The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[InfiniteNow]

What a thought provoking response, Modest. That is very interesting, and I will need to consider it more deeply.

 

In the meantime, since I was simply trying to represent Sam Harris' point, I think it may be better to let him do so for himself. Enjoy. :QuestionM

 

 

 

Sam Harris: The Problem with Atheism - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

 

"My concern with the use of the term "atheism" is both philosophical and strategic. I'm speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn't even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that "atheist" is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people "non-astrologers." All we need are words like "reason" and "evidence" and "common sense" and "bullshit" to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion."

 

<...>

 

"Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as "non-racism" is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

 

Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of "atheist," it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I'm not saying that meetings like this aren't important. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.

 

While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads, this whole notion of the "new atheists" or "militant atheists" has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm's length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them." <

more at link

>

 

 

 

 

Those comments were taken from a talk, the video of which is available online in its entirety at the following:

 

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2089733934372500371&hl=en

 

 

 

This is also a nice short (~3m) summary:

 

 

YouTube - Sam Harris: Is Atheism Dogmatic? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSbdsvCrq2A

[Southtown]

You miss the point. You shouldn't have to stop mid-sentence to clarify that. Consider a protestant talking to a catholic - they don't have to stop and explain to each other the difference between their two faiths.

Maybe they should. Maybe that's the whole damn problem, ya think?

[Southtown]

Firstly, if you examine this sentence very, very carefully - you'll find irony that warrants a giggle.

Ya ok thanks.

 

It's not the "rare few" Christians you may think:

 

Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

Exactly my point. But you wouldn't know it by reading these forums, yet these are purportedly the more educated point of views. Why complain in one hand about a label like atheist not being diverse enough to satisfy all who qualify, then in the other hand toss around careless derogatory sentences regarding religion? I don't sympathize. Please forgive me.

[Overdog]

...

In the meantime, since I was simply trying to represent Sam Harris' point, I think it may be better to let him do so for himself. Enjoy. :QuestionM

 

Sam Harris: The Problem with Atheism - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

 

Thanks for posting this. I have been uncomfortable with the word too, but Harris does an excellent job of explaining it and helping me see some of the reasons for my sense of discomfort with the word "Atheist". More from the above link...

 

...rather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general. There is no religion in general.

 

...the concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among religions...

 

...Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We’ve all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves “atheists. Arguments like: atheists can’t prove that God doesn’t exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweek—a reasonable man like himself “doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.

 

Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell’s teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone. The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term “atheism.”

 

This makes my earlier complaint about "ism" being tacked on to the word seem naive.

 

Good post, INow.

[modest]

You miss the point. You shouldn't have to stop mid-sentence to clarify that. Consider a protestant talking to a catholic - they don't have to stop and explain to each other the difference between their two faiths.

Maybe they should. Maybe that's the whole damn problem, ya think?

 

Do you mean there would be less problems if catholics and protestants explained their differences rather than taking the north-of-Ireland kind of approach? I honestly don't know if that's what you're saying or not.

 

It's not the "rare few" Christians you may think:

 

Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

Exactly my point. But you wouldn't know it by reading these forums, yet these are purportedly the more educated point of views.

 

Well, yeah, I mean... sure. Ok. Why not? :QuestionM

 

From the standpoint of a theist, I'm sure a forum like this appears to label anyone who believes in God as a fundamentalist Christian. I can't really speak to that - it's not my thinking.

 

Why complain in one hand about a label like atheist not being diverse enough to satisfy all who qualify,

 

Too diverse is what I was saying. Much like "Christian" is too diverse. I think a few layers down, you'll find an agreement amongst us.

 

then in the other hand toss around careless derogatory sentences regarding religion?

 

Yes. You make a very good and intelligent point. I think, in point of fact, I agree (to a degree).

 

I don't sympathize. Please forgive me.

 

Indeed, but let's recognize that not every atheist is attacking your religion. You need not apologize when one does. Nor is every keeper of religion attacking my atheism. There are extremists on both sides. But, more importantly, there are non-extremists on both sides. There are shades of gray and a broad array of intentions. I think that's what I was saying earlier. I think we agree.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

Indeed, but let's recognize that not every atheist is attacking your religion. You need not apologize when one does. Nor is every keeper of religion attacking my atheism. There are extremists on both sides. But, more importantly, there are non-extremists on both sides. There are shades of gray and a broad array of intentions.

