Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

One of my big gripes with the new brand of atheism championed by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens is that they don't offer an alternative. They seem to simply say, "don't believe in God, it's dumb." Even though I agree to a certain extent, you can't just ask people to abandon a major part of their life and not offer anything to fill it with. And, unfortunately, I don't think science will fill the void.

Anyway, I found an interesting quote for those of you who happen to be both ACists and "militant atheists". It may make you reconsider how you approach religious conversations:

[ QUOTE ]
"An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."

--Ludwig von Mises


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
One of my big gripes with the new brand of atheism championed by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens is that they don't offer an alternative. They seem to simply say, "don't believe in God, it's dumb."

[/ QUOTE ]

The alternative is err... God.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of my big gripes with the new brand of atheism championed by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens is that they don't offer an alternative. They seem to simply say, "don't believe in God, it's dumb."

[/ QUOTE ]

The alternative is err... God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Objectivism?

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of my big gripes with the new brand of atheism championed by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens is that they don't offer an alternative. They seem to simply say, "don't believe in God, it's dumb."

[/ QUOTE ]

The alternative is err... God.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's also the giant spaghetti monster!
Although I think Taraz means that Dawkins and co hate religion and are on a crusade to "unconvert" people

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Although I think Taraz means that Dawkins and co hate religion and are on a crusade to "unconvert" people

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they would claim 'educate"

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."

--Ludwig von Mises

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote sounds great, but I can't think of any reason to believe that it's true. Quite the opposite.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
One of my big gripes with the new brand of atheism championed by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens is that they don't offer an alternative. They seem to simply say, "don't believe in God, it's dumb." Even though I agree to a certain extent, you can't just ask people to abandon a major part of their life and not offer anything to fill it with. And, unfortunately, I don't think science will fill the void.

Anyway, I found an interesting quote for those of you who happen to be both ACists and "militant atheists". It may make you reconsider how you approach religious conversations:

[ QUOTE ]
"An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."

--Ludwig von Mises


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You list an alternative, science, and then abruptly dismiss it. Why? From the paperback edition of The God Delusion (link):

[ QUOTE ]
“What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to fill the need, or comfort the bereaved?”

What patronising condescension! “You and I are too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, Orwellian proles, Huxleian Deltas and Epsilons need religion.” In any case, the universe doesn’t owe us comfort, and the fact that a belief is comforting doesn’t make it true. The God Delusion doesn’t set out to be comforting, but at least it is not a placebo. I am pleased that the opening lines of my own Unweaving the Rainbow have been used to give solace at funerals.

When asked whether she believed in God, Golda Meir said: “I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God.” I recently heard a prize specimen of I’m-an-atheist-buttery quote this and then substitute his own version: “I believe in people, and people believe in God.” I too believe in people. I believe that, given proper encouragement to think, and given the best information available, people will courageously cast aside celestial comfort blankets and lead intellectually fulfilled, emotionally liberated lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

I sort of think that, just as AC isn't really a "positive claim" type of system, neither is atheism. The person can fill in the details however they want, they just aren't "allowed" to fill them in in false ways. Thus, they aren't allowed to initiate force and violent coercion, and they aren't allowed to posit an infinite array of identically unverifiable pseudo-solutions to their problems. Atheism isn't a belief system and ACism isn't a political system. Both are the logical implication of certain axioms: self-ownership for ACism and parsimony/rationalism for atheism.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."

--Ludwig von Mises

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote sounds great, but I can't think of any reason to believe that it's true. Quite the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find your position bizarre.

Regardless of how you personally feel about AC for example, do you think so many people around here would have converted if we did nothing but perpetually bitch about the state, and did not propose a positive alternative (i.e. social order based on peace, freedom, voluntary exchange, etc.)?

I think not.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."

--Ludwig von Mises

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote sounds great, but I can't think of any reason to believe that it's true. Quite the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find your position bizarre.

Regardless of how you personally feel about AC for example, do you think so many people around here would have converted if we did nothing but perpetually bitch about the state, and did not propose a positive alternative (i.e. social order based on peace, freedom, voluntary exchange, etc.)?

I think not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think a lot of the success your philosophy has had is due to its open, amorphous nature. It appeals to people with a very wide range of beliefs because it's compatible (at least it can be believed compatible) with all sorts of ways you'd like the world to be.

But I was thinking more broadly. Negative campaign ads work more than positive ones. Rebels are great at overthrowing governments, but terrible at running their own. Irony is more prevalent than sentimentality. I don't know why, but it's easier to convince people that X is bad than that Y is good.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]

Regardless of how you personally feel about AC for example, do you think so many people around here would have converted if we did nothing but perpetually bitch about the state, and did not propose a positive alternative (i.e. social order based on peace, freedom, voluntary exchange, etc.)?

