Religion V: Utopianism, Fundamentalism, Apothesis

[Castel]

These people are saying very different things. Massimo dislikes certain specific 'New Atheist' personalities (though he points to a 'New Atheist' that I'm not familiar with, Dan Denett, as someone he likes and considers thoughtful) and the cult of celebrity around them and wishes to separate from them but still says he considers the skeptic and atheist movement a worthwhile endeavor which he will engage in. Chomsky says there's no reason to bother with it at all, and 'state religion' should be criticized instead. I don't think there is, in fact, any observation there, just categorical disagreement with their (or Chomsky's imagining of) their aims.

So are 'New Atheists' defined as celebrity assholes, per Massimo, or anyone engaged in pointless advocacy on secularism, atheism, skepticism etc. (which would include Massimo), per Chomsky?

I always thought that New Atheists were the celebrities,the moniker something to be used in book reviews, and the "movement" was what Massimo would otherwise be interested in, with some people leaning closer to them than others.

Do you think it's a personality trait rather than something connected to any one belief? In my experience, the formerly Christian atheists who most want to shove their beliefs down your throat are often people who as Christians were bombastic pastors, cult of personality type leaders, and rabid evangelists. I've often found that only the message changed, not the person. And of course, people like this are likely to clamp on to the organizations and opportunities in their new group that give them a chance to be the loudest.

I dunno. I think ideology compels evangelism in some groups and what's seen as OTT evangelism is itself hugely contentious (see: the "culture" wars in video games). I don't really want to let ideology go as an explanation.

Also: if you buy the theory that all the popularity came out as a response to 9/11 evangelism and a certain brashness makes sense. Pigliucci touches on it, but there's definitely some neocon in Hitchens and Harris, and their views go beyond merely making fun of pagans and Christians because they're euphoric. It isn't just about religion being illogical or whatever.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Why not both? :dunno:

Though I don't think Chomsky would agree that secularist advocacy is pointless?

The entire passage you quoted from Chomsky is him rejecting it as pointless and without a proper audience. I'll also note that your thread is directed toward questioning whether it's at all a worthwhile endeavor (all the points your raised, like Chomsky's, went toward 'no'), so you seem to have understood Chomsky's meaning the same way I have at the time you wrote that thread. Is there a line I'm missing in there that points to Chomsky seeing some kind of worth in the 'New Atheist' movement?

To "why not both?"- because I imagine Massimo would resist his categorization within a group that he's writing critically of and seeking to separate himself from, making his definition incompatible with Chomsky's, by which he would be included among the 'New Atheists'.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Eponine,

Do you think it's a personality trait rather than something connected to any one belief? In my experience, the formerly Christian atheists who most want to shove their beliefs down your throat are often people who as Christians were bombastic pastors, cult of personality type leaders, and rabid evangelists. I've often found that only the message changed, not the person. And of course, people like this are likely to clamp on to the organizations and opportunities in their new group that give them a chance to be the loudest.

Perhaps. I have encountered people with the burning desire to be "right" and take some personal level of superiorty from that "rightness". I think your observation is very cogent.

[Sci-2]

Hmmm maybe it's a question of terms. Secularism, to me at least, is the separation of religion from government. That's how I've seen it defined.

I'd separate that from atheist/naturalist advocacy? If I'm properly recalling my Chomsky he would do the same.

[Gears of the Beast]

Nah, the skeptic Massimo does a good job explaining the difference here:

Reflections on the skeptic and atheist movements

Of course Chomsky had his own excellent observation about this movement, as I noted in the thread examining the overly self-inflated worth of the atheist evangelicals.

So, I've been advised to stop reading...."If your reaction is that Harris was trying to have a genuine intellectual discussion and that Chomsky was unfairly dismissive, then there probably is no point in you wasting time with the rest of this essay". I must say this is the kind of douchiness I'd expect from a so-called new atheist, the "you have opinion x therefore you shouldn't even be reading my essay, you're already too far gone" kind of condescending asshole.

