Against the Neo-Atheists

[struggle4progress]

New Statesman, 25 February 2012

Two atheists – John Gray and Alain de Botton – and two agnostics – Nassim Nicholas Taleb and I – meet for dinner at a Greek restaurant in Bayswater, London. The talk is genial, friendly and then, suddenly, intense when neo-atheism comes up. Three of us, including both atheists, have suffered abuse at the hands of this cult ...

De Botton finds it bewildering, the unexpected appearance in the culture of a tyrannical sect, content to whip up a mob mentality. “To say something along the lines of ‘I’m an atheist; I think religions are not all bad’ has become a dramatically peculiar thing to say and if you do say it on the internet you will get savage messages calling you a fascist, an idiot or a fool. This is a very odd moment in our culture. Why has this happened?” ...

Atheism is just one-third of this exotic ideological cocktail. Secularism, the political wing of the movement, is another third. Neo-atheists often assume that the two are the same thing; in fact, atheism is a metaphysical position and secularism is a view of how society should be organised. So a Christian can easily be a secularist – indeed, even Christ was being one when he said, “Render unto Caesar” – and an atheist can be anti-secularist if he happens to believe that religious views should be taken into account. But, in some muddled way, the two ideas have been combined by the cultists ...

Ultimately, the problem with militant neo-atheism is that it represents a profound category error. Explaining religion – or, indeed, the human experience – in scientific terms is futile. “It would be as bizarre as to launch a scientific investigation into the truth of Anna Karenina or love,” de Botton says. “It’s a symptom of the misplaced confidence of science . . . It’s a kind of category error. It’s a fatally wrong question and the more you ask it, the more you come up with bizarre and odd answers” ...

http://www.bryanappleyard.com/against-the-neo-atheists/

[cbayer]

1. Excellent article, though sure to be highly controversial.

I think a term other than "neo-atheism" needs to be found because some atheists consider themselves neo-atheists but don't really fit his definition.

His definition here is this:

By “neo-atheism”, I mean a tripartite belief system founded on the conviction that science provides the only road to truth and that all religions are deluded, irrational and destructive.

The third part is secularism.

In light of that, I think anti-theist might be a better term.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Well, it was when it was posted a year ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121811862

We can check back to find our arguments there.

[struggle4progress]

5. Sorry. Missed that thread: I was busy registering voters back then

[trotsky]

6. Good grief.

Must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something to continue flogging the straw men atheists.

[skepticscott]

8. Straw men indeed

‘I’m an atheist; I think religions are not all bad’

Hell, even Dawkins has said something similar. Though the group members who constantly fling the label "bigot" at Dawkins and everyone associated with him (and those her who suck up to and enable them....you know who you are) would never admit it.

[cbayer]

7. Lol, I thought it was excellent then, too!

[trotsky]

2. Science is currently the only self-correcting knowledge-acquiring system we have.

It is therefore a superior one.

No, it won't be able to settle questions about personal opinions or preference. At least not to the extent religionists (and it always seems to be religionists demanding it, not rationalists) seem to expect it to. They've lost and lost and lost to science and reason every single time, so they're simply retreating to the last "safe" areas. "You can't explain love!" Well, actually, we understand quite a bit about it, but no, there are still some aspects that are a mystery. And they might always be. But that will never mean some other "way of knowing" is going to better science in learning about the world. No matter how much believers desperately want there to be.

[Dawson Leery]

10. +1

[struggle4progress]

25. The scientific revolution occurred only within the last several centuries. But people, with many

different backgrounds, have nevertheless been able for a much longer period of time to discover than their own ideas are wrong and to change their minds and to try new approaches: otherwise, there would never have been any human progress

Nor is there any reason to think that the situation is different today: a number of people without scientific training are still able to discover than their own ideas are wrong and to change their minds and to try new approaches

[trotsky]

31. Please lay out (with specifics) the methods of self-correction in theology and religion.

Give specific examples, as one easily can with science, how today's explanations are more accurate than yesterday's.

I look forward to your snark-free, non-insulting response. Thanks so much!

[nonoyes]

33. Actually the opposite happens quite often in modern history, too!

For example, New Eart Creation theology now makes great strides to gain influence, in the face of all the scientific evidence.