I think not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Statists bitch about the state all the time, but still believe that it is a "necessary evil." Whether it is or not, nobody is going to change their view of it until a viable alternative is presented to fill it's place. While AC would literally fill it with "nothing," that space nonetheless is filled by the results of the absence of the state--supposedly freedom and peace--and THAT is what convinces statists to reconsider their stance.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
But I was thinking more broadly. Negative campaign ads work more than positive ones. Rebels are great at overthrowing governments, but terrible at running their own. Irony is more prevalent than sentimentality. I don't know why, but it's easier to convince people that X is bad than that Y is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ronald Reagan would disagree with you.
John Kerry shows that Reagan was right.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

While some of your examples are well taken, I don't think there's an underlying principle at work. Rebels always promise a better government than the last one. I'm not sure irony exceeds sentimentality; maybe among males, but probably not among females.

I don't think it is inherently easier to convince people that X is bad than that Y is good. I believe this will be the case for some people. Hell, perhaps entire cultures. But I don't think that it's true universally.

In any event, I don't think it's something we'd be able to come up with definitive arguments for either way.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

If it is true that it is easier to convince someone that Y is bad than that X is good, it is likely because it is easier to criticize a theory, institution, form of social organization etc. than it is to come up with an unobjectionable theory etc.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it is true that it is easier to convince someone that Y is bad than that X is good, it is likely because it is easier to criticize a theory, institution, form of social organization etc. than it is to come up with an unobjectionable theory etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is precisely the point. As professor falken said, "...then DON'T!"

STOP TRYING to come up with a one-size-fits all solution!

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it is true that it is easier to convince someone that Y is bad than that X is good, it is likely because it is easier to criticize a theory, institution, form of social organization etc. than it is to come up with an unobjectionable theory etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it's easier to convince them that Y is bad, but I think it's probably easier to influence their actions if they're convinced X is good.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

Replace religion with thought. This is pretty clear with everything Dawkins, et al., writes about. As for the role t hat religion plays in ceremonies, it would be horridly presumptuous for Dawkins or anyone else to come of with a uniform replacement. Replace it with whatever satisfies your mind. Hell, keep the priest and the church for your marriage if you want. It's all up to you. If you want to replace baptism with a horseback ride, fine. If you want to replace the priest/pastor at your wedding with a beatboxing MC, great.

I mean, we're not talking about ripping out your car engine here. This is more like quitting smoking. You don't actually "need" to replace tobacco with anything, because tobacco DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FOR YOU.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]

Objectivism?

[/ QUOTE ]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AYN RAND WAS NOT A PHILOSOPHER

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
"An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."

--Ludwig von Mises

[/ QUOTE ]

I quite agree. That's probably why this movie is so popular.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Replace religion with thought. This is pretty clear with everything Dawkins, et al., writes about. As for the role t hat religion plays in ceremonies, it would be horridly presumptuous for Dawkins or anyone else to come of with a uniform replacement. Replace it with whatever satisfies your mind. Hell, keep the priest and the church for your marriage if you want. It's all up to you. If you want to replace baptism with a horseback ride, fine. If you want to replace the priest/pastor at your wedding with a beatboxing MC, great.

I mean, we're not talking about ripping out your car engine here. This is more like quitting smoking. You don't actually "need" to replace tobacco with anything, because tobacco DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FOR YOU.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smoking is an excellent metaphor, thank you.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

If you need something to replace god I would suggest a teddy bear or maybe one of those pray-to-me Elmos.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Objectivism?

[/ QUOTE ]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AYN RAND WAS NOT A PHILOSOPHER

[/ QUOTE ]

Subjectivist?

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

Just open your eyes, accept reality as you see it and there cannot possibly be any benevolent and intelligent god, hence the concept has NO value at all.

A malevolent god or a dum god is not believable as far as its promises are concerned. Just forget it, and start living fully as a human being where every decision you make is a moral one, up to you, and worthy of reflection.

A benevolent, intelligent or conscious god is for people that cannot handle reality, and unfortunately it shows!

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

Hitchen explicitly provides an alternative to devotion to religion in his Love, Poverty and War book. He has said in many interviews it is his wish that people seek guidance and joy from literatur eand science with paticular regard to the age of enlightenment . e,g, "I find evolution/ sceince far more brilliant than any burning bush".

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just open your eyes, accept reality as you see it and there cannot possibly be any benevolent and intelligent government, hence the concept has NO value at all.

A malevolent government or a dum government is not believable as far as its promises are concerned. Just forget it, and start living fully as a human being where every decision you make is a moral one, up to you, and worthy of reflection.

A benevolent, intelligent or conscious government is for people that cannot handle reality, and unfortunately it shows!

[/ QUOTE ]


Walked right into that one.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

Government doesn't need to be benevolent to be functioning.
DUCY?

Economists today are well aware of public choice theory.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]


Subjectivist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ayn Rand is to philosophy as the Spice Girls are to music. Do you get it now?

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Subjectivist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ayn Rand is to philosophy as the Spice Girls are to music. Do you get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying Ayn Rand, if alive today, would starve herself, get bad implants, and marry a football star?

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

How do you characterize the "old brand" of atheism?

