Why Arrogant "New Atheists" Annoy Me

[Mock Turtle]

Buddha Dharma states his view that new atheists are by in large philosophically illiterate. Your response to this charge is to point out your opposition to 'religious people'.

All you demonstrate is that the new atheist worldview isn't built on serious thought. It's built on a dislike for religion and an inflated sense of one's own rationality. If you think that's worth respect as a serious worldview then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Why should that mean anything to me? The Buddha Dharma has about as much relevance to me as any other religious speaker. You quoting him has exactly zero meaning for me - as for the many who quote their particular sages. The fact is that religious beliefs came along - there were no such things at one time - and perhaps they will vanish in the future too. Religious beliefs are declining in the more enlightened countries. Not know this?

Disagree? Oh, we certainly will.

 

[Augustus]

My biggest issue with the new atheists is the high level of philosophical illiteracy among them. They often don't understand the problems a philosopher might have with their underpinning everything they accept with pretty much nothing. They also don't tend to appreciate how serious things like meaning actually are.

It wouldn't be too uncommon to far a New Atheist to express views like: "OMG you believe something which isn't true. You need to believe in delusional fairy tales because you can't face the truth. Do you even science bro?"

Many also repeat inane, specious memes like:

Now an old atheist, Nietzsche said:

The greatest recent event - that 'God is dead'; that the belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable - is already starting to cast its first shadow over Europe... Even less may one suppose many to know at all what this event really means - and, now that this faith has been undermined, how much must collapse because it was built on this faith, leaned on it, had grown into it - for example, our entire European morality. The Gay Science


Many New Atheists fail to realise the degree to which contemporary society has been shaped by religion, and that rejecting it ultimately this destroys the foundations on which existing morality is built.

This leads to an attempt to recast such ideas in a secular context, the thing is that it doesn't make these things any more 'true' or more representative of 'reality'. This is why for centuries, atheists have tried to create a science of morality, although the results have not always been liberal.

For example Auguste Comte's Positivism

It was the Church’s power in unifying society, which the Religion of Humanity tried (without success) to emulate. They believed the growth of knowledge was the driving force of ethical and political progress and celebrated science and technology for expanding human power. Rejecting traditional religions they founded a humanist cult of reason. This was the creed of the eighteenth-century philosophes restated for the nineteenth century. If the Positivists were distinctive it was not in their attitude to religion – many Enlightenment savants including Voltaire cherished the absurd project of a ‘rational religion’ – but in their belief that, as human knowledge advanced, human conflict would wither away. Science would reveal the true ends of human action, and – though why this was so was never explained – they would be found to be harmonious. This was the archetypal ‘utopian idea in a modern’ guise, and it was vastly influential... The society of the future would be technocratic and hierarchical. It would be held together by a new religion – the Religion of Humanity.

John Gray, Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia

Marxist communism would be a more recognisable example of this also.

Many New Atheists avoid discussing the philosophical underpinnings of their worldview. They just assume because they nominally purport to value Reason, that their worldview must be rational. It still relies substantially on concepts borrowed from Christianity though, and these become no more 'rational' by removing God from the equation.

As such many NA, tend to lack self-awareness and critical thinking in their common critique of religion:

1. Religions are 'made up' so they are false - New Atheist ideologies are also made up
2. Believing in false things is harmful - They also believe in false things, and anyway, things are only harmful when they cause harm not simply because they are false.
3. Religions cause unique harms to society - No evidence of that, secular ideologies actually have a 'pound for pound' worse record for violence (even if we leave out generic nationalism).
4. Getting rid of religions will make people more humanistic - 'rational' ideologies may or may not be humanistic, as history has showed. While some Enlightenment thinkers were humanists, humanism was not one of the core tenets of the Enlightenment.

As an atheist myself, I have no problem with people criticising religion when it deserves it (which it often does), but I find NA blanket criticisms to be superficial and based on flawed reasoning. That they do this while holding themselves up as paragons of enlightened reason is somewhat incongruent.

 

[Glaurung]

Why should that mean anything to me? The Buddha Dharma has about as much relevance to me as any other religious speaker. You quoting him has exactly zero meaning for me - as for the many who quote their particular sages. The fact is that religious beliefs came along - there were no such things at one time - and perhaps they will vanish in the future too. Religious beliefs are declining in the more enlightened countries. Not know this?

This is little more than a confused non-sequitur. We're talking about new atheist philosophical bankruptcy. A bankruptcy you continue to demonstrate.