The Harris-Chomsky exchange, in my mind, summarizes a lot of what I find unpleasant about SAM: a community who worships celebrities who are often intellectual dilettantes, or at the very least have a tendency to talk about things of which they manifestly know very little; an ugly undertone of in-your-face confrontation and I’m-smarter-than-you-because-I-agree-with [insert your favorite New Atheist or equivalent]; loud proclamations about following reason and evidence wherever they may lead, accompanied by a degree of groupthink and unwillingness to change one’s mind that is trumped only by religious fundamentalists; and, lately, a willingness to engage in public shaming and other vicious social networking practices any time someone says something that doesn’t fit our own opinions, all the while of course claiming to protect “free speech” at all costs

Sorry, I just don't see it. I'm not denying his experience but it's quite different to mine...

So he goes on to whine about the Moral Landscape for a bit and also Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc. Which is actually a good opportunity for me to note something that annoys me about these people who whine about the blight of "new atheism", look at that paragraph. There is absolutely no engagement with the arguments of Harris and Shermer, there is petulant whining about their attitude and tone, hyperbolic accusations of "anti-intellectualism". What's wrong with Sam Harris not finding anything useful from topics such as "metaethics" etc? Surely if they're such important pillars of moral philosophy that must be studied before writing about morality, this genius philosopher can easily refute any of Sam Harris' points about morality? So we have this mentality of being above actually addressing the positions and offering substantive criticism, instead we get whinging about the tone of it all and some hyperbolic insults. Again, this is the kind of shit I would expect from these damn "new atheists", not these brave intellectuals willing to stand against them...."it's got so many holes I'm embarrassed to even argue them", lol what a douche.

So then he does a short paragraph on Neil Degrasse Tyson, which is weird, as I don't think many would consider him among this sinister cabal of "new atheist" icons, in fact Jerry Coyne (the guy he used to note criticisms of NDT) seem much more of a new atheist type of person than NDT. From this podcast with Harris, Coyne seems to be in agreement with Harris on religion vs science, free will and morality. And if you follow the author's footnote to Coyne's critcism of NDT it has nothing to do with any "new atheist" type positions at all.

And let’s not go (again) into the exceedingly naive approach to religious criticism that has made Dawkins one of the “four horsemen” of the New Atheism.

Ok...why did you link me this article again? This smug mentality of "I'm so right I don't even need to make any substantive criticism" hasn't convinced me so far that these elite whiners have any idea what they're talking about. Before that he talked about Dawkins "bashing" epigenetics, I don't know anything about the field of epigenetics or Dawkins' supposed "bashing" but this seems to have very little to do with any kind of "new atheist" position just more rather vague whinging about he distasteful he finds Dawkins. Which again, perfectly illustrates the approach that all of these authors take: whine about how distasteful the four horsemen are, without any kind of substantive criticism of their actual positions.

One can’t talk about either Dawkins or the Horsemen without at least in passing mentioning Christopher Hitchens, a brilliant polemicist, very funny and caustic writer, who however couldn’t make up his mind about his politics, ranging from Trotskyism to neoconservatism, all the while being universally eulogized by SAM as a genius and a saint (both of which he would have laughed at heartily) when he died

So this is the paragraph devoted to the greatest of the four horsemen. Accusing him of neoconservatism which is just laughable, Hitchens was never a conservative of any stripe - a socialist most of his life and a Marxist til the end. No substantive criticism here, let's move on.

Last, but certainly not least (dulcis in fundo, as the Romans used to say) one cannot conclude this parade without mentioning P.Z. Myers, who has risen to fame because of a blog where the level of nastiness (both by the host and by his readers) is rarely matched anywhere else on the Internet, and who has lately discovered (together with a number of others that I don’t need to mention here) both social progressivism and feminism (or perhaps he invented them?), and has immediately proceeded to confuse them, somehow, with tenets of atheism.

This paragraph is actually spot on, I couldn't have put it any better myself. Strange to see PZ Meyers conflated with "new atheism" though, he's usually more associated with the SJW Buzzfeed class of atheism that would accuse Harris of "Islamophobia" or Shermer of misogyny and rape. So maybe this article is more 'look at me list various prominent atheists that I don't find appealing'.

