Mises and "New Atheism"

Taraz · #1 09-13-2007, 09:03 PM

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 ]

superleeds · #2 09-13-2007, 09:04 PM

[ 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.

fifield · #3 09-13-2007, 09:10 PM

[ 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?

Archon_Wing · #4 09-13-2007, 09:13 PM

[ 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

superleeds · #5 09-13-2007, 09:17 PM

[ 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"

bobman0330 · #6 09-13-2007, 09:21 PM

[ 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.

JayTee · #7 09-13-2007, 10:16 PM

[ 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 ]

vhawk01 · #8 09-13-2007, 10:21 PM

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.

Borodog · #9 09-13-2007, 10:38 PM

[ 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.

bobman0330 · #10 09-13-2007, 10:53 PM

[ 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.