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
How do you characterize the "old brand" of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess when you would get burned at the stake for atheism, old atheism was not believing in god an not liking being told that you were a bad person for believing that. New atheism is telling other people they're bad people because they believe in god. The ironing is delicious.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Subjectivist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ayn Rand is to philosophy as the Spice Girls are to music. Do you get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying Ayn Rand, if alive today, would starve herself, get bad implants, and p-whip a football star and then cheat on him repeatedly ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you characterize the "old brand" of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess when you would get burned at the stake for atheism, old atheism was not believing in god an not liking being told that you were a bad person for believing that. New atheism is telling other people they're bad people because they believe in god. The ironing is delicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...you don't see a bit of difference between "burning at the stake" and "vociferously disagreeing"? There is no irony to be found here.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you characterize the "old brand" of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess when you would get burned at the stake for atheism, old atheism was not believing in god an not liking being told that you were a bad person for believing that. New atheism is telling other people they're bad people because they believe in god. The ironing is delicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks I'll be interested in what Taraz has to say though.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you characterize the "old brand" of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess when you would get burned at the stake for atheism, old atheism was not believing in god an not liking being told that you were a bad person for believing that. New atheism is telling other people they're bad people because they believe in god. The ironing is delicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...you don't see a bit of difference between "burning at the stake" and "vociferously disagreeing"? There is no irony to be found here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do, I kid.

But seriously, from the view as communicated by the OP, the "new" atheism involves openly attacking the true believers. Old atheism was about seeking accpetance of a minority view, which is a defensive position.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

It simply isn't true that religion doesn't do anything for people.

1) It allows them to fear death less as well as to feel less saddened and get on with there lives when a relative dies.

2) It gives them a universal backing for beliefs that they hold e.g. morality.

3) It gives them a purpose/meaning in life.

4) It allows them to cope with not finding self-realization , happiness etc. in this world, as they will find it in the next.

5) It gives them a community.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you characterize the "old brand" of atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess when you would get burned at the stake for atheism, old atheism was not believing in god an not liking being told that you were a bad person for believing that. New atheism is telling other people they're bad people because they believe in god. The ironing is delicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...you don't see a bit of difference between "burning at the stake" and "vociferously disagreeing"? There is no irony to be found here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do, I kid.

But seriously, from the view as communicated by the OP, the "new" atheism involves openly attacking the true believers. Old atheism was about seeking accpetance of a minority view, which is a defensive position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your characterization of new atheism, although I tend to think that its prevalence is grossly exaggerated. I'm starting to rethink my position though. I hear all these stories about these atheists who run around saying they are 100% that no God could ever exist and that they God is dumb and all theists are dumb. But I've never met one. I'm assured by theists they exist, and they point me to Dawkins and Hitchens as examples. If Dawkins and Hitchens are the worst of it, it seems like a phantom menace to me. Most of the atheists I know (I'd say all but who says "all" these days?) are nothing like that. Maybe its because I don't hang around too many morons.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
It simply isn't true that religion doesn't do anything for people.

1) It allows them to fear death less as well as to feel less saddened and get on with there lives when a relative dies through denial, which is well known to be a great coping mechanism.

2) It gives them a universal backing for beliefs that they hold e.g. morality, and an excuse for telling everyone else that their morality is wrong.

3) It gives them a purpose/meaning in life and the smugness to assess the purposefulness and meaningfulness of the lives of others.

4) It allows them to cope with not finding self-realization , happiness etc. in this world, as they will find it in the next in their imaginations, which is really a lot better than actually finding self-realization.

5) It gives them a community that pressures them to behave in a certain way and attack all those that behave in a certain way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay religion.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

Don't misinterpret my post as stating that I am a proponent of religion on pragmatic grounds. Far from it; religiosity in an individual is good for the person who believes in it but bad for the people that person interacts with, as the replies you gave in 2-3 and 5 illustrate.

[ QUOTE ]
1) It allows them to fear death less as well as to feel less saddened and get on with there lives when a relative dies through denial, which is well known to be a great coping mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't say this is equal to denial. Denial in this case would be person X believing person Y is not really dead i.e. actually is alive in the non-afterlife. Religious people aren't walking around claiming that the corporeal body of true believers is still functioning.

[ QUOTE ]

4) It allows them to cope with not finding self-realization , happiness etc. in this world, as they will find it in the next in their imaginations, which is really a lot better than actually finding self-realization.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually finding self-realization, however, is a lot more difficult than simply positing that they will someday have it for many people. To illustrate why this is important via analogy, consider whether it is better to have a 90% chance of winning $100 or a 30% chance of winning $200.

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

Furthermore, if religion doesn't have benefits for a person believing in it, why do so many people believe that religion X or Y is true when there are no good "truth reasons" to believe religion X or Y is true?

Re: Mises and \"New Atheism\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, if religion doesn't have benefits for a person believing in it, why do so many people believe that religion X or Y is true when there are no good "truth reasons" to believe religion X or Y is true?

[/ QUOTE ]

I will refer you to Snowball's smoking analogy.