He then goes on to talk (again) about this trend of celebrity worship of groupthink that he thinks permeates the skpetical/atheist movement and how great things used to be when we had Bertrand Russell etc etc. There's no denying there's more shitty people in the atheist/skeptical community now, it's grown exponentially. I don't see the worrisome levels of celebrity worship and groupthink that he does and her certainly hasn't done a very good job of pointing it out. The fact that you link this article as a good explanation of the distinction has made me even more confused about the usage of the term tbh...Maybe it's just now a term people use to refer to anything they don't like about the "SAM" or prominent atheists?

[Sci-2]

Pretty sure I've linked to Massimo's past critiques about Harris and New Atheism in general at least twice? Happy to do so again, always good for new comers to see a legitimate skeptic like Massimo in action even if I think he's wrong about a variety of things. His Philosophy So Far Parts One and Two are a good introduction to questions like free will, causality, morality, etc. (Personally I'd lean toward Aquinas/Whitehead/Bergson when it comes to those questions, though who knows if that'll last.)

It's interesting to see you label the women who accused Shermer of rape as "SJWs". Was the woman (women?) who accused him of rape ever proven to be lying?

Of course the Atheist+ community being formed makes me wonder what exactly is the point of atheist evangelism if elements of the community are anti-progressive? Once it isn't latched on progressive movements it just seems pointless?

=-=-=

Irish plunge stake through Catholic Church’s heart

As the effect of the April 29 referendum — gay marriage approved by 62 percent — sinks in, it becomes clearer that it isn’t just the Irish Church that is trembling but the Catholic Church itself. To say, as Diarmuid Martin, archbishop of Dublin, did after the vote — “I appreciate how gay and lesbian men and women feel on this day. That they feel this is something that is enriching the way they live” — is to position the bishop well among liberals. But it plunges the Church deeper into the mire. The Catholic Church is not a liberal institution. It’s an organized faith, with a pope elected to guard that faith.

For centuries, the Irish Church had one of the most powerful grips on its population of any in the world. Hope for heaven and the horror of hell was strong. The 19^th- and 20^th-century republican movement, though often denounced as godless by the bishops, was motivated in part by Catholic revulsion against the schismatic, Protestant British. And when, in the early 1920s, Ireland became an independent republic, education was handed over to the Church, as was moral guidance. Divorce was hard, abortion forbidden, censorship strict. James Joyce’s Ulysses wasn’t banned, but only because his publishers believed (correctly) that it would be, so they never tried to sell it in the republic.

In the past few decades, the descent of the once- omnipotent Church has been swift. The writer Damien Thompson believes that, because of the many instances of priests engaged in pedophilia and because of its “joyless” aspect, “hatred of the Church is one of the central features of modern Ireland.”

Even if that’s an exaggeration — indifference is more likely — it’s obviously the case that fear and submission to clerical authority is confined to a tiny few. We may be hard-wired for religion, as many behavioral psychologists believe, but we are not hard-wired for Catholicism, or any other form of religion.

Polls in Europe, and increasingly in North America, show that many people believe in “something” supernatural but are not prepared to shape that vague belief into an organized religious practice. Revulsion against those who use their authority to violate minors is a much stronger public attitude, one that easily translates into a turning away from the Church, even when the priest is a good man.

[Gears of the Beast]

Pretty sure I've linked to Massimo's past critiques about Harris and New Atheism in general at least twice? Happy to do so again, always good for new comers to see a legitimate skeptic like Massimo in action even if I think he's wrong about a variety of things. His Philosophy So Far Parts One and Two are a good introduction to questions like free will, causality, morality, etc. (Personally I'd lean toward Aquinas/Whitehead/Bergson when it comes to those questions, though who knows if that'll last.)

You stated that this guy does a good job of explaining the difference in that article I just critiqued, I'm not really interested in how great you think this guy is, I was hoping you could explain how that article does a good job of explaining the difference because as I noted it left me quite confused.

It's interesting to see you label the women who accused Shermer of rape as "SJWs". Was the woman (women?) who accused him of rape ever proven to be lying?

Wow okay I forgot that's how it works...I'm not going to comment further on these accusations, Shermer's statement is here, you're welcome to start that topic somewhere where it's relevant. The point was that I don't think many people would class PZ Meyers among these dreaded "new atheists", which is what makes me confused as to how this guy has "done a good job" of explaining what the actual distinction is because as I said it seems more like a compilation of prominent atheists that he doesn't like.

