tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post3593518060538277690..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Michael Bachelard's story on the New Atheism - a responseRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-24293777726019924072010-02-15T15:57:48.186+11:002010-02-15T15:57:48.186+11:00Can you tell me …, please
-----------------------...Can you tell me …, please <br />---------------------------------------------------------<br />Signature:<a href="http://www.xbox360achievements.org/forum/member.php?u=277887" rel="nofollow">buy levitra professional online</a> gmbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-87872401829982691892010-01-30T04:45:16.327+11:002010-01-30T04:45:16.327+11:00tired of comments like "That's nice sound...tired of comments like "That's nice sound, all right, fine " or <a href="http://zainkhan.info/" rel="nofollow">buy antibiotics online</a>. Then write to me at icq 75949683256...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-32542831685670758862010-01-22T06:00:16.152+11:002010-01-22T06:00:16.152+11:00Nailed it! Great thoughts and prose. Congrats from...Nailed it! Great thoughts and prose. Congrats from an atheist cat who thinks only his own meow is soothing.Mark Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12604074895219791713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-8770656207887509512010-01-21T09:00:49.536+11:002010-01-21T09:00:49.536+11:00Here's my shibboleth question for followers of...Here's my shibboleth question for followers of "sophisticated theology": An evangelistic organization is sending to Haiti solar-powered audio bibles in Creole<br />http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100119/tts-uk-quake-haiti-bibles-ca02f96.html<br /><br />What is your response:<br /><br />1) The organization and its donors have their hearts in the right place, as it is very important to provide spiritual care for the immortal souls of the Haitians<br /><br />2) The organization and its donors are sadly deluded. The money, time, energy, and transportation resource should be spent on food and other physical supplies. It is a complete waste (not to mention an insult) to send these audio bibles.Theo Brominehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14078583453130339726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-942391408637435672010-01-21T04:08:12.895+11:002010-01-21T04:08:12.895+11:00The point about grappling with sophisticated theol...The point about grappling with sophisticated theologians is an attempt at security by obscurity. The idea is that criticism can be deflected by citing a book the critic hasn't read. The actual contents of the book are not relevant to this rhetorical device. If the critic reads book X then you just cite book Y instead, and so on. This tactic is easily detected by the absence of any reference to the contents of the book when it is cited, as that would mean using an argument and arguments can be met. Any number of reviews of books by atheists use this technique - "I have a knockdown argument that proves your are wrong, but there isn't space for it here so you'll just have to trust me".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-83375136388122745732010-01-13T17:01:13.547+11:002010-01-13T17:01:13.547+11:00I think Blackford's argument against atheist f...I think Blackford's argument against atheist fundamentalism is flawed: "A fundamentalist atheist would be one who believes in the inerrancy of an atheist text." Surely a lower-case fundamentalist is one who follows fundamentals - being or involving basic facts or principles - which does not necessarily require a text. I think this is knee-jerk reaction from a generalisation of what the current major Fundamentalist religions do. The act or practice of following fundamentals is mixed up with the type of fundamentals followed by these religions. <br /><br />As a scientist I am a fundamentalist following known facts of physics, chemistry, biology, etc and current evolving principles of scientific method including skepticism and falsification. Fundamentalism does not have to follow set-in-stone rigidity nor be "literal-minded, irrational dogmatism" if it is based on fundamentals such as evidence-based skepticism.<br />I don't just tick the box to be an atheist because I don't like the other options (as some do I guess). I am antitheist and I fundamentally believe atheism is better than religion for the future of humans and our planet even if religion did have a useful function in the earlier evolution of humans. Re-claim 'fundamentalism'. Atheists can be far better fundamentalists than the righteous religious.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079559136035822132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-45676707772689478582010-01-12T12:56:24.463+11:002010-01-12T12:56:24.463+11:00Moses: "The word 'delusion' was aroun...Moses: "The word 'delusion' was around a lot longer than the psychiatric profession's co-opting of it."<br /><br />But it has been co-opted enough that Dawkins discussed in <i>The God Delusion</i> whether he was using it in the psychiatric sense, even though he was ambiguous about using the word that way.<br /><br />Russell Blackford: "I think that Dawkins is putting an argument as to why religious believers are, in an important way, like individuals who suffer more idiosyncratic delusions. Indeed, on a definition that captures much of what is actually wrong with being idiosyncratically deluded (e.g being importantly mistaken about the world and being resistant to all contrary evidence), it's really a kind of contrivance that the religious are not counted as deluded."