An unusual view of the neo-atheists

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
I almost forgot he was an atheist after reading it. A lot to think about. I failed to detect any outrageous arrogance like others in this thread did.
What he said about moderation is particularly salutory in view of the extremes of cruelty and gross material excesses of the 20th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. What is inherently bad about material things? Most "material things" are either forms of useful technology or of entertainment. Can you name one which is not? Those things have always existed throughout time. Their "gross excess" has nothing to do with whatever problem you have with them; it has to do with your view on how attached people are to them--but even then, so what? What is the harm or lack of productivity done by collection of these material things? As long as one can support himself and contribute to society and the world at large, what gripe do you have?

2. Moderation is certainly a good thing when both too much and too little of something is inferior to some median amount. However in the case of, oh let's say teaching creation (sorry, intelligent design--no religious content intended) in the science classroom, moderation is BAD. One who does not "take sides" on the issue is knowingly stunting the education of children. Moderation should only be praised when the median is the best stance.

That being said, I would like to point out that fighting for religious moderation IS a good stance, and moderation in this sense is good. I disagree with religion and faith itself, but that is a battle which cannot at present be won. What atheists should be doing is recruiting religious moderates in a combined fight against extremism for the current moment. (In this context, I define moderation as religion/faith kept privately, and extremism as religion/faith trying to be forced on others.) The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so to speak.

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I almost forgot he was an atheist after reading it. A lot to think about. I failed to detect any outrageous arrogance like others in this thread did.
What he said about moderation is particularly salutory in view of the extremes of cruelty and gross material excesses of the 20th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. What is inherently bad about material things? Most "material things" are either forms of useful technology or of entertainment. Can you name one which is not? Those things have always existed throughout time. Their "gross excess" has nothing to do with whatever problem you have with them; it has to do with your view on how attached people are to them--but even then, so what? What is the harm or lack of productivity done by collection of these material things? As long as one can support himself and contribute to society and the world at large, what gripe do you have?

2. Moderation is certainly a good thing when both too much and too little of something is inferior to some median amount. However in the case of, oh let's say teaching creation (sorry, intelligent design--no religious content intended) in the science classroom, moderation is BAD. One who does not "take sides" on the issue is knowingly stunting the education of children. Moderation should only be praised when the median is the best stance.

That being said, I would like to point out that fighting for religious moderation IS a good stance, and moderation in this sense is good. I disagree with religion and faith itself, but that is a battle which cannot at present be won. What atheists should be doing is recruiting religious moderates in a combined fight against extremism for the current moment. (In this context, I define moderation as religion/faith kept privately, and extremism as religion/faith trying to be forced on others.) The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so to speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Material things are not inherently bad. Its when you set them up on a pedestal or make keeping up with the Joneses your number one priority that you are in trouble. When I mentioned material excesses I wasn't referring to that though. I was thinking more about wastefulness and abuse of goods and nature and corporate corruption.

Many 3rd world countries are being rapidly deforested, they say the rainforests are disappearing, there was a Corporate CEO who defrauded his company for all kinds of crazy expenses like throwing his wife a million dollar birthday party.

" I define moderation as religion/faith kept privately, and extremism as religion/faith trying to be forced on others."-


If you define religious moderation as this then it could lead to the extinction of religious people. I don't believe in forcing anything on anyone either. However, the right to your own faith is an individual right. If you won't allow people to speak freely about it then you impact the individual rights of others (both the person speaking and the person listening). Not everyone is from a religious family. In fact sometimes family/friends have the least impact.

[NasEscobar]

What is a neo-atheist?

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
What is a neo-atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

A new atheist obviously.

<font color="white">Just kidding I don't know either. </font>

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
I can read only so much philosophy before my eyes glaze over so I'd like to hear from others their impression of Dalrymple's opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I'm a neo-atheist, I suppose, so take that for what it's worth.

Dalrymple's major problem with us seems to be our adamant stance that people's religious beliefs should not be blindly respected. Sure, he lists a few other gripes, but I think he would change his mind on those if he switched positions on the respect issue.