[Castel]

So this is the paragraph devoted to the greatest of the four horsemen. Accusing him of neoconservatism which is just laughable, Hitchens was never a conservative of any stripe - a socialist most of his life and a Marxist til the end. No substantive criticism here, let's move on.

Hitchens was ripped apart by his own college friend after his death for providing another set of justifications for the Iraq War. The idea that his (and Harris') philosophy can support aggression isn't new.

There is absolutely no engagement with the arguments of Harris and Shermer, there is petulant whining about their attitude and tone, hyperbolic accusations of "anti-intellectualism". What's wrong with Sam Harris not finding anything useful from topics such as "metaethics" etc? Surely if they're such important pillars of moral philosophy that must be studied before writing about morality, this genius philosopher can easily refute any of Sam Harris' points about morality?

What's wrong with it? It's dismissive of an entire field that has been struggling with the same questions for millenia and that dismissal hints at a lack of engagement with that field. I mean, sure, there's a certain amount of elitism and hatred of the popular intellectual but there are a ton of people who manage to boil down complex topics without essentially bad mouthing the entire discipline they are participating in. I listen to Pigliucci every few weeks and he never needs to say something like that to get his point across, regardless of how he feels.

The idea that Sam Harris would not only benefit nothing from philosophy but actively show disdain for it to his readers seems like a pretty reasonable basis to say that Sam Harris is disdainful of philosophy.

Also; probably because he didn't want to write a metaethical text and was writing to people he assumed would be able to scrounge up counters to Harris or actually know them. It shouldn't be hard, he's a big target that's looked down on, even Dennett took bites out of him.

It's interesting to see you label the women who accused Shermer of rape as "SJWs". Was the woman (women?) who accused him of rape ever proven to be lying?

Of course the Atheist+ community being formed makes me wonder what exactly is the point of atheist evangelism if elements of the community are anti-progressive? Once it isn't latched on progressive movements it just seems pointless?

I remember those accusations. I have no interest in categorizing them SJWs but I certainly don't think that any lack of confidence in the skeptical position-to the point where the burden of proof is flipped- because of overwhelming evidence is warranted here.

Not to mention that it seems like a somewhat uncharitable reading. A class of people can label someone something without any individual accuser being an SJW, it's just that the class has a certain burden of proof.

Also: so...if they were proven liars that'd validate the (alleged) claim that they're SJWs? What?

Secondly: so the view of A+ a movement designed to redirect energy and followers from one movement and thus shift power to its creators is the final word on how anti-progressive the community is when they're the most likely beneficiaries of the acceptance of that view? Considering their own problems with insularity and totalitarianism on their forums, perhaps a better defense than "A+ thinks it's so" is warranted.

It's absolutely possible that the movement is anti-progressive, but also that it's not progressive enough for these people.

[Gears of the Beast]

Castel, on 12 Jun 2015 - 5:32 PM, said:

Hitchens was ripped apart by his own college friend after his death for providing another set of justifications for the Iraq War. The idea that his (and Harris') philosophy can support aggression isn't new.

Wow his own college friend!? Hitchens was attacked by a lot of his friends on the left for supporting regime change in Iraq. It's fine to disagree with him about Iraq but to describe him as a neocon is to ignore everything he said about Iraq. Harris iirc has never supported the Iraq war. I don't even really understand your point, I know it isn't new, it has always been been a bullshit idea perpetuated by left wing crackpots.

I remember those accusations. I have no interest in categorizing them SJWs but I certainly don't think that any lack of confidence in the skeptical position-to the point where the burden of proof is flipped- because of overwhelming evidence is warranted here.

Not to mention that it seems like a somewhat uncharitable reading. A class of people can label someone something without any individual accuser being an SJW, it's just that the class has a certain burden of proof.

Also: so...if they were proven liars that'd validate the (alleged) claim that they're SJWs? What?

There seems to be some confusion here, I'm describing PZ Myers as being associated with the SJW buzzfeed types as he would be the kind to accuse Harris of Islamophobia and Shermer of misogyny and rape. I'm not automatically describing other accusers as SJWs...I know literally nothing about any of them other than PZ Myers who is the only one relevant to what I was even talking about (which again, is how the fuck does PZ Myers get lumped in with the evil new atheists, under what usage of new atheist does PZ Myers qualify?)

