The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics

Animavore · #1 by **Animavore** » Jan 27, 2012 12:12 pm

Jonathan Haidt has a new book coming up soon called The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics, which promises to be...

A groundbreaking investigation into the origins of morality, which turns out to be the basis for religion and politics. The book is timely (explaining the American culture wars and refuting the "New Atheists"), scholarly (integrating insights from many fields) and great fun to read (like Haidt's last book, The Happiness Hypothesis).

http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Di ... nskepti-20

It has some great reviews from customers on the Amazon Vine Program, by which their most trusted reviewers get books early.
http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Di ... nskepti-20

As well as a load of reviews from scientists.
http://www.righteousmind.com/
The introduction from the book is at the bottom of the above link.

Personally I loved his previous book The Happiness Hypothesis. This one promises to be better.
It also makes the bold claim of 'refuting' the 'New Atheists'. Though if this quote from a review is anything to go by....

For the political discussion alone, I recommend this book. However, I must also briefly touch on the 'religion' part of the subtitle. In a central chapter on religion, Haidt takes on the thinkers he calls "The New Atheists": Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett. To Haidt, the New Atheists don't understand the Hive Switch mechanism which can be activated by any group activity from church, to raves to a good play. It can even be activated in isolation in the cathedral of nature, as with the Emersonian Transcendentalists. He cites studies that show churchgoers -- while no more generous than non-churchgoers in some psychology studies -- when looked at as a larger community are much more generous within their own community. Religion also yields dividends in trust-based games. (His primary example is the Orthodox Jewish diamond syndicate.) To me, its a bit of a strawman argument to say that religion is beneficial in many aspects. None of the New Atheists dispute this. Haidt fails to address their concern that religion is broadly polarizing *between cultures*.

...I don't hold much hope of that. I agree that this is definately a straw-man. I'll have to wait and see what he says myself.

Anyone else looking forward to this?
Anyone got any views they'd like to share?

cavarka9 · #2 by **cavarka9** » Jan 27, 2012 1:03 pm

well I agree with dan dennett,
we need to prune religions and we need to take the good and eliminate the bad.

I dont agree with the idea of atheist temple, but I will be watching and hoping on some studies of them, we need to have human groups to come and meet at a place where we actually practice ethics and helping people. Surely morality too is about practice, what is not?

Paul Almond · #3 by **Paul Almond** » Jan 27, 2012 1:16 pm

The only really important way of refuting new atheists would be to show that a god exists. Has he done this?

Zwaarddijk · #4 by **Zwaarddijk** » Jan 27, 2012 1:24 pm

Paul Almond wrote:The only really important way of refuting new atheists would be to show that a god exists. Has he done this?

The non-existence of God isn't the only position that unites what normally is referred to as the new atheists, though. A way of relating to this non-existence is also a position they hold (viz. reacting to the non-existence by working for the abolishment of organizations with historical roots in the mistaken notion of his existence as well as organizations that teach his existence), and refuting that position is enough to refute them.

Animavore · #5 by **Animavore** » Jan 27, 2012 2:19 pm

Paul Almond wrote:The only really important way of refuting new atheists would be to show that a god exists. Has he done this?

He's an atheist himself. SoI doubt it.

vera · #6 by **vera** » Apr 21, 2012 7:33 am

People split into capitalists and socialists. No book needed.

chairman bill · #7 by **chairman bill** » Apr 21, 2012 11:22 am

Zwaarddijk wrote:The non-existence of God isn't the only position that unites what normally is referred to as the new atheists, though. A way of relating to this non-existence is also a position they hold (viz. reacting to the non-existence by working for the abolishment of organizations with historical roots ...

Where is the evidence of so-called 'New Atheists' working for the abolition of such organisations?

Zwaarddijk · #8 by **Zwaarddijk** » Apr 21, 2012 7:34 pm

chairman bill wrote:
Zwaarddijk wrote:The non-existence of God isn't the only position that unites what normally is referred to as the new atheists, though. A way of relating to this non-existence is also a position they hold (viz. reacting to the non-existence by working for the abolishment of organizations with historical roots ...

Where is the evidence of so-called 'New Atheists' working for the abolition of such organisations?

It's rather what's generally used by many observers as a defining trait of New Atheists. Just read books by people claimed to be exemplars of New Atheism, and it's a trait shared by pretty much all of them.

chairman bill · #9 by **chairman bill** » Apr 21, 2012 9:23 pm

Well I've read Dawkins, Dennet & Hitchens, and a little of Sam Harris' stuff. Given that they're the Four Horsemen of New Atheism, I'd expect to read their calls for abolition of religious organisations. I haven't come across it. Maybe you could point me in the right direction.

vera · **#10** by **vera** » Apr 22, 2012 11:33 am

chairman bill wrote:Well I've read Dawkins, Dennet & Hitchens, and a little of Sam Harris' stuff. Given that they're the Four Horsemen of New Atheism, I'd expect to read their calls for abolition of religious organisations. I haven't come across it. Maybe you could point me in the right direction.

and what do they say? can you make a little compendium for me? pleaseeeee. :ask:

chairman bill · **#11** by **chairman bill** » Apr 22, 2012 11:46 am

You're not asking for much, are you? :smile:

Asking that religion no longer gets a free-pass & is treated in the same way as those who claim belief in alien abductions, that religions are kept out of education & health care services, have no more influence on government than any other group of electors, and so on, is essentially what the New Atheists are calling for. But so far as I can see, none are calling for the abolition of religious organisations such as churches.