From the article:
This sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple, with the assumption of certainty where there is none, combined with adolescent shrillness and intolerance, reach an apogee in Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith. It is not easy to do justice to the book’s nastiness; it makes Dawkins’s claim that religious education constitutes child abuse look sane and moderate. Harris tells us, for example, that “we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.”
Harris and Dawkins - and I - are as close to certain as is reasonably possible. So close that it's reasonable to act in such a way we have no doubt whatsoever. To say that we proceed with "the assumption of certainty where there is none" is a gross misrepresentation of both the evidence and the authors' claims. Remember, they're claiming certainty against all specific religions, not the generalities of theism and deism. (There are very good reasons to reject those as well, but the degree of certainty is entirely different).

As for Dalrymple's claim that Harris is being outrageously nasty when he says "we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it," I am firmly on Harris's side. Why should I respect the belief that Jesus rose from the dead more than I respect the belief that Rex Grossman is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning? People need to have a positive reason to believe something. If somebody says "the stars line up well today, so I think I'm going to have a good day," they deserve to be laughed at, not respected. Especially when these outrageous beliefs lead people to make negative decisions (like suicide bombing, or opposing stem-cell research, or rejecting evolution). There are multiple chapters in the books Dalrymple criticizes devoted to this argument, and I suspect that he either hasn't read them or doesn't understand them. Or maybe he just wants to pick things to criticize so that he can look like a good and tolerant moderate.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If somebody says "the stars line up well today, so I think I'm going to have a good day," they deserve to be laughed at, not respected.

[/ QUOTE ]

So all those who believe in astrology "deserve" (whatever that means) ridicule, and none of them deserve respect. That's the kind of baseless hogwash that makes religion dangerous. Disrespecting a given belief is just rationality - disrespecting a person simply because they hold that belief is hatred and elitism.

[Subfallen]

Dude -

Especially by their tone, the neo-atheists are making at least one "assumption of certainty where there is none." They assume that religion's existential value cannot outweigh its cost in impaired rationality. But, for many people, they are simply wrong.

Rather ironically, although God Delusion pushed me over the edge to full apostasy, I still think it's an insultingly simplistic criticism of religion.

Somehow, Dawkins just can't grasp that religion IS NOT ABOUT RATIONAL METAPHYSICS. It's about morality and meaning. I mean, how can he really believe that something as trite as metaphysics inspired Pascal, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, etc. to wage such transcendent wars for their faith?

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the right to your own faith is an individual right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree, and that's why I used the term "force". I'm happy to let people talk about it and discuss it. I'm not okay with letting it get taught in the science classroom. I am, by the way, perfectly fine with creation being taught in schools as an optional non-science class. I would also not object to Christianity being taught in a required class which had an overview of all world religions, past and present, as well as non-theistic views.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Duke -
Harris and Dawkins - and I - are as close to certain as is reasonably possible

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Duke -
Remember, they're claiming certainty against all specific religions,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Harris -
“we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in case we need a Judge Dredd to abritrate evidence and enforce this imperative we have ...

[ QUOTE ]
Duke -
it's reasonable to act in such a way we have no doubt whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happy Halloween.

PairTheBoard

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If somebody says "the stars line up well today, so I think I'm going to have a good day," they deserve to be laughed at, not respected.

[/ QUOTE ]
So all those who believe in astrology "deserve" (whatever that means) ridicule, and none of them deserve respect. That's the kind of baseless hogwash that makes religion dangerous. Disrespecting a given belief is just rationality - disrespecting a person simply because they hold that belief is hatred and elitism.

[/ QUOTE ]
The people can be respected, but their beliefs shouldn't be. The three people whose character I respect most are all Christian. I don't think they're idiots, but their belief is irrational and wrong, and I refuse to give that area of their life respect, simply because society says I should.

I certainly don't think we should run around pointing fingers in every religious person's face saying "Haha! You're a dumbass." But remember two things. First, they bring the conversation up all the time. Second, their claims to respect have a dramatic negative impact on society. There's a fight right now about whether intelligent design and/or evolution should be taught in school. It's ridiculous. ID is a joke, and evolution is fact. That some people feel like it's disrespecting their religious beliefs should have zero bearing whatsoever.