What's wrong with it? It's dismissive of an entire field that has been struggling with the same questions for millenia and that dismissal hints at a lack of engagement with that field. I mean, sure, there's a certain amount of elitism and hatred of the popular intellectual but there are a ton of people who manage to boil down complex topics without essentially bad mouthing the entire discipline they are participating in. I listen to Pigliucci every few weeks and he never needs to say something like that to get his point across, regardless of how he feels.

The idea that Sam Harris would not only benefit nothing from philosophy but actively show disdain for it to his readers seems like a pretty reasonable basis to say that Sam Harris is disdainful of philosophy.

Also; probably because he didn't want to write a metaethical text and was writing to people he assumed would be able to scrounge up counters to Harris or actually know them. It shouldn't be hard, he's a big target that's looked down on, even Dennett took bites out of him.

Have you read the moral landscape? I don't agree with Harris on morality but I don't think your accusations are fair at all given what he's actually written. Dennett took bites out of him for his position on morality..? Dennett and Harris have a pretty significant disagreement over free will which I know is somewhat linked to morality but if Dennett has taken shots at Harris specifically over his position on morality then I missed it.

edit: board at my post so shitty format it is,

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Hmmm maybe it's a question of terms. Secularism, to me at least, is the separation of religion from government. That's how I've seen it defined.

I'd separate that from atheist/naturalist advocacy? If I'm properly recalling my Chomsky he would do the same.

Ok- I can see the distinction you're making. But as far as I can tell Massimo is still interested in atheist advocacy in addition to just secularism.

It still comes back around to the question of what's distinct about 'New Atheists' as opposed to past atheists, and what is bad about them (because my experience has been that 'New Atheist' is a term mostly used with disdain)? And I come back to this question of, are 'New Atheists' a handful of celebrity writers and their followers and is their manner (evangelical fervor) and tone (they're dickish and dismissive) what's wrong with them, or is it anyone talking about atheism, and it's bad because they're engaged in activity that should not be engaged in?

The cartoon Gears linked is arguing that it's the latter, the term 'New Atheist' is used as pejorative for atheists who insist on talking about atheism at all. You replied with links to clear up the distinction, but I don't think they do that at all, as they're not in agreement. Massimo makes points I agree with- and fwiw I read the Harris-Chomsky exchange and agreed with Chomsky- and I can accept that the figures he's talking about are unpleasant and unserious on important issues; if all that's meant by 'New Atheists' is grouping these guys I can accept it as a pejorative term. But the broader argument that seeks to delegitimize atheism as an issue to write about, publicly discuss, and organize around I do not accept. Moreoever, I think this fails to get at the "New"ness of the 'New Atheists;' some of the past figures referenced by Massimo in a positive light wrote about atheism, publicly discussed it, and participated in organized Humanism. I can't see what's bad or new about it in this version.

[Ormond]

Do you think it's a personality trait rather than something connected to any one belief? In my experience, the formerly Christian atheists who most want to shove their beliefs down your throat are often people who as Christians were bombastic pastors, cult of personality type leaders, and rabid evangelists. I've often found that only the message changed, not the person. And of course, people like this are likely to clamp on to the organizations and opportunities in their new group that give them a chance to be the loudest.

The psychologist Milton Rokeach, who researched "dogmatism", observed over 60 years ago that many people who seem to "flip" from one extreme to the other --not only in religion but in politics -- really have not changed their belief structure so much as their own place within that structure. They have simply flipped which side they see as being "good" into "bad" and vice versa, without really changing their beliefs about how the world is divided into two sides.

This of course applies to people who end up being called "bombastic" and "rabid" as Eponine has said above. There are plenty of people who are "evangelistic" in the sense of wanting to convince others of their religious and/or political opinions but who do not exhibit the personal arrogance, denigration of those who disagree with them, inability to acknowledge differences between two positions with which they both disagree (what Rokeach called an "undifferentiated disbelief system"), etc. that marks someone as being high on Rokeach's "dogmatism" construct. I don't know enough about most people mentioned on this thread to judge whether or not they are irrationally dogmatic -- but I certainly have run across too many irrational dogmatists of both the conservative Christian and anti-religious atheist stripes.