<br /><br />Trouble is, resistance to contrary evidence is very much a part of the human condition, so discussing it in terms more suggestive of an abnormal mental illness is misleading, even grossly so. It also doesn't help that the case against religion <i>isn't</i> as trivial as pointing out the emperor's hanging genitalia. Rather, the case against religion is a cumulative one, and parts of it, such as the dismantling of the arguments from design, are counterintuitive. Hume's argument against miracles, one of the more crucial parts of the case against religion, is frequently misunderstood even by atheists. It's not as if the religious are rejecting an open-and-shut case. These issues are probably what Julian Baggini was getting at in his <a href="http://www.fritanke.no/ENGLISH/2009/The_new_atheist_movement_is_destructive/" rel="nofollow">criticisms of the New Atheists</a>, especially his criticism of the New Atheists' "error theory."<br /><br />"Hence, 'fundamentalist Randian' makes legitimate sense in a way that 'fundamentalist New Atheist' doesn't (unless someone really does start to act as if Dawkins or The God Delusion can basically do no wrong)."<br /><br />I don't think that things have quite gotten to the point where Dawkins can do no wrong in the eyes of his admirers, but it is telling how responses to criticism of New Atheists have involved the kind of distortion that would not be unknown to fundies. It's telling that the <a href="http://www.fritanke.no/ENGLISH/2009/A_Reply_to_Julian_Baggini/" rel="nofollow">attempted rebuttal</a> of Baggini by George Williamson rhetorically asks whether he wants the New Atheists to "Check it twice, à la Santa Claus," as if it were a bad idea to which Baggini would say "no," and then puts words in Baggini's mouth by saying, "it seems to me that his complaint in sum is this: tactless and harsh comments in the media by new atheists have soured the otherwise benign, friendly atmosphere in which believers and non-believers usually meet." Or take PZ Myers' <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/arguments_for_morality_are_not.php" rel="nofollow">mangled rebuttal of Jonathan Haidt's discussion of the New Atheists</a>, where he writes, "Haidt starts treating the New Atheist arguments as an assault on moral systems," which again has nothing to do with the facts and seems to be a scrambled reading of Haidt's question, "Do these new atheist books model the scientific mind at its best? Or do they reveal normal human beings acting on the basis of their normal moral psychology?"<br /><br />I wouldn't call the New Atheists "fundamentalists" outright, but some of their behavior gets uncomfortably close.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-60419611795516118042010-01-12T02:42:23.149+11:002010-01-12T02:42:23.149+11:00So are you suggesting that atheists stop using the...<i>So are you suggesting that atheists stop using the words "delusion," "delusional," etc., since that usage borrows connotations from the narrower, more clinical sense of the word "delusion"?</i><br /><br />The word "delusion" was around a lot longer than the psychiatric profession's co-opting of it. <br /><br />Etymology: <i>Delusion -- "act of misleading someone," early 15c.; as a form of mental derangement, 1550s. See delude. <br /><br />Technically, <b>delusion</b> is a belief that, though false, has been surrendered to and accepted by the whole mind as a truth; <b>illusion</b> is an impression that, though false, is entertained provisionally on the recommendation of the senses or the imagination, but awaits full acceptance and may not influence action. <b>Delusions of grandeur,</b> the exact phrase, is recorded from 1840, though the two words were in close association for some time before that. </i><br /><br /><i>delude -- c.1400, from L. <b>deludere</b> "to mock, deceive," from de- "down, to one's detriment" + ludere "to play" </i><br /><br />So I have no problem using the word correctly. Christians are deluded. They wholly accept a fixed, false belief regardless of the overwhelming evidence against their beliefs and the complete lack of credible evidence for their beliefs.MosesZDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12702323080585738748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-15413532596492605642010-01-12T01:42:44.283+11:002010-01-12T01:42:44.283+11:00Hi Michael & all,
I'm new here so please e...Hi Michael & all,<br />I'm new here so please excuse my inexperience, firstly yeah, I didn't get Rundle's point either. I don't see how the criticisms he makes are valid, of course modern athiests are engaging with the supposedly sophisticated theists. If it doesn't exist, then surely the theological arguments are moot. I mean I enjoy a theological discussion the same way I enjoy classics like Shakespeare and the insightful stuff that Terry Pratchett writes, but I don't have to believe their characters exist to enjoy them. In fact I'd enjoy them a lot less if i thought they did, which is mostly my beef with theists, I'm sort of offended that they'd think me so stupid as to be taken in by their nonsense and let alone use it as a moral barometer or fail to oppose it when it impinges on my freedom. I think their irritation with Dawkins' word choice is mostly hubris, it's hard to admit that you've been deceived, it's much easier to attack the messenger than engage with the message.<br />My I ask what is a "troll"?<br />I really enjoyed your piece and will be sure to visit again.