 

[Mock Turtle]

This is little more than a confused non-sequitur. We're talking about new atheist philosophical bankruptcy. A bankruptcy you continue to demonstrate.

Hardly. Quoting from your religious beliefs is though. Fan of C S Lewis too?

 

[stvdv]

To value critical thinking doesn't you think you're smarter, it just means you're willing to stand on the shoulders of the smart people that came before you and developed critical thinking.

I think there is a misunderstanding. The context from which I quoted was all about "looking down on others" which was said to be wrong and with this I surely agree. That is what I mean with arrogance. Of course I agree with the post advicing "listen to the smart people who came before you".

 

[stvdv]

@stvdv: In India the scriptures declare "Spiritual Ego is the biggest obstacle on the spiritual path"

Believing oneself more spiritual than others can be just as arrogant - and pathetic. My belief is better than yours - na na na na nah!

What you say is exactly what I said (in other words), was it not?
Or more accurate I was even saying "it is", not "it can be"

Your answer can be taken to imply "I believe myself to be more spiritual". If that is the case, then you totally misread and misinterpretated what I actually wrote

 

[Mock Turtle]

What you say is exactly what I said (in other words), was it not?
Or more accurate I was even saying "it is", not "it can be"

Your answer can be taken to imply "I believe myself to be more spiritual". If that is the case, then you totally misread and misinterpretated what I actually wrote

You put this very mildly.
Believing oneself smarter = arrogance
When it is on matters of spirituality
This is called spiritual arrogance/ego
In India the scriptures declare "Spiritual Ego is the biggest obstacle on the spiritual path"

Let's look at the whole quote. Believing oneself smarter when one might be, is not necessarily arrogance. Just honesty.
So, it hardly depends on what subject, since one can be more or less correct than others, and if one is smarter (more intelligent) then perhaps one has a better chance than those less intelligent. No?

Should we examine the achievements of the smarties over those not so smart?

 

[stvdv]

You put this very mildly.
Believing oneself smarter = arrogance
When it is on matters of spirituality
This is called spiritual arrogance/ego
In India the scriptures declare "Spiritual Ego is the biggest obstacle on the spiritual path"

Let's look at the whole quote. Believing oneself smarter when one might be, is not necessarily arrogance. Just honesty.
So, it hardly depends on what subject, since one can be more or less correct than others, and if one is smarter (more intelligent) then perhaps one has a better chance than those less intelligent. No?

You are right, I didn't put it clear and correct. I understand you. I hope that how I put it below makes more sense.

So I try to put it completely back into context again; the below was the quote I replied to:
"Because falsely believing oneself to be smarter than one actually is can lead to a lessened desire for learning new things"

For me arrogance means that you think you "are better, superior" than the other. Also demeaning the other".
When this is related to spirituality it is called "spiritual ego", and called "the biggest obstacle on the spiritual path" in the indian scriptures I read

So I tried to just stress the point how important it is to be careful with "(falsely) believing oneself to be smarter", not only do you lessen the desire to learn new things, you also might be less open to learn, but even more important there is a trap to "demean the other" thereby easily ending up with "spiritual ego"

To answer your question in the end:
My belief is that you don't need intelligence to have a better chance when it comes to spirituality. And sometimes intelligence can be even a big obstacle. But intelligence also can be a big help. As regard to worldly matters I agree with you.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You are right, I didn't put it clear and correct. I understand you. I hope that how I put it below makes more sense.

So I try to put it completely back into context again; the below was the quote I replied to:
"Because falsely believing oneself to be smarter than one actually is can lead to a lessened desire for learning new things"

For me arrogance means that you think you "are better, superior" than the other. Also demeaning the other".
When this is related to spirituality it is called "spiritual ego", and called "the biggest obstacle on the spiritual path" in the indian scriptures I read

So I tried to just stress the point how important it is to be careful with "(falsely) believing oneself to be smarter", not only do you lessen the desire to learn new things, you also might be less open to learn, but even more important there is a trap to "demean the other" thereby easily ending up with "spiritual ego"

To answer your question in the end:
My belief is that you don't need intelligence to have a better chance when it comes to spirituality. And sometimes intelligence can be even a big obstacle. But intelligence also can be a big help. As regard to worldly matters I agree with you.

OK, and there is evidence that some seem to recognise their own intelligence and assess it correctly, while many others seem to assess themselves as being more intelligent than they actually are - I'll try to fish an article out - and which makes much sense in your context. No probs.

