The Demonization of New Atheism and the Relative Desensitization to Religious Extremism

[Windwalker]

Yes, and sadly, image what's missing in their experience of being here, ... yikes!

And that ties right back to the quote from Einstein. The missing component is seeing the Moon itself and understanding with something in us that transcends the mind. "What else is there but logic and reason?", is to me that, "being as good as dead". It's a deafness and blindness of the spirit within us that cannot see what is always there.

 

[Windwalker]

Well it's not the atheism of a Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Freud, Momoro or Marx (atheism used in a broader sense as part of an ideology).

It resembles a more liberal version of Auguste Comte's Positivism, given the focus on science as 'saviour' and a belief that humanity will 'evolve' beyond a religious phase.

New Atheism is really an ideology rather than mere disbelief, and historical atheistic ideologies have not always placed a primacy on science, Humanism, progress or anti-theism.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Augustus]

It seems to me that there's significant value in New Atheism and that its biggest flaws—such as sexism among the movement, sweeping generalizations that occur too often, and arrogance among some New Atheists—are neither unique to New Atheism nor criticized equally in the very same religions that New Atheists tend to criticize (Islam and Christianity, primarily).

While New Atheism is obviously not comparable with religious fundamentalism/extremism, its advocates are often hypocritical which tends to annoy people.

While promoting the importance of science and reason, they don't seem to apply this to themselves when discussing religion, its history and its role in society.

In the The God delusion, Dawkins even speculates that being raised Catholic might possibly be worse for a child than being mildly sexually abused. Outside of scientific arguments against creationism, I'm not sure if I've ever seen them referring to scholarly research on religion or its history. Harris at least tries to find something to underpin his views, although his views on scientific morality will probably be no more successful than those who have tried this approach in the past (and whose scientific moralities were not necessarily liberal).

I generally find New Atheist fanboys/girls to be far more annoying than the horsemen though as they tend to uncritically parrot the same things about religion and its harms while considering themselves to be independent minded 'freethinkers' who base their worldview on a solid foundation of reason.

 

[stvdv]

The Demonization of New Atheism and the Relative Desensitization to Religious Extremism

If there is a religious group who uses "Hell + Devil" as a scare tactic (conscious or not) to get (and not lose) more members, then I am not surprised that Atheism will be "Demonized" by them. Doesn't say anything about atheism though. Says everything about the religious group. They are the ones who belief in demons, devils and hell. They superimpose it on Atheism. This one is clear to me.

Then the other word "Desensitization". I think if people are too much busy with Devil, Hell, Demons they create fear [also in themselves]. Natural and easy to understand those people Desensitize.
IMHO

Good topic

 

[Mock Turtle]

While New Atheism is obviously not comparable with religious fundamentalism/extremism, its advocates are often hypocritical which tends to annoy people.

While promoting the importance of science and reason, they don't seem to apply this to themselves when discussing religion, its history and its role in society.

Oooh, can't have that, we must all be perfect - as the religious usually are (not). Generalise much?

In the The God delusion, Dawkins even speculates that being raised Catholic might possibly be worse for a child than being mildly sexually abused.

Well, some evidence might suggest such (sexual abuse of children not always leading to harm) - Rind and Kilpatrick, for example - but it would be questioned by many - including me. So perhaps he has a point. I don't know either way.

Outside of scientific arguments against creationism, I'm not sure if I've ever seen them referring to scholarly research on religion or its history. Harris at least tries to find something to underpin his views, although his views on scientific morality will probably be no more successful than those who have tried this approach in the past (and whose scientific moralities were not necessarily liberal).

I generally find New Atheist fanboys/girls to be far more annoying than the horsemen though as they tend to uncritically parrot the same things about religion and its harms while considering themselves to be independent minded 'freethinkers' who base their worldview on a solid foundation of reason.

How much 'scholarly research on religion' is there outside of religious sources exactly? That is often the problem - few independent sources to verify events and such related to any particular religion.

 

[YmirGF]

While I greatly enjoy the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett, I do not tend to hang on their every word. I do agree that minimizing understanding so that it turns to what science knows as the only yardstick for gauging reality is a tad narrow. I'm a great fan of myth, symbolism (on many levels), dreams, poetry, art and music and understand that each speaks to a part of being that coexists with the purely intellectual but is not in competition with it. It is a complimentary aspect of personality and is not at war with the intellect.

Though I rarely use terms like "spirit" or "soul" due to their inherent religious baggage, both can be a useful term at times if given proper qualifiers. For example, on the rare occasions when I use the terms I do so with the caveat that I don't want theists to think I am being supportive of their definitions, furthering their narratives. If that is arrogant, so be it.