Another Example: The Westboro Baptists, although a tiny clan of extremists, nonetheless wages their troublesome war against all that is honorable in our nation, respect for our fallen soldiers. They do this all in the name of their religion, and their hatred of gay folks.

Truth be told, there is no reason why anyone who latches onto their own set of absolutist beliefs needs or will be likely to change those beliefs in favor of a more scientifically enlightened set of beliefs. Beliefs are beliefs, and will defy logic or reason, dependent only upon the intensity and fervor of the believer.

[longship]

4. Here we go with the NOMA debate again.

NOMA == Non-Overlapping MAgisteria, a construction of Harvard biologist/paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould.

I always find his argument compelling, yet somehow unsatisfying. Religion is a cultural mechanism (memetic?). As such, although it may be non-overlapping from such philosophical mechanisms and origins, religion and science, in practice, have shown to have significant overlap.

Many have argued similarly to physicist Victor J. Stenger that NOMA is rubbish because religion cannot keep their fingers out of the science domain no matter how much the NOMA advocates wish religion to be a different thing.

My argument is simple. The day when religious people stop crossing the magisterial lines, then and only then, will these perceived magisteria be non-overlapping.

In principle, NOMA exists; in practice, NOMA is bunkum.

[Phillip McCleod]

14. yep one of the magisteria can't help itself.

it needs to overlap everything.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

9. I'm a non-theist.

I don't call myself an atheist because that's been redefined as anti-theist. Plus, I'm chicken. I don't like to fight. No good at it. The anti-theists seem to be in reaction against all religion because of the extreme crazy which has become such a public face of religion in general. Anti-science movements are bad for all of us, and totalitarian theism is pretty ugly in all its forms. They need to be fought, but the anti-theists are sort of lashing out at comparatively benign religion as well. I don't agree with that, even when I do agree with many of the points they may be making.

As a non-theist, I am simply not religious and do not believe the things that religious people believe. Religious people are fine with me, as long as they aren't trying to force their ideas on others.

[cbayer]

12. Great description of where you are coming from.

It seems to be that everyone's description of themselves is unique in this regard. That's why the simplistic labels, which get applied too broadly, can be offensive.

As I said above, I think anti-theist more accurately describes what this author is criticizing than neo-theist, which can include many others who are not hostile towards all things religious.

Anyway, welcome to the religion group and thanks for your thoughtful post.

[Phillip McCleod]

15. my only issue with the term 'non-theist' is purely grammatical..

for one, it's a synonym for 'a-theist', except that for two, it mixes latin and greek. yikes!

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

18. Oh.

Well, okay. I wouldn't have noticed the conflicted linguistic roots, personally. On account of I'm not the brightest person in the lamp and all.

[Phillip McCleod]

21. so then.. it was just a way to feel as if you're label is softer than "atheist"?

if you want that, why not agnostic? according to it's proponents, it can mean pretty much anything. one size fits all!

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

23. I am not agnostic.

It isn't merely a matter of softening the label. I seek clarity. A radicalized "atheist" label which increasingly communicates not merely a lack of belief but an active antipathy toward belief -- what I call "anti-theism" for convenience -- easily fails to express what I am and what I think. Collapsing "atheist" into "non-theist" and "anti-theist" may fail linguistically, but I'm not hoping to impress wonks and academics. I'm trying to state as simply and clearly as possible the fact that I am not a believer and I am not interested in fighting about belief. If a better set of differentiated terms can be devised, I'm certainly open to switching terminology.

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. No, it can't mean anything

Agnosticism is a proposition of knowledge. To be agnostic is to lack knowledge of God's existence.

Atheism is a proposition of faith. To be atheist is to lack belief in God's existence.

The two terms are not interchangeable, nor is one a "softer" version of the other. If you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. Period.

[longship]

17. I call myself an atheist *because* people think it means anti-theist.

I am anti-religion but I am not against people who are theists, in other words, not anti-theist.

I call myself an atheist because I think it's highly unlikely that there's a god and see no evidence that would convince me otherwise, certainly not any of the apologists' arguments.