 

One of the challenges, however, is that the moderates provide a source of cover for the extremists. When those who are against religion make claims, they often reach for the most fundamendalist nutjob examples to make their points. In turn, the religious moderates respond something like, "Well, that's not MY version of religionX," or, "That's not the type of god that I believe in."

 

They then admonish you for using extreme examples.

 

 

Worse yet, it tends to be the non-religious and the "weak" atheists who attack arguments counter to religion most ferociously. Somehow religion has managed to co-opt non-believers to be offended on their behalf. It's quite twisted. :confused:

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks for posting this. I have been uncomfortable with the word too, but Harris does an excellent job of explaining it and helping me see some of the reasons for my sense of discomfort with the word "Atheist".

 

It was very well done, I agree. He goes on to make a pretty powerful point about it. He suggests that the use of the term itself presents a sort of "ceiling" to the potential success of the movement. He uses examples (as you mentioned) like race.

 

It didn't take a group of people saying, "Hey, we're non-racists" to change the sentiment in the world. What it really took was the broad acceptance of the fact that racism is wrong. Same for Thor and Zeus. They didn't die out because a large group of people banded together to say, "We're A-Thorians" or "We're A-Zeusists..." All it took was people realizing how silly and unecessary these mythological beliefs were, how unfounded they are in reality, and how the control they had over the minds of the populace needed to be severed.

 

Same with religion and belief in god today. It's not a group of people with a common label who are going to break us from this proverbial spell. It's the realization that these things are counter to rational thought and common sense.

 

I really do find it a powerful point. The label "atheist" just pigeon holes a huge group who find the evidence available for belief in god insufficient, so if someone comes up to you and says, "I'm a Christian, what are you?" ... you should try to avoid saying, "I'm an atheist," since even though it's easy and close to the truth, the other person will likely think something like, "Oh, I know his type... he just hasn't found god yet..." and the conversation just stops right there.

 

What we need is for such conversations to continue, and for the valid criticisms and challenges we have of the religious/god position to be addressed, not dismissed.

 

 

 

If you haven't already, the talk is pretty great (he even goes on to talk about spirituality, and challenges the "atheist" aversion to human spiritual experience). If you click on the title link in the embedded video below and open it in its own window, you can view it as full (or just larger) screen. You should check it out if you have a little while to sit and watch. :confused:

 

 

Sam Harris at AAI 07 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2089733934372500371&hl=en

[modest]

One of the challenges, however, is that the moderates provide a source of cover for the extremists. When those who are against religion make claims, they often reach for the most fundamendalist nutjob examples to make their points.

 

Well, that’s called strawmanning and they really shouldn’t do that - or, at least, it’s not the best argument tactic for them to take. If their argument is against fundamentalist nutjobs then such examples are well made. If, however, their argument is against all of religion then such examples are perhaps a bit misplaced.

 

In turn, the religious moderates respond something like, "Well, that's not MY version of religionX," or, "That's not the type of god that I believe in."

 

As well they should.

 

They then admonish you for using extreme examples.

 

Hey, Stalin is no example of my atheism - I can relate.

 

Worse yet, it tends to be the non-religious and the "weak" atheists who attack arguments counter to religion most ferociously. Somehow religion has managed to co-opt non-believers to be offended on their behalf. It's quite twisted. :confused:

 

There’s nothing twisted about allowing for beliefs that are different and even counter to your own. And, allowing for such beliefs is NOT a roadblock to arguing against them. I personally (and nearly accidentally) converted two Christians to agnosticism my freshman year of college while, at the same time, respecting their beliefs and supporting their right to believe whatever they want. Who was being co-opted there?

 

This brings up a memory and maybe a good point/question: when a catholic insists that the virgin Mary was a virgin, how do you respond? Do you show them the scripture declaring Mary was not a virgin, or do you declare the Catholic a dumb *** and walk away? Despite Hitchens' declaration that such beliefs don't warrant an argument and just need underlined - in fact, it is most effective to respect such a belief and the person who believes it and make an argument from their footing. Such is my experience which is not faint, meager, or co-opted.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

in fact, it is most effective to respect such a belief and the person who believes it and make an argument from their footing.

I completely recognize the point you are trying to make, but I'll just say I don't have to respect their belief at all, and, in fact, I don't. Just as if someone were to approach me and share their belief that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns, I wouldn't have to respect that belief to point out how silly and false it truly is.

 

To be clear, I respect their "right" to believe whatever they want, but I find most of the beliefs themselves childish and archaic.