<br />Slan abhalie, SeanSean Oghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816850341393218076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-64052686836326776052010-01-12T01:21:09.475+11:002010-01-12T01:21:09.475+11:00Don't worry so much about deference or diploma...Don't worry so much about deference or diplomacy. Speak the truth loudy and clearly and let the consequences be damned. If your truth is atheism, then celebrate it. Shout with joy, No God No God No God for me!!! And I'll sing back to you No God No God No God for me tooo! Happy Day.Julian Tolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03952334382052760275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-18106425221253184802010-01-11T18:31:08.369+11:002010-01-11T18:31:08.369+11:00"exactly what should be done to counter this ..."exactly what should be done to counter this political deference to religion"<br /><br />Here is what I am doing - but before that I must say that is one of the most eloquent pieces of writing I have read in a long time - leaves me in awe of your ability with English.<br /><br />Only at draft stage - hope to finish it later today and get it off. I would be honored if you gave this perspective some thought and if of value present it at the Atheist conference.<br /><br />Unable to post due to character limit email me and I can send john@september12009.comJohnBhttp://www.september12009.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-4176206838036445422010-01-11T16:15:17.239+11:002010-01-11T16:15:17.239+11:00Why do atheists need to "grapple with sophist...Why do atheists need to "grapple with sophisticated theologians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth"? This is just another version of reference to a sacred text as an authority. Theology is patently ridiculous,despite many attempts,no one has demonstated that the object of study even exists,so it has no value as a methodology.<br /><br />I agree that Rundle misses the point,religion is easy, science is difficult and some science like quantum physics is very dificult indeed,only a small percentage of the population will ever understand it as a discipline.However counterintuitive quantum physics appears to be,it "works",unlike theology.<br />I don't understand what Rundle's argument is, (1)for religious tolerance-fair enough, or is he suggesting (2) that religious beliefs have the same logical base as scientific theories-this is a very strange proposition from an atheist.Is it some sort of post- modernism?macehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00077569413983513298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-38178377249587736622010-01-11T15:24:57.216+11:002010-01-11T15:24:57.216+11:00Another great post/artical whichever Mr.Blackford....Another great post/artical whichever Mr.Blackford. <br /> On ocasion I have been called a fundementalist atheist. I think nothing more is meant than non middle of t road or non moderate. This is not an acurate uuse of this term but there it is. <br /><br />As to "delusional"; I think it would be acepted if used to describe someone who believed in faries. How is this different than believing in god, other than in how many people believe either one and when they did. Used to be more people believed in animist spirits like faries than an entity that would be charactorised as a god.babrocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-35004244326797118332010-01-11T15:05:55.979+11:002010-01-11T15:05:55.979+11:00Okay, JJ, "simplistic" may not quite cap...Okay, JJ, "simplistic" may not quite capture what you have in mind, but it's the nearest word - much nearer than "fundamentalist". I'm just not buying the excuse that the latter is the closest word they can find. If they can't find a word that's closer than <i>that</i>, let them spell out their criticism (they can actually <i>say</i>, if it's what they think, "The New Atheists use sloppy arguments and are too quick to demonise opponents"). <br /><br />I can't <i>prove</i> it of course, but I see, in the use of the word "fundamentalist" to attack the "New Atheists", various unsavoury motivations. Take a useful word away from them; say something that might be hurtful/provocative of anger; try to be clever with a tu quoque rejoinder ...<br /><br />I'll go on contesting this usage.<br /><br />As for the word, "delusion" ... it's not one that I use. However, note that I don't object to the word "fundamentalist" to apply to a dogmatic Marxist who treats <i>Das Capital</i> as inerrant holy writ, or a to a dogmatic Randian who treats <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> in the same way. These are <i>useful</i> extensions of the idea of fundamentalism. They say that such Randians, etc., are not fundamentalists in the sense of believing in the Christian fundamentals (such as Christ's sacrificial atonement), but that what is actually wrong with them is pretty much what is wrong with Christian fundamentalists: the same kind of dogmatism, being closed to new information, etc. They don't just share a characteristic such as being forthright or wanting to proselytise; they share the very characteristic that makes fundamentalism a bad thing in the first place, so it's salient to point out what they have in common with people who are fundamentalists in the narrowest sense. Hence, "fundamentalist Randian" makes legitimate sense in a way that "fundamentalist New Atheist" doesn't (unless someone really does start to act as if Dawkins or <i>The God Delusion</i> can basically do no wrong).<br /><br />I think that Dawkins is putting an argument as to why religious believers are, in an important way, like individuals who suffer more idiosyncratic delusions. Indeed, on a definition that captures much of what is actually wrong with being idiosyncratically deluded (e.g being importantly mistaken about the world and being resistant to all contrary evidence), it's really a kind of contrivance that the religious are <i>not</i> counted as deluded. Dawkins' title conveys that point, and he does actually take the trouble to argue, in the early part of his book, why the term is revealing, rather than just obscuring or just an attempt to hurt or a provocation to anger.