My other reason for using the label, atheist, is to disconnect it from the usual negative attributes, almost all of which have originated with the theistic side. This is to the point that they actually have other non-believers eschewing the use of atheist for fear that they will be seen as some foaming at the mouth loony.

I embrace the description of atheist. It's what I am, but it has nothing at all to do with my behavior. To think otherwise is likely to be buying into the theist's skewed definition with all its extra baggage, which I reject.

Don't be afraid of telling people you don't believe there's a god. The most succinct way of stating that is to call yourself an atheist. IMHO. Some may use agnostic or humanist. But they are probably like me; they don't believe there is a god. That's what atheist means and is why I embrace the word.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

19. I'm not too bothered by the whole question, really.

Raised a preacher's kid, I had a tough time breaking away from that. Much of my family is still very religious. Over the years I've made my peace with the matter and stopped reacting against it. I'll defend science when my ex-minister father starts talking crazy, but his beliefs also help him cope with life and do drive him toward charitable acts. He deserves to have his own beliefs. As do we all.

I can understand the atheists who speak out against religion, I suppose. I think of the meme with the angered feminist who can't believe we still have to keep fighting the same battles over and over. Those who seek some kind of theocracy or who fight valid science are our real foes. Most religious people aren't like that, thankfully.

I'm not sure I really needed to respond at all, here. I babble with too little coffee and I babble with too much coffee. Not sure I have the right balance, at the moment.

[longship]

20. I am mostly with you here.

I really don't care what people call themselves with respect to their beliefs. But occasionally I like to tweak a bit about the semantic arguments.

I like most everybody here, even those with whom I find (hopefully respectful) disagreement.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[dimbear]

11. Explaining religion in scientific terms may be futile, but it is certainly a going concern in the

academic world. I find many of the psychological conclusions recently tabled concerning the roots of religion in human prehistory to be both compelling and persuasive. It's understandable that believers might not care to see their stances explained, as it were.

The northern Europeans seem particularly active in this area, as always.

[Phillip McCleod]

22. i'm right there with you.

there's some fascinating anthropological/comparative religion research being done in some (justifiably) neglected backwaters right now. city lights has been rapid-publishing some oddly compelling arguments from dr. carl ruck one of the guys who 'accidentally' gave hippies the magic mushroom, and i know for a fact i'm far from alone out here watching the direction of this research. it's gaining steam. i expect ruck's getting old and wants to spill his guts now or something but he's been publishing a book a year of hard core heavily notated academic treatises on 'the' topic. it humiliates the terrance mckennas of the world into obscurity, once and for all, good riddance.

[struggle4progress]

26. Evolutionary theory has explained much so far, and I expect it will continue

to exhibit its explanatory power, but one should distinguish between scientific theories and mere rationalization

Evolutionary arguments find firmer foundations when closely related to precise structural hypotheses: for example, it would be interesting to elucidate exactly which neural circuits can be commandeered for arithmetic computation, the mechanisms by which the subject can commandeer those circuits for this purpose for which they are unlikely to have evolved originally, and the roles which related circuits play in other animals currently. An evolutionary approach to such this problem concerning arithmetic ability, however, is unlikely to render mathematicians obsolete or to reduce mathematical work to an obvious and ignorable triviality

The prospects for finding an evolutionary basis for something as vague as "religion" seem somewhat less bright. The term "religion" covers many different things, depending on the religion in question: it may involve some combination of artistic preferences, cultural traditions regarding birth and death, ethical theories, ritual practices, superstitious beliefs ... and so on. That these, and other matters falling under the generic rubric "religion," can be closely associated with precise and testable neural structural hypotheses, seems dubious to me: a wide variety of conscious choices and instinctual behaviors are likely to be at work. And, of course, an evolutionary approach to religion, even if successful, is convince people that their religious beliefs are irrelevant, since such an approach does not produce the effects of religious experience, any more than a successful evolutionary approach to the problem of mathematical ability would produce useful mathematical theorems

[dimbear]

30. I am more sanguine, I have hopes for more than just Ph. D. theses and the like. For many years

nobody ever expected that music theory would have a tenable explanation in evolution. The fact that one is now slowly coming together doesn't detract much from Mozart.

[Humanist_Activist]

13. Might as well title this "Arguing against strawmen." Given the amount of BS in the...

Its difficult to take anyone seriously on that side when all they have is misrepresentation and lies.