Here is one I believe (haven't checked it thoroughly):

Why we overestimate our competence

 

[Leonides]

This may be a surprising thread coming from myself, an agnostic, who probably fits many definitions of "atheist." However, I'd like to address my opinion of many individuals in the atheist community, particularly young people who have left the church and been influenced by the New Atheist movement. The arrogance of many of them is laughable. Many of them seem to think that because they have read "The God Delusion" or some such book, that they are now somehow enlightened and intellectually superior to the rest of the population who are not atheists. This is certainly not true, and it is somewhat laughable and somewhat disconcerting, because falsely believing oneself to be smarter than one actually is can lead to a lessened desire for learning new things. Many of these young "new atheist" types are deluding themselves into the belief that they are thinking for themselves, when in actuality, they are simply letting popular atheists like Dawkins, Harris et. al. do their thinking for them.

There are many theistic intellectuals that I can guarantee were much more intelligent than any of the know-it-all atheist keyboard warriors of today. For instance, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, and Isaac Newton were all brilliant mathematicians (definitely some of the smartest people in all of recorded history) and also devout Christian believers. The point of my post is to simply offer my opinion on many of the atheists, particularly young atheists, that are found so abundantly on the Internet today and seem to love looking down their noses at others whose beliefs differ from theirs. The fact is, you're not as smart as you think you are, so don't forget to listen to the thoughts of others, and keep an open mind.

I always considered myself to be agnostic. To be more in depth with that, I just simply don’t know, but it’s very unlikely that a Supernatural/Afterlife exist.

I have came across certain atheist forums, were they become absolutely furious with that word lol. Saying that “your only pretending to be clever not knowing your mind.”

Like, no, I’m just thoughtful, eager to learn and don’t have my head up my a**

 

[PureX]

It seems to me that every generation repeats the mistakes of the generations that came before it. In the end, some learn some don't. Same story, told over and over again with each generation.

This is a heartbreaking truth of the human condition. It's why we advance so slowly, in terms of moral and ethical wisdom, as a species. And it's anyone's guess whether we will destroy ourselves, or not, because of it.

 

[stvdv]

Why we overestimate our competence [Why we overestimate our competence]

Thanks for the link. Very good for me to have read this. I always underestimate myself. And didn't get why others over estimated themselves. Never gave it much thought. After reading this it makes all more sense.

If I understand well, arrogance is not the cause, but ignorance is. That makes sense. To make it practical. Someone claims "My religion is the only truth". I think all can agree that this belongs to "overestimating oneself" [it means you studied all scriptures, met all wise experts etc]. Probably the ones "overestimating themselves" won't agree with this, that seems to be inherent in this whole concept.

If ignorance is the cause. What does it mean exactly? Ignorance "not knowing the truth", or plain foolishness, because overestimating oneself is not so smart; you just express to the world "I am a fool" [others easily see through this]. So I think it means that you are ignorant of your own capabilities, ignorant to look truthfully at yourself. That makes kind of sense. In holland we have a saying "Arrogance makes blind".

So my idea sofar is, that people have an emotional block/trauma, that prevents them from truthfully looking at themselves. Also because of trauma they feel that they have to be "good, or the best". All this results that they overestimate themselves [understandably demeaning others in the process easily happens also]. Thereby expressing arrogance. Which makes it full circle, perpetuum mobile. Very difficult to get out of this loop I think.

I don't believe in coincidence. So as you shared this with me, I guess you felt (right) it would be good for me to read this.

I did learn a good lesson "don't get annoyed by arrogant (new) (a)theists". They just express their ignorance.
And another good lesson I learned "don't try to explain it to them".

 

[Mock Turtle]

Thanks for the link. Very good for me to have read this. I always underestimate myself. And didn't get why others over estimated themselves. Never gave it much thought. After reading this it makes all more sense.

If I understand well, arrogance is not the cause, but ignorance is. That makes sense. To make it practical. Someone claims "My religion is the truth". I think all can agree that this belongs to "overestimating oneself" [it means you studied all scriptures, met all wise experts etc]. Probably the ones "overestimating themselves" won't agree with this, that seems to be inherent in this whole concept.

If ignorance is the cause. What does it mean exactly? Ignorance "not knowing the truth", or plain foolishness, because overestimating oneself is not so smart; you just express to the world "I am a fool" [others easily see through this]. So I think it means that you are ignorant of your own capabilities, ignorant to look truthfully at yourself. That makes kind of sense. In holland we have a saying "Arrogance makes blind".