 

Now, if I were arguing that I wanted to "convert" people away from their religion, then I'd have to agree with you that it's better to see things from their side and work with them to find common ground. ... but that's not quite what I'm doing. I'm trying to shed light on the ridiculousness of the beliefs themselves in hopes that these people will "convert" themselves.

 

It's a subtle difference, I concede, but an important one. The end goal is the same, but the scope of the tactic I'm using is orders of magnitude more powerful than trying to "convert" people one by one.

 

 

Treat the source, not the symptom. :confused:

 

 

EDIT: Regardless, though... too many of these people are "immune" to logic and reason, so for me it's really more a matter of getting the "independent" voters and the "undecideds" more than changing those who have already selected a "party."

[Michaelangelica]

Is there a word, other than atheist, that translates to "Who cares?"

 

I don't think you can use the word "cult" about science.

It is a methodology, not a club people belong to.

 

Then, it would be comforting to believe in an afterlife.

Though it does surprise me how many people in religious cults are very frightened of death.

[InfiniteNow]

Is there a word, other than atheist, that translates to "Who cares?"

 

I propose...

 

Apathist

. :)

 

 

:confused:

[modest]

I completely recognize the point you are trying to make, but I'll just say I don't have to respect their belief at all, and, in fact, I don't.

 

No, I didn't say you had to respect their beliefs. I actually think it's kind of natural that you don't. And, it's just as natural for 'them' to disrespect your beliefs. I'm saying (which you disagree with below) that mutual disrespect is not a beneficial strategy for changing people’s minds about something - especially religion. As a strategy (or as you say: "tactic") it is antithetical to the goal - assuming the goal is to promote atheism over theism.

 

Just as if someone were to approach me and share their belief that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns, I wouldn't have to respect that belief to point out how silly and false it truly is.

 

It is not beneficial to the atheist cause to tell 92% of your countrymen and women that they believe in unicorn farts and leprechaun erections. You may think it's terribly clever - but, I assure you it pisses them off and makes them hate everything you stand for.

 

Now, if I were arguing that I wanted to "convert" people away from their religion, then I'd have to agree with you that it's better to see things from their side and work with them to find common ground.

 

Agreed

 

... but that's not quite what I'm doing.

 

I think the debate and attitude that helps an individual come to terms with reason over superstition should be no different from the debate and attitude that does the same for more than one individual. Similarly, the imperious attitude that's ineffective on the individual level surely would be just as fruitless and vain with the masses, and even more so because:

 

When you antagonize a group of people there's a circle-the-wagons response.

 

I'm trying to shed light on the ridiculousness of the beliefs themselves in hopes that these people will "convert" themselves.

 

Insulting and disrespecting religion only strengthens it. Like Obi-Wan, if you strike it down, it only gets stronger.

 

Going to war with religion bolsters and consolidates the faith and pushes the faithful toward fundamentalism. Consider the example of the Mormon church (LDS church). 150 years ago we did our best to destroy it and look what happened. There is a whole history from New York to Utah of persecution resulting in more and more followers with more and more fundamentalist beliefs. I won't get into it all, but notable is the 1838 executive order issued by the governor of Missouri to “exterminate or drive off” the Mormon population. Their founder Joseph Smith was mobbed several times - one time tarred and feathered and another time shot to death. There’s a direct cause and effect there that actually built Mormonism. The Romans did the same - exterminate, torture, burn, crucify, and otherwise oppress the Christian population. A hundred years later the empire was fully Christian.

 

Extremist anti-theists today may think they can shock religious sensibility into seeing the truth with some aggressive and antagonistic language, but that's not the effect it has. It's a mild version of the attacks various religions have undergone for thousands of years.

 

And, by the way, theists are not stupid - they know this. The Falwells and Robertsons out there can’t wait for the next religion-bashing book to come out or the next lawsuit to ban prayer in school. It’s a tool for them to push their followers towards fundamentalism and it works very well.

 

History demonstrates the problem with the approach and, really, it's common sense. Engaging in a pissing contest doesn’t bring people to your side.

 

It's a subtle difference, I concede, but an important one. The end goal is the same, but the scope of the tactic I'm using is orders of magnitude more powerful than trying to "convert" people one by one.

 

“Orders of magnitude more powerful” :evil: If you honestly believe that comparing God to a unicorn or a leprechaun’s erection is converting masses of the silent majority to atheism then there’s probably nothing I can say to change your thinking. I say this as a fellow atheist who shares your desire to see society benefit from people's choice to throw off superstition... I believe your tactics hurt atheism. :hihi:

 

~modest

[Michaelangelica]

 

I propose...