[Phillip McCleod]

16. i read some of last year's thread and think..

the complete failure of the poster to defend the piece at all appears to be making a reappearance, as well.

[eomer]

24. So is saying someone's position "represents a profound category error" somehow better than saying

someone is a fool? They seem the same to me.

Is there a term for doing the thing you're complaining about? For having your complaint be an example of itself?

[struggle4progress]

27. It is, of course, impossible to conduct a rational discussion over a disputed point, if the claim,

that the opponent has made a mistake in reasoning, is always understood as synonymous with the claim, that the opponent is a fool

A careful reading of Galileo's writings will exhibit logic mistakes in his "proofs" of certain physical laws, even in some cases where his assertion, that the physical holds, is in some sense an assertion supported by facts. It is possible to think Galileo made mistakes without regarding him a fool, and it is possible to extend the same courtesy to lesser mortals

[eomer]

32. A "profound" mistake in reasoning is made only by fools.

But the more important point is that the article is full of personal attack and short on actual argument. My citation was just one example and probably not the best one. Look at all these examples of disparaging the person rather than arguing the case:

abuse at the hands of this cult

a vivid but limited prose palette

the culture of a tyrannical sect, content to whip up a mob mentality

exotic ideological cocktail

in some muddled way, the two ideas have been combined by the cultists

the AK-47 of neo-atheist shock troops

people are so incoherent on these issues that it’s hard for me to figure out what is driving them

there is the "perverse kind of secular" believer

"Why," she asks me, “are the followers of reason so unreasonable?"

Dawkins, the supreme prophet of neo-atheism

De Botton finds Dawkins a psychologically troubling figure

now he stands at the head of what can really be called a cult

“It smacks of a sort of psychological collapse in him, a collapse in those resources of maturity that would keep someone on an even keel. There is what psychoanalysts would call a deep rigidity in him.”

Myers the provocateur

a remarkably frank statement of intellectual tyranny

militant neo-atheism

a profound category error

as the neo-atheists demonstrate by their ideological rigidity and savagery

catastrophic failed atheist project of communism

the cult’s own intolerance

There are many roads to truth, but cultish intolerance is not one of them.

Somewhere in between this vituperative litany of personal attacks, the writer complains that neo-atheists allegedly call their opponents idiots and fools. Ridiculous in my opinion. So if you think that Dawkins is wrong to call someone a fool (if he actually did), will you also criticize all the above personal attacks?

And nowhere in this article does the writer provide a reasoned argument for this other category he says religion properly belongs in. Such a reasoned argument is something I would have been interested in reading and pondering because I don't see it myself and would like to know how and why someone else does. I don't understand the idea that something supernatural can exist - it seems to contradict itself. Dawkins "profound category error" was apparently to forget to include the category of things that don't exist.

[Notafraidtoo]

28. You can not say

You can not say faith and Science are the same thing,faith only requires a belief, Science requires evidence, even when science is wrong it matter's little cause it will correct and in the end be correct those who live life with only faith resist this and there for can not be reasoned with. And by the way love can be explained by Science you only have to look at chemical reactions in the brain to see what causes our feelings and one day we will know everything about it.

The only issue that i see with some of todays atheist is they bother to debate and debase those with faith,faith really isn't something that can be debated with why bother reasoning with those who's belief require a lack of reason to even function,
It requires faith in magic from invisible magic mostly men to secure their view of the world,I know it seems i may be debasing by saying magic but i really am just being honest.

We as Atheist would be best served by simply letting them have their dogma in peace and just focus on keeping government secular and protecting science from religious attack,this doesn't mean we should attack religion after all not everyone can comprehend the world around them and need faith to keep it simple.

[Thats my opinion]

35. a very good last suggestion. Why not follow it? nt

[YoungDemCA]

29. I'm tired of sweeping generalizations of other people, made by people...

...whether they be atheists, agnostic, spiritual but not religious, or religious.

Just my $0.02.

[cbayer]

34. +1

[trotsky]

36. WTF?

You called this an "excellent article" and then just now agree with someone who called it a sweeping generalization.

A little consistency would go a long way toward you being taken seriously, cbayer.