<br /><br />So, I think Dawkins handles it pretty well; it's a piece of legitimate, supported rhetoric. He's trying to provoke thought rather than anger, even though it might also provoke some of the latter. <br /><br />At the same time, I think that the term gets thrown around a helluva lot and that we could all be a bit careful about it. I don't like it when it's just used to provoke believers for the sake of provoking them, or as a kind of coded way to act tough in front of peers. Still, I certainly don't think Dawkins is doing those things.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-34155564180520106362010-01-11T14:59:09.578+11:002010-01-11T14:59:09.578+11:00Great article mate!Great article mate!Simonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-395593274913047492010-01-11T14:37:24.920+11:002010-01-11T14:37:24.920+11:00I see we have a troll (and no, I don't mean JJ...I see we have a troll (and no, I don't mean JJ). Just a moment while I zap it.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-90020688815748073582010-01-11T12:41:58.794+11:002010-01-11T12:41:58.794+11:00"JJ, the word for what you describe isn't..."JJ, the word for what you describe isn't 'fundamentalist'; it's 'simplistic'."<br /><br />Not quite. Sure, a tendency to be intellectually sloppy or demonize one's adversaries could be called simplistic, but that hardly captures the gist of that tendency.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-20376821435572587412010-01-11T10:54:20.968+11:002010-01-11T10:54:20.968+11:00JJ, the word for what you describe isn't "...JJ, the word for what you describe isn't "fundamentalist"; it's "simplistic". If critics of the New Atheism said, "Some of these modern atheists are very simplistic in their approach" we'd at least have something to debate. But the emotional urge seems to be to accuse atheists of the worst possible sin in their own eyes, i.e. "fundamentalism".<br /><br />Still, you raise an interesting issue. It's possible, I suppose, that some people do actually have a meaning such as "simplistic" in mind, which creates yet another possibility for confusion.<br /><br />The real fundamentalists are not necessarily simplistic in their theology. Their attitudes to <i>morality</i> may be simplistic, I suppose, since they rely on absolute moral rules that fail to engage with the complexities of real-world situations. But fundamentalist <i>theology</i> can form a quite complex, nuanced, well-integrated system that makes appropriate distinctions and so on.<br /><br />It's not oversimplifying something that it kinda <i>has a point</i> about. The problem is more that the system as a whole is thoroughly false. It's not implausible taken in isolation (history shows that many people find such systems all-too-intuitively-plausible). But it plainly contradicts much of what we now know from science and reason.<br /><br />Your point about "deluded" is interesting, but I mainly disagree with it. I'll have to address it separately, so feel free to remind me.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-60581120348235774162010-01-11T04:56:33.437+11:002010-01-11T04:56:33.437+11:00BTW, there was an old comment thread on the Friend...BTW, there was an old comment thread on the Friendly Atheist blog where <a href="http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/04/18/god-and-the-new-atheism/#comment-156614" rel="nofollow">I discussed the equivocation that I saw in the use of the word "delusion"</a>.<br /><br />Back to the original issue of using the phrase "atheist fundamentalist," I'm not sure that it is that good an example of "relying on connotations from the word's so-called 'narrow' sense." The negative connotations of the word "fundamentalist" (which aren't much different from the connotations of the word "delusion"!) don't come from the idea of strict adherence to a text, but rather from the reputation of fundamentalists as prone to thinking in black-and-white terms and unfairly demonizing their opponents.<br /><br />Now you are right in saying that even such an expanded idea of fundamentalism "is not a feature of contemporary scientifically-based atheism such as espoused by Dawkins or Grayling." The key word here, though, is "espoused." If one wants to talk about the kind of atheism <i>exemplified</i> by, say, Grayling, then one deals not just the "scientifically-based" stuff, but also with, for example, citing the Jesuits as an example of those who "think that the hows and whys of the universe are explained to satisfaction by their faith, or smugly embrace ignorance," which is <a href="http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/08/23/on-grayling-on-the-jesuits/" rel="nofollow">largely bullshit</a>, and a pretty good example of unfairly demonizing one's opponents.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-52609090537344348732010-01-11T03:50:27.240+11:002010-01-11T03:50:27.240+11:00Theo Bromine: "I am not a psychologist, but I...Theo Bromine: "I am not a psychologist, but I think it is fair to say that the term 'delusion' is not itself clinical"<br /><br />It is, however, a good example of a word that retains the connotations of its narrow clinical usage even when it is used in a broader, colloquial sense.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73587121550867333022010-01-11T02:56:55.783+11:002010-01-11T02:56:55.783+11:00Great post! The whole thing was superb.