[Eponine]

They have simply flipped which side they see as being "good" into "bad" and vice versa, without really changing their beliefs about how the world is divided into two sides.

That makes sense to me.

I still think that it's a false equivalence between evangelical Christians and evangelical atheists. When atheists set up a school in every town and multiple colleges that enroll thousands of students (Liberty, Jerry Falwell's university, enrolls over 77,000) that requires a denunciation of Christianity to attend, when atheists promise children that they'll experience burning forever if they believe in god, when atheists set up multi-million dollar organizations to influence politics... then I'll be concerned about evangelical atheists. I do care about arrogance and sexism in atheist conferences and I do care that atheism not be only publicly represented by assholes, but ultimately, I see these as localized problems, whereas abuses by evangelical Christians are often systematic, widespread and publicly acceptable or at least waved off as harmless.

ETA: I definitely think it's bad if atheists are teaching their children to be dismissive or to avoid Christians. I don't know if that's widespread. I think it's worth remembering that a lot of children of atheist are going to be in public school, and even though numbers of non-religious are rising, the percentage of people claiming to be Christian in America is still a huge huge majority. Total segregation and lack of exposure seems to me to be very low probability. On the other hand, I would have concerns about my children (I don't have any, so take this with a grain of salt) having a lot of exposure to Evangelicals/Fundamentalists. I was 9 when I told about how a burning person's skin starts flaking away from his body. I never ever ever want my theoretical 9 year old to have to hear that. I know that parents can't protect their children from ever hearing something they disagree with, and the more outside influences the child has, the less likely that she'll internalize a story like that (I know many people who were raised secular or liberal Christian said they heard about hell from someone but easily brushed it off), but I still don't want that. I feel so strongly about it, I can't imagine how I'd feel about a child I actually did have.

[Gears of the Beast]

That makes sense to me.

I still think that it's a false equivalence between evangelical Christians and evangelical atheists. When atheists set up a school in every town and multiple colleges that enroll thousands of students (Liberty, Jerry Falwell's university, enrolls over 77,000) that requires a denunciation of Christianity to attend, when atheists promise children that they'll experience burning forever if they believe in god, when atheists set up multi-million dollar organizations to influence politics... then I'll be concerned about evangelical atheists. I do care about arrogance and sexism in atheist conferences and I do care that atheism not be only publicly represented by assholes, but ultimately, I see these as localized problems, whereas abuses by evangelical Christians are often systematic, widespread and publicly acceptable or at least waved off as harmless.

Speaking of Jerry Falwell, it would be also quite something to see "evangelical atheists" blame tragic events such as 9/11 on "pagans, abortionists, feminists, and the gays and the lesbians", he wasn't some crackpot yelling in the street selling pencils out of a cup, people actually listened to this person.

[Hayyoth]

That makes sense to me.

I still think that it's a false equivalence between evangelical Christians and evangelical atheists. When atheists set up a school in every town and multiple colleges that enroll thousands of students (Liberty, Jerry Falwell's university, enrolls over 77,000) that requires a denunciation of Christianity to attend, when atheists promise children that they'll experience burning forever if they believe in god, when atheists set up multi-million dollar organizations to influence politics... then I'll be concerned about evangelical atheists. I do care about arrogance and sexism in atheist conferences and I do care that atheism not be only publicly represented by assholes, but ultimately, I see these as localized problems, whereas abuses by evangelical Christians are often systematic, widespread and publicly acceptable or at least waved off as harmless.

ETA: I definitely think it's bad if atheists are teaching their children to be dismissive or to avoid Christians. I don't know if that's widespread. I think it's worth remembering that a lot of children of atheist are going to be in public school, and even though numbers of non-religious are rising, the percentage of people claiming to be Christian in America is still a huge huge majority. Total segregation and lack of exposure seems to me to be very low probability. On the other hand, I would have concerns about my children (I don't have any, so take this with a grain of salt) having a lot of exposure to Evangelicals/Fundamentalists. I was 9 when I told about how a burning person's skin starts flaking away from his body. I never ever ever want my theoretical 9 year old to have to hear that. I know that parents can't protect their children from ever hearing something they disagree with, and the more outside influences the child has, the less likely that she'll internalize a story like that (I know many people who were raised secular or liberal Christian said they heard about hell from someone but easily brushed it off), but I still don't want that. I feel so strongly about it, I can't imagine how I'd feel about a child I actually did have.