 

Apathist

. :hihi:

 

 

:evil:

No

Sounds like abee keeeper

[InfiniteNow]

No

Sounds like abee keeeper

 

I'm not sure I follow. I presume there's a similar word to describe those who tend to bees?

 

 

Either way, it looks like someone beat me to it (or, judging from the date on the entry, took my idea!): :D

 

apathist - Wiktionary

One who has no feeling towards anything, or more specifically religion.

[paigetheoracle]

I'm not sure I follow. I presume there's a similar word to describe those who tend to bees?

 

 

Either way, it looks like someone beat me to it (or, judging from the date on the entry, took my idea!): :)

 

apathist - Wiktionary

One who has no feeling towards anything, or more specifically religion.

 

A beekeeper is an apiarist and no, I'm not monkeying around on this, so Bee-hive yourself or I'll find another buzz word to annoy you with! ('Hi Honey, I'm home!'):)

[Turtle]

Excellent thread!

 

The base argument as I understand it is that atheists, having no religion to find comfort in, turn to materialism in the form of technology and medicine in order to find relief from the hardships of life.

 

Maybe so. The problem, as I see it, and which has been touched upon before here at Hypo, is that atheists are simply not a "group" of people. Atheists are not amoral people, either. They either have a reason for their atheism (often making them agnosticists), or they are, like the OP (and myself), born and raised outside of religion and thus have no faith.

 

Therefore, atheists can't be blamed as a group. I am not aware of a single organisation that uses atheism as grounds for, say, humanitarian causes. Rather, you have non-religious groups doing this (often state funded or private foundations like the Red Cross).

 

The times they are a-changing. :shrug:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html?_r=1&em

...Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.

 

Nationally, the “nones” in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990. In South Carolina, they more than tripled, to 10 percent from 3 percent. Not all the “nones” are necessarily committed atheists or agnostics, but they make up a pool of potential supporters.

...

At the University of South Carolina, in Columbia, 19 students showed up for a recent evening meeting of the “Pastafarians,” named for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster — a popular spoof on religion dreamed up by an opponent of intelligent design, the idea that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that a higher intelligence designed them.

 

Andrew Cederdahl, the group’s co-founder, asked for volunteers for the local food bank and for a coming debate with a nearby Christian college.

[Michaelangelica]

LOL I am sure the is areal word like apathist but that is just feeling (?). I still find myself drawn back to this silly debate. Religion seems to touch people at a very emotional level. Something that the born again crooks like Popof (sp?) exploit.

 

Originally Posted by Tormod View Post

Excellent thread!

 

The base argument as I understand it is that atheists, having no religion to find comfort in, turn to materialism in the form of technology and medicine in order to find relief from the hardships of life.

If so, I think this proposal needs to be proven first

I think it is a holy bucket that does not hold water

There are an amazing number of Christians who are high-powered eminent scientists and doctors.

Perhaps they don't believe that this god, after the big bang and extremely clever design of quantum (A++ well done, see me), then sat down to write the "absolute truth" of the collection of stories, poems & quasi-religious-historical-myths & gobbledegook called 'bible'; but still they would consider themselves Christians.

Perhaps starting with Jesus and the New Testament.

 

To be religions or scientific in your thinking you only need to start with one assumption. For many, neither need to be in conflict.

 

Occasionally you do find scientists with minds as closed as fundamentalists. Sometimes their is scientific orthodoxy, that many have built reputations on, and don't want the boat rocked.

Scientists are also a part of their society-in-time too. It took psychotherapists some time to decide homosexuality was not a disease. (Despite the fact that the usual % of them were homosexual too).

I suspect that change is a little easier with scientists once the weight of evidence becomes impossible to deny. Evidence does not move a committed Christian. It can't, because once they have made the fist assumption everything else that follows is almost logical.

 

It would also be interesting to do a survey among the committed religious (High C of E nuns etc & see who actually believe in god, & in what way). Like Buddhism, Christianity I suspect, is a 'moveable feast' for many . They take from it what they want, and leave the rest.

I was immensely cheered and surprised by the cleaners, after the recent all-night vigil of World Youth Day/week with the Pope in Sydney last year. The cleaners complained about all the masses of used condoms they had to dispose of. My scientific prediction of the power of youth hormones was vindicated. My fear of religious orthodoxy was not.