is like asking how much the number 12 weighs – it’s nonsensical.

OK, we get it. Some religious people think it's, like, really nice, and good, and meaningful, and everything, and therefore untouchable, but why does this mean we shouldn't express the opinion that it's socially corrosive?

salon.com wrote:Dostoevsky [...] considered God a motive force, not an empirical claim about reality or history. For his part, God was a bridge to self-transcendence, a way of linking the individual to a tradition and a community. The truth of Christ was therefore less important than the living faith made possible by belief in Christ.

Fair enough, but when your belief in God as a 'motive force' or a 'bridge to self-transcendence' (whatever that is!?) is declared to grant you a right tax breaks, to a special say or sway, or to tell me that I have to wear a special hat on a Friday, or mutilate the genitals of my child, or fight someone, or cannot even criticise your faith tradition unless you first authorise my understanding and opinion, then then it's simply socially corrosive.

Basically, the whole article presumes that religiosity is automatically better than non-religiosity, and if only the so-called 'New Atheists' understood this then everything would be peachy.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 38740
Age: 59

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#18  Postby Rumraket » Jun 26, 2015 10:41 am

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Not really, considering a lot of atheists desperately want to distance themselves from those referred to as "New Atheists".

Being an atheist doesn't mean I support Bill Maher's dumb ass or that I'm not put off horribly by it.

Yeah really, there's more than one than one new atheist. Conflating a category with an individual, or a small handful of them is the same mistake as thinking new atheism has some sort of fatal arrogance.

There isn't going to be some individual with whom you can't find a point of disagreement. Bill Maher isn't new atheism any more than PZ Myers, Anthony Grayling, Dan Dennett, Lawrence Krauss, Jerry Coyne or Richard Dawkins is. I can find some point of disagreement with all of them, but it's a different one for each.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#19  Postby THWOTH » Jun 26, 2015 10:51 am

The so-called 'new atheists' are just what they're calling 'atheists who don't keep quiet about it' these days. If people want to retain the right to talk about their religious beliefs and practices they just have to put up with other people talking about how they might not share those beliefs and why. I mean, what's the alternative?
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 38740
Age: 59

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance

#20  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Jun 26, 2015 10:52 am

I'd gladly further distance myself from every one of them if people were mistakenly associating me with them. I don't want to be associated with the notion of "New Atheism" or any of the people referred to as "New Atheists". I don't have anything in common with them aside from being an atheist. They have no presence in my life.

Just because people are atheists doesn't mean they're influenced by or supportive of anyone labeled "New Atheist". It's entirely possible, aside from the atheism bit, there is nothing in common.

You can't attribute an upsurge in people identifying as atheist to "New Atheism". The group of people labelled "New Atheists" may well be driving more people away from identifying as atheists (goodness knows I wish the label didn't apply much of the time) than they're bringing in. Attributing the fact atheism isn't as bad a word as it used to be in North America is by no means as indication Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne have done anything right.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13595
Age: 35
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest