Re-Made in America: Remembering the New Atheism (2006-2011)

[salvorhardin]

The real success story of the new atheism is that it was bought and sold after being intellectually panned by almost all the cognoscenti who weren’t atheist activists. In fact, as the circle closed around a tightly knit cadre of God-opposers, opposing God became virtually the sole criterion for what, in their parochial view, counted for anthropology, archaeology, sociology and the study of religion–about which all of the four (check the footnotes) were blissfully ignorant.

And I mean that in the most damning sense. Virtually all of the credible reviews alleged it of Dawkins, and the others didn’t fare much better outside the atheist camp. The reflexive answer was to accuse anyone who opposed the unscientific, malformed, and totally ignorant premises of these books of being “faitheists” and to say that dispute would be treated as treason against the higher purposes for which the books had been written.

...

To deny the authority and validity of specific methods without knowing them is just as heinous an offense against reason as a fundamentalist’s rejection of a theory–like evolution–that he doesn’t fully understand. That is what scientism is and what it means and why it must be rejected. As Wittgenstein was finally forced to conclude, the belief that science is the final arbiter of what constitutes truth (or true propositions) is as “glaringly metaphysical” as the premises of traditional philosophy.

...

In the long run, real science acknowledges failed experiments and the humbling contribution of being wrong as a way of moving toward the right answers. It can’t rest like a medieval pope on its teaching authority. The “scientism” of the new atheists consists in a failed experiment in the misapplication of method. Richard Dawkins has been fond of saying that religion is the trivialization of complexities, a default position favoured by “dims” who just don’t get science. The scientistic worldview favoured by his promoters has relied heavily on the trivialization of appropriate methods for understanding religion. Given the starting point of his argument, there can be no other outcome.

The way forward in any useful critique of religion does not depend on activism disguised as judgement, opinion hiding behind tangential scholarly pursuits, or defenses of science and reason that are inherently unreasonable in themselves.

Full post: http://www.rjosephhoffmann.com/2012/01/01/re-made-in-america-remembering-the-new-atheism-2006-2011

[immoderate]

1. Do theists also benefit from being wrong?

How?

--imm

[MarkCharles]

2. "relied heavily on the trivialization of appropriate methods for understanding religion"

Those "appropriate methods" being? Oh, they must be faith- based, we can assume, as they are never spelled out.

A rather long screed by a linguistics professor in his personal blog, criticizing all mannr of scientist who agrees with Dawkins. How original!

[salvorhardin]

3. And you have scientists commenting on matters of history

By the by, at least Joseph Hoffmann is commenting within his field of expertise. So who do you think is more likely to have something valid to say about the history of religion? A historian of religion, or a biologist?

R. Joseph Hoffmann is a historian of religion, and was chair of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, Associate Editor of the journal Free Inquiry[1] from 2003-2009. He was founding editor of CSER's Review, CAESAR: A Journal of Religion and Human Values.[2][3] In his work, Hoffmann has promoted a controversial thesis regarding the role and dating of Marcion in the history of the New Testament canon, and has also produced reconstructions of fragmentary works by ancient pagan opponents of Christianity.

...

In 2007 at a conference at the University of California at Davis, Hoffmann, together with New Testament scholars Robert Price and Gerd Luedemann, announced the formation of a colloquium to re-examine the traditions for the existence of a historical Jesus.[41][42] The initial meeting of the so-called "Jesus Project" took place in Amherst, NY, December 5–7, 2008 and included fifteen scholars from a variety of disciplines including James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, and Bruce Chilton. The Project, according to Hoffmann, was designed to determine "what can be reliably recovered about the historical figure of Jesus, his life, his teachings, and his activities, utilizing the highest standards of scientific and scholarly objectivity."[43] The Project was seen as a continuation and modification of the Jesus Seminar, founded by Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan.[43][44][45]

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Joseph_Hoffmann

[MarkCharles]

4. One must only be a historian of religion to be able to comment upon the history?

Scientists are ignorant and so un-read in any matters non-scientific, such as the heavily biased written record of the history of a religion?

Because religion might arguably have a longer written history than science does, (questionably, because, of course, the "science" and engineering of the pyramids has no extensive written history), this makes religious beliefs more valid?

More specifically: you are claiming that "appropriate methods of understanding religion" can only be those used by religious historians?

Quite honestly, religious scholars and believers studying the history of their religions, and claiming to be "scientific" and objective in their findings. Well, need I say more?

[salvorhardin]

7. Hoffmann is an atheist.

He is not a religious historian, but a historian of religion. There's a difference. Nobody's saying anything about the validity of religious beliefs, rather Hoffmann is criticizing what he sees as idiotic commentary on religion by those who revel in not wanting to take the time to understand that history, or who believe that their status as scientists gives them a privileged position in matters academic.

[skepticscott]

8. Well please, tell us

what "history" has to be understood in evaluating the claim that in the Catholic sacrament of communion the wine and host transform into the actual body and blood of Jesus? Or the claim that people can be possessed by demons that can be exorcized? Or that praying to god to have your amputated limb grown back doesn't work? These (any many others) are truth claims about the physical universe here and now, and they are not weird, fringe beliefs held only by obscure religious sects with a few hundred members.