So my idea sofar is, that people have an emotional block/trauma, that prevents them from truthfully looking at themselves. Also because of trauma they feel that they have to be "good, or the best". All this results that they overestimate themselves [understandably demeaning others in the process easily happens also]. Thereby expressing arrogance. Which makes it full circle, perpetuum mobile. Very difficult to get out of this loop I think.

I don't believe in coincidence. So as you shared this with me, I guess you felt (right) it would be good for me to read this.

I did learn a good lesson "don't get annoyed by arrogant (new) (a)theists". They just express their ignorance.
And another good lesson I learned "don't try to explain it to them".

I'm glad it came in useful - not sure it was actually the one I was looking for - and being honest with oneself is I believe the most important thing in life - if not then many paths lead one astray. Not sure if this was the message you wished to impart though.

 

[stvdv]

I'm glad it came in useful - not sure it was actually the one I was looking for

But for me it was the right one, and at the right time.

and being honest with oneself is I believe the most important thing in life - if not then many paths lead one astray. Not sure if this was the message you wished to impart though

And that again was exactly the lesson I learned [don't bother about others too much, go your own way]

 

[Stevicus]

The point of my post is to simply offer my opinion on many of the atheists, particularly young atheists, that are found so abundantly on the Internet today and seem to love looking down their noses at others whose beliefs differ from theirs. The fact is, you're not as smart as you think you are, so don't forget to listen to the thoughts of others, and keep an open mind.

I agree with what you're saying here, although I don't have a big problem with sincere arrogance. It's when it's a put on used as an argumentative tactic, then it comes off as disingenuous and insincere. Whenever I hear people parrot each other or use the same jargon, I feel like I'm in an echo chamber.

I don't mind good healthy arrogance, but falsity and putting on airs do tend to annoy me quite a bit.

 

[icehorse]

I was simply making observations and you're throwing a childish tantrum (seems I hit a nerve and you're all defensive). I haven't made an argument so what is it you so desperately wish to debate with me about?

You seem to be unclear on the concept - you were making claims in a debate forum. After 23,000 posts, you haven't figured out that when you make claims on a debate forum you might get pushback?

 

[icehorse]

You could attend

They weren't really ad hom as he was posting 'why they are not widely respected', not 'New Atheism is false'.

I was referring to post #7 which read:

I thought the "New Atheist" thing died out. It was really "a thing" a decade ago. I mostly see it criticized among atheists, especially for its sexism these days. Dawkins has made a laughingstock of himself with his stupidity on social media making him look like someone's bigoted grandpa while he reweets neo-Nazis, Harris is basically an Islamophobic neocon who supports torture and pretends to be a philosopher while hypocritically hawking watered down Buddhism, Hitchens is dead (he was also a despicable warmonger) and who knows what Dennett is doing. It was basically a movement of uppity white men to make themselves feel superior.

You don't see those as ad hom? (nice abbreviation btw, i'm gonna use that)

The poster didn't mention a single claim any of the "new atheists" made, he just attempted to besmirch them as people. Seems like textbook ad hom to me, no?

 

[icehorse]

In order to have an opinion, you don't need to know much at all.

But if you're going to present yourself as a brave intellectual crushing the delusions of the less enlightened with cold reason and hard fact, then you better make sure your own views are more than convenient anti-religious talking points.

Sometimes talking points are all that's needed. Let me give you an example:

"If you removed the so-called 'leaders' in the Israeli - Palestinian mess, the people would just create a two-state solution and be done with it. But because of religion, that's not possible, and that conflict might just end civilization."

That's a talking point. It would be useful if more people knew it.

==

Now in general I do despair that we rely so much on talking points - that's a big problem - but sometimes a good talking point really does provide a powerful perspective.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You seem to be unclear on the concept - you were making claims in a debate forum. After 23,000 posts, you haven't figured out that when you make claims on a debate forum you might get pushback?

I'll leave you to your tantrum and lack of reading comprehension. *clicks ignore*

 

[icehorse]

It wouldn't be too uncommon to far a New Atheist to express views like: "OMG you believe something which isn't true. You need to believe in delusional fairy tales because you can't face the truth. Do you even science bro?"

Every camp has its share of non-thinkers, I don't think that furthers the conversation, do you?

 

[Mock Turtle]

This is a heartbreaking truth of the human condition. It's why we advance so slowly, in terms of moral and ethical wisdom, as a species. And it's anyone's guess whether we will destroy ourselves, or not, because of it.

Ain't that the truth.