The "New" Atheism

[endless psych]

A quite good critique of "new atheism" can be found here:- http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...w_atheism.html

Old atheists sought to "illuminate men's minds", through advancing science or deepening our understanding of capitalist society. New atheists take exactly the opposite approach. They expend all of their energy on attacking the institution of religion and its ridiculous adherents.

The article puts into better words my feelings on pointless God bashing and references Marx a lot which is never too bad.

Doesn't make the suggestion, which I would like to make now, that atheism is attempting to become a religion in its own right. A faith in nothing as oppossed to a faith in something. I remember an interview (possibly linked somewhere on here to some youtube shenanigans) with Dawkins when he "answered" critisicm of atheists for not being organised in campaigning and presenting a unitied front and the like. He responded "Atheists are like cats" meaning they are too independent to organise when really shouldn't he have just said "good - thats kind of the point"?

Probably a bit late for weighty debate.

But thoughts?

[corky]

Humanism isn't a religion, but it is there are lots of secular humanist organisations thta campaign against intelligent design in schools etc.

example http://www.humanism-scotland.org.uk/...claration.html

[LesMTS]

I've absolutely nothing against personal religious belief. People can go wild with their beliefs and imaginings as long as they don't start creeping into my life, or start trying to force them into the public domain. I'll debate it with them sure, if they want to, but you won't find me poking my nose into their rituals and rites without some kind of invitation.
This idea that atheism is a religion itself, though, is silly. To paraphrase someone whose name I forget right now, atheism is no more a religion than not playing the violin is a hobby.

I guess, what I'm drunkenly saying is that I agree with the old atheist camp as defined above.
Same with alternative medicine and the like, there are certain practices which I find odious and but I also feel uneasy siding with the hardcore sceptics who simply want to tear them to shreds and humiliate them.

Reminds me of a debate I had with a friend...think I posted it up here too..."If you had irrefutable proof that God did not exist would you show it to a believer", my friend said "Unequivocaly yes" and when pressed if he would even show them on their death bed he replied the same. I couldn't agree with that, ever.

I'm not making sense, am I?

[endless psych]

This idea that atheism is a religion itself, though, is silly. To paraphrase someone whose name I forget right now, atheism is no more a religion than not playing the violin is a hobby.

I'd agree with that - I'm just reasonably convinced that through certain activities atheist 'movements' (for want of a better way of describing them) are springing up and adopting the foibles, means and methods of religion in order to recruit or further their message. Which in old atheist terms is to question as oppossed to new atheist terms to have faith and tear in to.

[hotblonde]

If the definition of religion is basically a collection of beliefs, ideas and philosophies or a group of individuals who share a collection of beliefs then surely having a shared belief in there being no god is a religion? Belief in no god can be as spiritually awakening as believing in a god.

I'm not sure how new this idea is though as I was taught this in philosophy classes in first year university (so going back nearly 10 years).

[Bobzilla]

To paraphrase someone whose name I forget right now, atheism is no more a religion than not playing the violin is a hobby.

I'll have you know that I put a lot of time and effort in to not playing the violin and I happen to think that I'm damn good at not playing it. Your statement wounds me.

[endless psych]

If the definition of religion is basically a collection of beliefs, ideas and philosophies or a group of individuals who share a collection of beliefs then surely having a shared belief in there being no god is a religion? Belief in no god can be as spiritually awakening as believing in a god.

I'm not sure how new this idea is though as I was taught this in philosophy classes in first year university (so going back nearly 10 years).

If you believe faith in God is faith in nothing then presumably either the belief part isn't important or faith in nothing is God? (Ridiculously flawed arguement - I got distracted by snow.)

To paraphrase someone whose name I forget right now, atheism is no more a religion than not playing the violin is a hobby.?

I'd kind of equate that with saying that Buddihism is not the same as Christianity not that atheism doesn't have some of the basic tennents of, and certain atheists are behaving as if (ironically enough in a way that they probably abhore the other side for), it is a religion.

[Potatojunkie]

This isn't "quite good", the guy's a pillock.

The inhumanity of the new atheism is best illustrated by its move from the world of social critique into the realm of sociobiology. Some new atheists believe humans must be genetically predisposed to believing in a higher being. Marx and others saw religion as the product of socioeconomic circumstances, and thus believed that religion would wither away as humanity proceeded along the path of progress. New atheists see religious belief as a kind of animalistic instinct, driven by DNA. Where Marx viewed people's turn towards religion as an understandable response to the harsh reality of alienation in capitalist society, new atheists see it as the product of mankind's twisted genetic makeup.

"Some new atheists believe", he says, rather than "this scientific study suggests", as if "new atheists" are just going around believing this sort of stuff to be mean. Then in the next paragraph he waves a strawman around in the breeze for no good reason at all:

So what is their solution? Mass genetic therapy? Compulsory injections of the correct DNA - you know, the kind possessed by intelligent and well-bred people who can see through religious delusion? The new atheists' abandonment of a social outlook leads them to adopt some very grim, anti-human views.

Who's suggesting this, other than Dildo McJones here? Tiresome.

He's also fond of making statements with no backing whatsoever:

Consider their bizarre and fevered obsession with religious symbols, such as crucifixes worn around the neck, or statements of religious belief by public figures like Tony Blair or Nick Clegg: their distaste for anything that looks or sounds vaguely religious exposes the shallow anti-intellectualism of their new atheism.

It does? Explain how.

It is because new atheists have lost their own belief in progress and Enlightenment that they turn harshly against those who still cling to visions of a better society or "kingdom".

I'm sure Dawkins would be interested to hear that his distaste for religion is founded upon his own lack of belief in progress and Enlightenment with a capital E. Or, y'know, he'd be justifiably angry that you could send used bog-roll into the Guardian and they'd publish it.

There's a point in the article somewhere, but it's buried under a mound of turgid, self-congratulatory bullshit.

[UncleDave]

If the definition of religion is basically a collection of beliefs, ideas and philosophies or a group of individuals who share a collection of beliefs then...

... then the idea and philosophy of Catch And Release Fishing is actually a religion.

Cheers!

[Posh]

And Gaimanism is a religion.

[endless psych]

... then the idea and philosophy of Catch And Release Fishing is actually a religion.

Cheers!

Catch and release fishing has a philosophy?

TattieJunkie makes excellent points - may return later (much later depending on snow and work journey stuff)with evidence to support my distaste for the atheism industry or a change of heart.

[UncleDave]

Catch and release fishing has a philosophy?

In a loose sense, yes. And everything about this discussion so far has been loose, after all.

Cheers!

[LesMTS]

If the definition of religion is basically a collection of beliefs, ideas and philosophies or a group of individuals who share a collection of beliefs then surely having a shared belief in there being no god is a religion? Belief in no god can be as spiritually awakening as believing in a god.

So, likewise, disbelief in pixies, ghosts and sausage dogs constitute religions?

[Semprini]

And Gaimanism is a religion.

It's not a religion.

It's the religion.

[MarkMono]

So, likewise, disbelief in pixies, ghosts and sausage dogs constitute religions?

The Goma goth kids probably have more of a shared belief structure.

I've expressed before that I don't entirely understand why beliefs based on disbelief and aversion are parcelled together at all, but I think a few straightedgers disagreed.

The entire idea of 'new' atheism would just suggest to me that people are getting meaner and more intolerant.