[MarkCharles]

9. Um, I wasn't referring to Hoffman, but to the writer of the link in the OP.

Specifically, I referenced "appropriate methods for understanding religion".

Conversely, I think most atheists of the stature of Dawkins have quite an extensive exposure to the history of humankind, extending back at least 5-7 million years to when chimps and humans had common ancestors. Many religious historians have denied anything but the last 6000 or so years in human history, and many others are quite selective in which chapters and movements and influences from all fronts faced humankind in its development from the stone ages forward, leaving out all but the major contemporary religious systems of worship of a god, (by describing as "myths" the Greek and Roman and Norse and other god figures, for example).

A proper and comprehensive study of the history of religion would entail the study of ALL religions in their proper context, proper era, proper location, and the concomitant societal understandings of aspects of their physical world which led to their system of beliefs. Dawkins and others at least acknowledge the histories of all religions in those proper contexts.

[skepticscott]

5. This irony of this statement is just too rich

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:55 PM - Edit history (2)

To deny the authority and validity of specific methods without knowing them is just as heinous an offense against reason as a fundamentalist’s rejection of a theory–like evolution–that he doesn’t fully understand. That is what scientism is and what it means and why it must be rejected. As Wittgenstein was finally forced to conclude, the belief that science is the final arbiter of what constitutes truth (or true propositions) is as “glaringly metaphysical” as the premises of traditional philosophy.

Which of the so-called "new atheists" ever said that "science is the final arbiter of what constitutes truth (or true propositions)"? Answer: None. An idiotic straw man resulting from the author's own woeful lack of knowledge about science. What scientists and rational inquirers maintain is that science has shown itself to be the best way we have to understand and explain the physical universe. "Scientism" is a true example of what people like this author often falsely accuse "new atheists" of attacking: a caricatured version of something that no one, or virtually no one actually adheres to. Serious and uncompromising proponents of the kind of dangerous religious fundamentalist that people like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens decry can be see every time you open the newspaper or turn on the TV or computer. But no one seems to be able to point to people or organizations that claim that science is the one, final arbiter of truth, or that it will inevitably solve every problem and answer every question.

And these "specific methods" that he accuses people like Dawkins of denying the authority (wtf does that mean, anyway?) and validity of sound suspiciously like those "other methods of knowing" so often touted here, but never demonstrated as effective.

[Jim__]

6. Excellent essay! However, I fear another Twain quote may apply.

Namely: The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated .

[laconicsax]

10. Pretty funny to read an article talking about the demise of something that never existed.

[MarkCharles]

11. More like the "new paranoia" of religious folks when Dawkins released ..

yet another book that won wide appeal, and challenged dozens of concepts held dear to Christians in America.

I'd like to find and link some of those debate moments Dawkins had with religious fundamentalists who have no conceptual understanding whatsoever of the history of Homo Sapiens for the last, oh, 5 million years or so, and particularly no understanding of the history of the more modern "mesolithic" humans, from say 30-5000 years ago.

[salvorhardin]

12. It's a memorial, but I don't think Hoffmann intended it as a post mortem

[laconicsax]

13. Either way, this "New Atheism" never existed.

[onager]

14. Wishful thinking.

I clicked the link and read the whole thing.

Far from being dead, I often see Gnu Atheism mentioned by young people as the reason they dumped religion. They had questions, picked up Dawkins or Hitchens, and finally got sensible answers. Which led them to read more on the subject.

He may be an atheist, but Hoffman sounds a lot like a 16th-century Catholic theologian damning the Lutherans. The problem is not that people are becoming atheists, but they're becoming the wrong kind of non-Hoffman atheists.

That mindset is very common among Faitheist/Accomodationist writers - hey guys, welcome to the club. Now be a respectful, mild-mannered non-believer like us, not one of those rude Gnu Atheists!

To sum up, the whole thing struck me as just another variant on the Courtier's Reply - you mere mortals can't hope to understand Sophisticated Theology until you've read this pile of rightfully-ignored tomes gathering dust in the basement of the Ivory Tower. (Translation: please buy my book. And my friends' books!)

Sorry, no - if the basic ideas stink, I really don't need to wander around the theological barnyard, closely examining every turd dropped by the Terry Eagletons and Karen Armstrongs.

Oh, and a final hint to aspiring religion writers: if you want to claim Gnu Atheists are arrogant and condescending, try not to be even more arrogant and condescending when you attack them. It just makes you look foolish. And jealous.

[MarkCharles]

15. Pretty well sums it up! Nice post! n/t

[skepticscott]

16. +1

Nailed it. And yes, when the basic idea of god actually existing remains undemonstrated after a few thousand years of trying, all of theology stands exposed as not much more than mental masturbation.

[Leontius]

17. Willful ignorance on display daily

do we really need a program to know the players?

[edhopper]

18. P Z Myers has a good,

if snarky, retort:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/02/nice-list/#comments

The knob-polishers and filigree-painters of religion and theology are not at all relevant to the fundamental question of whether a god exists or not — but they make useful distractions for the pompous, pretentious buffoons who try to hide the fact that there is no elephant in the room with learned discussions about what color he paints his toenails.