I guess what I am saying is that just because I am a strong atheist that doesn't mean that I have no soul, depth or appreciation for the incredible psychological adventure we share call life. My adventures in consciousness, at first, were utterly divorced from the physical world and three dimensional understanding, whereas my experience morphed, arced back, coming full circle into the radiance of physical reality, with all its quirks, warts, pleasure, pains, thrills and sorrows. That is when my empathy really kicked into high gear. I began to see a world of confused, frightened, heroic, monstrous, delightful, sincere and fascinating individuals, all with their own piece of the puzzle (of the great mystery of life) clutched in their hot little mitts. That was a humbling experience. I knew I was no different and was a part of it all too.

Since that time, I've focused on the psychological impact/underpinnings and causes of, for lack of a better way to put it, "spiritual growth". Spiritual growth explained from a perspective that rarely relies on religious understanding to explain our larger dimensions of activity. Likewise, I am wary of getting on the trendy bastardization of Quantum Mechanics by pretending to understand QM enough to show how my thinking is supported by the bleeding edge theorists.

In support of the OP given by @Debater Slayer I can only say that our "field" is still young. We are still feeling our way along, often blindly and so we will fall flat on our faces from time to time. We will sound a bit shrill. We will get things wrong. We will dig in our heels just as often as our happy theists until we realize we have made an error of judgment. So, I ask people to be patient. Much of what new atheist speakers say IS meant to rattle the cages of traditional theism. That is the point.

It's not that we want to throw the baby out with the bath water, but perhaps, it's more the case of wrapping the baby in a towel of a loving embrace before it drowns in its own dirty water.

 

[Mock Turtle]

While I greatly enjoy the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett, I do not tend to hang on their every word. I do agree that minimizing understanding so that it turns to what science knows as the only yardstick for gauging reality is a tad narrow. I'm a great fan of myth, symbolism (on many levels), dreams, poetry, art and music and understand that each speaks to a part of being that coexists with the purely intellectual but is not in competition with it.

Though I rarely use terms like "spirit" or "soul" due to their inherent religious baggage, both can be a useful term at times if given proper qualifiers. For example, on the rare occasions I use the terms I do so with the caveat that I don't want theists to think I am being supportive of their definitions, furthering their narratives. If that is arrogant, so be it.

I guess what I am saying is that just because I am a strong atheist that doesn't mean that I have no soul, depth or appreciation for the incredible psychological adventure we share called life. My adventures in consciousness, at first, were utterly divorced from the physical world and three dimensional understanding, where as my experience morphed, and circled back, coming full circle into the radiance of physical reality, all its quirks warts, pleasure, pains and sorrows. That is when my empathy really kicked into high gear. I began to see a world of confused, frightened, heroic, monstrous, delightful, sincere and fascinating individuals all with their own piece of the puzzle (of the great mystery of life) clutched in their hot little mitts. That was a humbling experience. I knew I was no different and was a part of it all too.

Since that time, I've focused on the psychological impact/underpinnings and causes of, for lack of a better way to put it, "spiritual growth". Spiritual growth explained from a perspective that rarely relies on religious understanding to explain our larger dimensions of activity. Likewise, I am wary of getting on the trendy bastardization of Quantum Mechanics by pretending to understand QM enough to show how my thinking is supported by the bleeding edge theorists.

In support of the OP given by @Debater Slayer I can only say that our "field" is still young. We are still feeling our way along, often blindly and so we will fall flat on our faces from time to time. We will sound a bit shrill. We will get things wrong. We will dig in our heels just as often as our happy theists until we realize we have made an error of judgment. So, I ask people to be patient. Much of what new atheist speakers say IS meant to rattle the cages of traditional theism. That is the point.

It's not that we want to throw the baby out with the bath water, but perhaps, it's more the case of wrapping the baby in a towel of a loving embrace before it drowns in its own dirty water.

Very eloquent.

 

[icehorse]

The problem of atheism is that the more ignorant and aggressive adherents think they have to deny the human spirit to prove the righteousness of their opinions (scientism). And it's that denial of the human spirit: of it's importance and it's necessity, that opens the door for all that petty egotism, resentment, self-righteousness, and willful arrogance. Causing many atheists to be nothing more than the godless mirror image of the narrow-minded, anti-social, fundamentalist religionists that they claim to disdain.

I think that quite the opposite is true. I think that in general atheists have a healthier take on what really nourishes the human spirit.

 

[icehorse]

While I greatly enjoy the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett, I do not tend to hang on their every word. I do agree that minimizing understanding so that it turns to what science knows as the only yardstick for gauging reality is a tad narrow. I'm a great fan of myth, symbolism (on many levels), dreams, poetry, art and music and understand that each speaks to a part of being that coexists with the purely intellectual but is not in competition with it. It is a complimentary aspect of personality and is not at war with the intellect.