What does any of that have to do with Ormonds point? Which was about the similarity of dogmatic belief. Why don't militant atheists exclude and attack religious believers? Well they do, there's just not enough of them doing it for anyone to give a crap about. And as most nu atheists seem to be post adolescent males still living with their, usually religious, moms excluding religious believers would mean they don't get their laundry done.

[Eponine]

What does any of that have to do with Ormonds point? Which was about the similarity of dogmatic belief. Why don't militant atheists exclude and attack religious believers? Well they do, there's just not enough of them doing it for anyone to give a crap about. And as most nu atheists seem to be post adolescent males still living with their, usually religious, moms excluding religious believers would mean they don't get their laundry done.

I was trying to add to the larger discussion about evangelistic atheists being the same as evangelistic Christians - not directing my entire post at Ormond - I'm sorry if I didn't clarify that for him.

I suspect that I fall into your nu atheist category insofar as I am actively involved in ex-Christian discussions and volunteering, am interested in how atheists as a group present publicly (I don't have a personal desire for atheist churches or conferences or whatnot, but am invested both in atheism as a protected class - not being able to be fired simply because someone found out I was an atheist, for example, which is something I believe has happened to me, and on a more vain level, in having a factual label match up to a fair representation), and am always happy to engage in conversations about atheism (as started online or by other people, I don't go door to door :) ) I am female, in my 30s, with a full time professional job, and live with my husband. Part of wanting to be represented fairly is wanting people to understand that atheists look like me too, not just like a stereotype of a man-child living in their mother's basement.

[Castel]

Wow his own college friend!? Hitchens was attacked by a lot of his friends on the left for supporting regime change in Iraq. It's fine to disagree with him about Iraq but to describe him as a neocon is to ignore everything he said about Iraq. Harris iirc has never supported the Iraq war. I don't even really understand your point, I know it isn't new, it has always been been a bullshit idea perpetuated by left wing crackpots.

One can’t talk about either Dawkins or the Horsemen without at least in passing mentioning Christopher Hitchens, a brilliant polemicist, very funny and caustic writer, who however couldn’t make up his mind about his politics, ranging from Trotskyism to neoconservatism, all the while being universally eulogized by SAM as a genius and a saint (both of which he would have laughed at heartily) when he died

Did Pigliucci say that Hitchens was a necon alone? He quite clearly recognizes the ambivalence in Hitchens, but that doesn't change that he was with the Bush administration here. He may hate them on other matters but he wasn't against the war. I don't think either of us are debating that right?

There is something ironic in Hitchen's detractors clearly being left-wing cranks and Pigliucci and other New Atheist detractors also being reductionist, dismissive cranks too for presuming that their audience would recognize their criticisms.

Have you read the moral landscape? I don't agree with Harris on morality but I don't think your accusations are fair at all given what he's actually written. Dennett took bites out of him for his position on morality..? Dennett and Harris have a pretty significant disagreement over free will which I know is somewhat linked to morality but if Dennett has taken shots at Harris specifically over his position on morality then I missed it.

No. But I've heard his talks on it. To be fair he seemed pretty cogent and gave a more or less inoffensive theory. And no, Dennett didn't take him to task for morality, that wasn't my point. My point was there's no dearth of criticisms, even among his supposed ideological brethren.

I'm going off the provided quote, and your own statements. Let me quote you:

There is absolutely no engagement with the arguments of Harris and Shermer, there is petulant whining about their attitude and tone, hyperbolic accusations of "anti-intellectualism". What's wrong with Sam Harris not finding anything useful from topics such as "metaethics" etc? Surely if they're such important pillars of moral philosophy that must be studied before writing about morality, this genius philosopher can easily refute any of Sam Harris' points about morality? So we have this mentality of being above actually addressing the positions and offering substantive criticism, instead we get whinging about the tone of it all and some hyperbolic insults. Again, this is the kind of shit I would expect from these damn "new atheists", not these brave intellectuals willing to stand against them...."it's got so many holes I'm embarrassed to even argue them", lol what a douche.

