tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post8090725867832143797..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Beyond the "New Atheism"?Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-61782910955318186942010-09-26T21:09:23.604+10:002010-09-26T21:09:23.604+10:00He can call it that if he wants to, and set up a s...He can call it that if he wants to, and set up a straw man, but I'd rather discuss what it actually is.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-84886887890265651812010-09-26T11:12:52.642+10:002010-09-26T11:12:52.642+10:00"But organisation to support certain things a..."But organisation to support certain things and oppose certain things is inevitable and often good. Melville seems to think that it is inherently bad or so dangerous that we should not do it."<br /><br />What?! Where do you get that idea? It doesn't seem to follow either from his original <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/21/beyond-new-atheism" rel="nofollow">"Beyond New Atheism?" article</a> or his <a href="http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2010/09/humanist-heresy-why-ive-been-called.html" rel="nofollow">later commentary on his blog</a>. He has certainly called dangerous the view that there is some kind of battle between "religious believers (all in one camp) and atheists (all in another)," but that's not quite the same thing. Indeed, his points seem to be utterly straightforward: the New Atheism has often been sloppy and lacked nuance in its treatment of religion, and assorted "followers" of the New Atheists (for lack of a better phrase) have come off as irrational.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-67827157391936233572010-09-26T10:16:25.893+10:002010-09-26T10:16:25.893+10:00Yes, if you organise to support X and oppose Y you...Yes, if you organise to support X and oppose Y you thereby run the risk of becoming too in-groupish and possibly too hostile. But it's not especially dangerous, not in the sense that Melville seems to mean. If he had merely said that we (whether "we" are humanists, forthright atheists, members of political parties, etc.) should always scrutinise ourselves for these bad tendencies, I'd agree with him. <br /><br />That's something I sometimes say in talks, though the tendencies I have in mind are more the tendency that people have to want to impose their worldviews by force. When I spoke to the Crossway Conference, I told them that every person in the room, including me, should engage in ongoing self-scrutiny for that tendency.<br /><br />But organisation to support certain things and oppose certain things is inevitable and often good. Melville seems to think that it is inherently bad or so dangerous that we should not do it. I think that's nonsense.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-10308975369348334072010-09-25T22:35:08.708+10:002010-09-25T22:35:08.708+10:00"There is nothing especially dangerous about ..."There is nothing especially dangerous about people organising in pursuit of a common cause"<br /><br />I disagree. That's not to say that organizing is necessarily a bad thing, anymore than fire is a bad thing even though it can be dangerous as well. However, there are pitfalls that come with organizing, such as groupthink. When one is organizing against a perceived enemy, there's a further temptation to get crude and simplistic (words which Caspar Melville, as you may have noticed, uses a lot), to distort the picture of the enemy into something at which it is easier to be angry.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-3437402735834448802010-09-25T09:12:25.017+10:002010-09-25T09:12:25.017+10:00Melville could have a meaningful point in his bore...Melville could have a meaningful point in his boredom with what are "becoming" conventions in New Atheism. And yes there are tried and true. I am always amazed at how little appreciation is given to Thomas Paine's 200 yrs old, The Age of Reason, for kick-starting the whole anti-christian pamphleteering (now blogging) movement.<br /><br />New Atheist do come across somewhat insensitive and incredulous that anyone could hold such obviously irrational and unfounded, even delusional beliefs. Others, philosophically, question the order of belief.<br /><br />But I know some true believers and order as you will it is beyond question to them. And so as such I suggest this belief will have taken advantage of the plasiticity of the brain and sits now imprinted in the amygdala or as the neroscientists would advise. <br />We are adapted to believe the authoritative tenants of our tribal authority figures - indeed our lives in evolutionary history depended on it.<br /><br />There is much new still to add to New Atheism. More research started by Trivers way back on self-deception will add value. More about the neuroscience of the in-love like aspect of diety belief (for example controlled experiments measuring, say,the oxytocin levels of those absorebed in prayer). And more anthropologically sympathetic views like those of Scott Atran are valuable.<br /><br />So Melville has a point but perhaps he hasnt made it very well...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02451565378939401732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-64068043621002291772010-09-25T00:30:30.925+10:002010-09-25T00:30:30.925+10:00These men are delivering familiar critiques of rel...<i>These men are delivering familiar critiques of religion's truth-claims and social role that could be found in many books and articles published before the appearance of The End of Faith (by Harris) in 2004, the event that marks the beginning of whatever New Atheist movement might exist.</i><br /><br />And none of the authors of recent criticisms of religion have ever claimed that their arguments are new and many go out of their way to cite their sources and historical influences.<br /><br />So where does this misinformation come from ?<br /><br />For someone trying to refute the arguments of atheism it is far easier to claim that this is just a new and passing fad with no real depth rather than engage in substantive dialog with atheists.<br /><br />See how I've turned the whole accommodation thing around and pointed the blame back at the religious ? This is fun !steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-75432462636432683492010-09-25T00:07:51.284+10:002010-09-25T00:07:51.284+10:00Excellent summary of the issues involved. I guess ...Excellent summary of the issues involved. I guess what I can't understand is why people like Caspar, or Norman, or Julian Baggini, can't see that the question of widespread and diverse opinions about atheism would not even be being heard if there had not been the so-called "New Atheism" phenomenon. Of course there's going to be diversity, and there's going to be debate. But Melville seems to suggest that this isn't happening. And it clearly is.<br /><br />For example, the book by Paul Cliteur, which you blurbed, is (and I've just read it quickly for a first go) a good example of the kind of thing that needs to be done now, where we look seriously at how secularism works, and how it should respond to the growing insistence of religion to be recognised and respected in the public square. And your own new book is obviously going to be something in the same vein, taking us the next step in a more focused context. I have also just finished reading Hector Avalos' <i>Fighting Words</i>, about religion and violence, which is really a terrific book, because he knows the original languages, and can deal in a convincing way with questions of hermeneutics. So there's real ferment out there, and people have to stop trying to treat the seminal works of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc., which got the atheist voice into the mass market, as though they are somehow deeply flawed, so that the whole atheist project is flawed. Of course, the religious are going to play that game, and that's expected, but why should atheists agree?<br /><br />There has to be room for debate and question, disagreement and restatement, otherwise we're not going to be much better than theologians, running round in circles. But to get opponents of atheism together to discuss where should the "New Atheism" go now is just asking for trouble, and Caspar Melville shouldn't be a bit surprised to find that he's just jumped into a hornet's nest. It's not a question of <i>beyond</i> the new atheism; it's a question of a continuation, continuing to build on foundations already laid.Greywizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04125006513512601904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-46278179324482134052010-09-24T19:20:00.385+10:002010-09-24T19:20:00.385+10:00the callous actions of the religious in the Schiav...<i>the callous actions of the religious in the Schiavo affair</i><br /><br />Interesting you mention this. I had forgotten it, but I now remember the debate it caused and agree it was influential.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com