Every one of the 4-horseman crew was/is a strong advocate for poetry, art, music and such.

 

[Willamena]

Can hardly argue with that since there are always extremes in any particular movement - but the 'human spirit' is just a concept. Sorry to disappoint.

A concept is "just a concept," so I guess it doesn't count either.

 

[YmirGF]

Very eloquent.

I've had my coffee now. Thanks.

 

[Augustus]

Oooh, can't have that, we must all be perfect - as the religious usually are (not). Generalise much?

Whataboutery.

How much 'scholarly research on religion' is there outside of religious sources exactly?

There's a whole discipline: 'the cognitive science of religion', not to mention relevant areas of history, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, etc.

 

[icehorse]

would like to hear what others here think, especially since this thread was inspired by another one. Also, sorry for the long OP; I view long OPs as the lesser evil compared to leaving out details that I find to be particularly relevant to the topic.

As I was wandering around feeding the horses I was thinking about this great OP...

I think that when we talk about / debate groups of people we really have to rely on statistics. For every group there will be a range of members, from thoughtless to thoughtful. From compassionate to evil. From strong adherents to weak adherents.

It seems to me that to call out the extremists on either end of any such spectrum is not very useful. Instead, it seems to me that what's really important is how the group believes and behaves statistically.

One wrinkle in this approach is that it's often the case that an active, vocal, extremist subset of a group is often the tail that wags the dog, and I think that has to be factored in as well.

So perhaps when debating about groups of people it would be most useful to discuss:

1 - What are the group's predominant beliefs and behaviors
2 - What are the extremist's beliefs and behaviors, and how much influence to the extremists have?

 

[PureX]

I don't presume because someone stated it as fact that it exists - does that help?

That what exists? The "fact"? The statement? The perceived experience of it by the person stating it? The problem here is that so many atheists never question their own conception of what their "facts" are, or what their "evidence" is, or what it means to "exist", or that we are all perceiving the world differently. Yet they seem determined to tell everyone else what is or isn't "real".

"Real" compared to what?

(One of the greatest tunes ever written.)

 

[Willamena]

Your definition presumes, and thus defines spirit as "supernatural" (not or other than natural). That's a pretty heavy bias, don't you think?

Depends on how you define "natural."

 

[PureX]

Depends on how you define "natural."

Most atheists think it means physical. But that doesn't really define anything. It just labels their bias toward 'scientism'.

 

[icehorse]

New Atheism is really an ideology rather than mere disbelief

To me, new atheism is a set of values, pretty closely aligned with secular humanism. By your definition, are either of those "ideologies"? I bring this up because it strikes me that the term "ideology" has come to have a negative connotation.

 

[Willamena]

Most atheists think it means physical. But that doesn't really define anything. It just labels their bias toward 'scientism'.

...or your bias in criticizing the use of that word to describe reality.

 

[blü 2]

I don't recall the last time Richard Dawkins, for example, said that theists were going to suffer eternal punishment for their theism, or the last time Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, or any other prominent New Atheist said something nearly as bigoted as some very common beliefs among Christian and Muslim communities (going into the details of which would easily require its own thread).

In my view Dawkins' great fault is lacking a sense of humor, so that his stridency is often unlevened.

I don't think Hitchens, whom I've read, or Harris, whom I know only by reports and reviews, have that particular fault. Nor does the relatively more ponderous Dennett.

Furthermore, a point I find important but too often overlooked in debates about New Atheism is that perceived "condescension" or "arrogance" in the way some arguments are made doesn't necessarily invalidate the core points of the arguments, nor does it mean that the perceived "condescension" isn't actually warranted in some cases.

This is a forum problem. If your audience is educated and has thought about these things, then they're less likely to hear condescension. Whether or not they're educated, if they haven't thought about these things it will be easier for them to hear condescension.

And it's difficult to say, You're wrong and here's why, A, B, C, D, E, F. G, H and more in Episode 2, without sounding condescending, so questionable technique if not deliberate aggression can be part of it.

 

[icehorse]

While promoting the importance of science and reason, they don't seem to apply this to themselves when discussing religion, its history and its role in society.

Of course we can and should learn from history. But you don't have to be a historian to have useful criticisms. For example, I don't really need to know the history of lead paint to say it's now known to be a bad idea.

Hitchens often said that he was fascinated by religion because it was our "first and worst attempt at science and philosophy". Interesting and somewhat useful historically, but IMO religion is NOW, the lead paint of morality and well being.