If you ask: "why should Sam Harris feel like he could find something useful in the field he's discussing" then don't be surprised when the answer is "because to not engage that field is to appear dismissive of it".

[Gears of the Beast]

Did Pigliucci say that Hitchens was a necon alone? He quite clearly recognizes the ambivalence in Hitchens, but that doesn't change that he was with the Bush administration here. He may hate them on other matters but he wasn't against the war. I don't think either of us are debating that right?

He was with the Bush administration to the extent that he wanted Saddam gone and he thought it was of extreme importance to fight 'for Iraq'. He wasn't really "with" the Bush administration on anything else, he described how he ran the war as "impeachable incompetence". And again, you cannot just say Bush ∴ Neoconservativism. Hitchens always argued his position on Iraq was due to a consistent application of his left wing principles, to call his position neoconservative would be as dishonest as calling his hatred for Bill Clinton conservative; you might be able to convince some idiots but you must ignore what he actually said. And as Hitchens said all his life, it's not important what one thinks, what's important is how one thinks. You might be able to tell that this is something that really annoys me.

If you ask: "why should Sam Harris feel like he could find something useful in the field he's discussing" then don't be surprised when the answer is "because to not engage that field is to appear dismissive of it".

The reason I ask whether you read it is that I'm pretty sure the reader can decide for themself whether or not he's being overly dismissive of philosophy or whatever the criticism may be. As it is Sam Harris is an extremely intelligent and serious person whose work on morality reflects this, regardless of whether or not you agree. As you may notice that question you quoted wasn't alone, I think the following question made it pretty obvious what I was suggesting, I'm suggesting if his position on morality is so philosophically juvenile then surely this genius philosopher can actually show how has Sam Harris has gone wrong as a result. His point to me seems like a dodge, a way to ridicule and dismiss Harris's position while not meaningfully engaging with it as is so common among these pieces, because I'm pretty sure that once one actually engages with Harris on pretty much anything they soon realise that he is not some close minded, islamophobic fundamentalist.

[Gears of the Beast]

Came across this article In a funk about the “New Atheism” written by a Catholic who went to see Dawkins and Dennett speak. She gives the following explanation of 'new atheism':

"The basic premise of the “New Atheism,” a movement about 15 years old, is this: Morality need not be linked to religion and atheists can be as loyal, true, upstanding, and selfless as the saints themselves. Meanwhile, religion, particularly fundamentalism, can be dangerous and should be aggressively opposed when it influences governments, education, and science, impedes social progress, incites violence, or tries to impose its tenets on others"

I'm always confused by the various definitions of this ambiguous term, this one makes the dreaded blight of "new atheism" actually sound pretty agreeable.

I found the whole experience unnerving. I’d hoped both men would be humorless, strident, militant, even obnoxious. Then I could go home feeling confident in my faith. Instead they were funny, charming, and quite likable. I went home deflated. I looked up everyone who’s debated them or contradicted them and argued for the wondrous mysteries of the divine. Then I feel asleep in a funk....Maybe they’ll rethink when they’re older and facing their own mortality. Alas, Dennett is 73. Dawkins? He’s 74. There was an hour-long, book-signing line after last week’s lecture. So I asked some of those waiting patiently about the New Atheism’s appeal. Some common answers: It’s much more rational than angels and God-made-man. Too much of organized religion is corrupted by money and power. And cradle Catholics said just what you’d expect: They are unable to remain in a Church that treats women and gays as less-thans and sex as evil. Pope Francis may be a nice guy — and on the right side of climate change — but it’s not enough.

Like I said, it was a tough night.

I find the article interesting, not because it makes any substantive criticisms but it seems like a rather genuine reaction.

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

What do you all think of missionary activity in Uganda?

[Stubby]

What do you all think of missionary activity in Uganda?

Some Ugandan laws are examples of blind bigotry and cruelty dressed up in Sunday best to become more palatable. If the religious missionaries in Uganda have had anything to do with that (and they probably have) then I think they are appalling humans, with little or no compassion for other humans.