I've ...Great post! The whole thing was superb.<br /><br />I've been an atheist as far back as I can remember, but throughout my childhood, I never knew anyone else who even expressed doubts. Although I wasn't overly secretive about my disbelief, I never used to advertise it, either. It was my business, and no one else's. (And for many years, it seemed like religion was dead or dying, anyway.)<br /><br />But after 9/11, I started speaking out. I don't much like the "New Atheism" label, especially as I've discovered the outspoken atheists of the 19th Century (this really isn't all that "new"), but I really like to see atheists speaking out. As the gay community has done, we need to show people that we're their friends and neighbors, their coworkers and their relatives.Bill Garthrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08552459555883204060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-71114988506841625182010-01-11T02:10:14.271+11:002010-01-11T02:10:14.271+11:00@defaithed Yes I completely agree, that sentence i...@defaithed Yes I completely agree, that sentence is so wildly inaccurate it almost offended me :P It's practically suggesting that atheism is a religion, and detracts from what started as quite a good article.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08237179695906464222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-15370354851612715422010-01-11T02:08:44.294+11:002010-01-11T02:08:44.294+11:00Quoth JJ Ramsey:
So are you suggesting that athei...Quoth JJ Ramsey:<br /><br /><i>So are you suggesting that atheists stop using the words "delusion," "delusional," etc., since that usage borrows connotations from the narrower, more clinical sense of the word "delusion"? </i><br /><br />I am not a psychologist, but I think it is fair to say that the term "delusion" is not itself clinical - it depends on whether the person accused of having the delusion is "delusional" (which could be a clinical assessment), or simply "deluded" (which can be properly applied to someone who simply holds a mistaken belief, while being otherwise normal and functional in other areas).Theo Brominehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14078583453130339726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-46723364520579095522010-01-11T02:01:44.270+11:002010-01-11T02:01:44.270+11:00Saying that currently atheists are individualists,...Saying that currently atheists are individualists, et cetera, says more about the rest of society than it does about inherent qualities of atheists. It is precisely because most people take religious beliefs as normal, that open atheists (at least in the beginning) are to be described as outside.<br /><br />I was raised outside of any religious observance (aside from Christmas and Easter family meals, but this was as secular an observance as can be imagined), but never one which was specifically atheist. God simply never came up as a topic of conversation, and I considered those who congregated in the town's various churches with vague curiosity and benign neglect (although I was fairly curious about the idea of confession, and tried on occasion, without success, to interrogate Catholics about this).<br /><br />My point here is that I had no strong feelings about gods till I started to read about what was written in the Bible; hence my more vocal atheism. It seems to me that the greatest argument against religions are their various sacred documents. Any campaign to spread what these writings actually say can only be to the detriment of their followings' numbers, especially as it is hard for them to argue that it is unfair to use their own words against them (not that this will stop the practice).jhmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15024302748759726815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-87921528568116342262010-01-11T01:28:27.375+11:002010-01-11T01:28:27.375+11:00My instant beef with the Bachelard article:
"...My instant beef with the Bachelard article:<br /><br />"The new atheism... [is] based on the belief that science explains everything we need to know about the world so there's no need for religion."<br /><br />WRONG. No one is claiming that science "explains everything". Rather, atheism merely claims that religion and faith explain nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com