I Don't Believe In Atheists

[koan]

Just came across this dude: Chris Hedges.

The thread title is the name of his latest book.

I have a feeling I'm going to be reading everything he's written :wah:

He argues that the new breed of Atheists, specifically Hitchens, and Dawkins, are falling into the same trap as the fundamentalists they're criticising. I've been trying to figure out how to say what he's saying for so long I'm just thrilled to have found someone more proficient at it.

Here's his interview on The Hour. He seems to be yelling a bit but aside from that, very focused.

YouTube - The Hour:Chris Hedges on Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris

It's the best summary I could find in video format

[binbag]

Yep, that's a man I could listen to.

An educated balanced thinker with the mental ability and skill to deliver a sensible argument in a clear and precise manner everyone can understand.

I'll be looking out for his book.

Excellent contribution to the Garden koan.

bb

[koan]

It looks like he presents very coherent arguments. I should correct that it's not his latest book after all. He's written 7, the last being Empire of Illusion.

[Lon]

Chris Hedges makes some excellent points re: the NEW ATHEISTS, but remember, atheists come in all stripes just like religious folk.

[koan]

Yes, I think he makes that distinction quite clearly. Just as there has always been religion in various forms and degrees, there will continue to be atheists. He's more concerned that no group takes the immovable stance that their way is the only way.

[xyz]

koan;1339175 wrote: Yes, I think he makes that distinction quite clearly. Just as there has always been religion in various forms and degrees, there will continue to be atheists. He's more concerned that no group takes the immovable stance that their way is the only way.
What does that mean? That one should not invade Poland?

[koan]

xyz;1339177 wrote: What does that mean? That one should not invade Poland?


What do you mean, "what does that mean?"

[xyz]

koan;1339184 wrote: What do you mean, "what does that mean?"
'The immovable stance that their way is the only way'- what is that?

[binbag]

koan;1339168 wrote: It looks like he presents very coherent arguments. I should correct that it's not his latest book after all. He's written 7, the last being Empire of Illusion.Thank you, I'll search him out koan.



Lon;1339174 wrote: Chris Hedges makes some excellent points re: the NEW ATHEISTS, but remember, atheists come in all stripes just like religious folk.Lon, I was going to say "remember, not all Christians lean to the right", but I thought I'd better not in fear of the thread going off centre.

So I have to thank you for the encouragement. :wah:

Absolutely no offence intended.

[yaaarrrgg]

I read American Fascists by Hedges and thought he made some good points about the dangers of religious extremism. On the other hand, I haven't read much of anything by Dawkins or Hitchens. But I'm not sure that they are falling in the same trap as fundamentalists. They are just scientists that are applying scientific critique to an ancient subject. Scientific theories get subjected to the same brutal treatment, and some make the cut, some do not.

Hedges' argument sounds like a rehashing of the argument:

Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[koan]

xyz;1339186 wrote: 'The immovable stance that their way is the only way'- what is that?
lol.

ok, "immovable": steadfast, unyielding

immovable object meets unstoppable force = catastrophe

someone unyielding in their opinion and with the position that their opinion is the only right one... like fundamentalists

[koan]

yaaarrrgg;1339284 wrote: I read American Fascists by Hedges and thought he made some good points about the dangers of religious extremism. On the other hand, I haven't read much of anything by Dawkins or Hitchens. But I'm not sure that they are falling in the same trap as fundamentalists. They are just scientists that are applying scientific critique to an ancient subject. Scientific theories get subjected to the same brutal treatment, and some make the cut, some do not.

Hedges' argument sounds like a rehashing of the argument:

Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


His main argument is that they've made an error in assuming that people would have behaved differently if the guise of religion was removed. He states that we would still see the same behaviour just with different clothing.

[xyz]

yaaarrrgg;1339284 wrote: I read American Fascists by Hedges and thought he made some good points about the dangers of religious extremism. On the other hand, I haven't read much of anything by Dawkins or Hitchens. But I'm not sure that they are falling in the same trap as fundamentalists.


They addressed fundamentalists, insisting, like them, that interpretation of early Genesis must be literal. The majority of believers take another view about Genesis, and have opposed fundamentalists, whom they regard as the enemies of Christianity, for a very long time, and far better than Dawkins and Co., because they are as qualified in science as Dawkins, and also know the Bible far better than the fundamentalists. Dawkins came along and borrowed arguments made for decades by Christians, and, with the aid of the treacherous media, presented them as his own! And of course it took him a very long time to admit that defeating fundamentalists does nothing to disprove the existence of a deity. But at last, under much pressure, he has done so, and is now looking a more reasonable person to deal with.

[koan]

Hedges also states that he feels the New Atheist assumption that people are becoming more advanced morally is erroneous.

[xyz]

koan;1339287 wrote: lol.

ok, "immovable": steadfast, unyielding

immovable object meets unstoppable force = catastrophe

someone unyielding in their opinion and with the position that their opinion is the only right one... like fundamentalists
Or liberals, or atheists, or anyone else who has a definite point of view. Or are atheists really agnostics?

[yaaarrrgg]

xyz;1339290 wrote: They addressed fundamentalists, insisting, like them, that interpretation of early Genesis must be literal.


Ah. I would guess the reason they do that, is it's the only thing that really concerns them. They are mostly dealing with the point of conflict between a religion and science. They are primarily arguing against one particular idea of God (who wants to destroy science).

I would imagine the vast majority of "atheists" likewise don't really care if someone takes a non-literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, any more than they would someone reading Aesop's fables. That's not on their radar as a threat.

Personally, I see the story in Genesis as about cultural change. Initially people were nomadic, and about 10K years ago they started farming. Around that grew up cities, and the need for government, defence, maths and astronomy (for planting schedules). I would imagine, as we may still feel nostalgic about the exodus that happened during the industrial revolution, where people moved from the farm to the city, these people may have felt on leaving their old way of life. But they ate from the tree of knowledge and lost something intangible in leaving their natural habitat. Then they have a whole new set of conflicts to deal with.

So the only relevance it would have in the evolution debate would be if interpreted literally. But to do so, I think, may miss the larger point of the story.

[yaaarrrgg]

koan;1339288 wrote: His main argument is that they've made an error in assuming that people would have behaved differently if the guise of religion was removed. He states that we would still see the same behaviour just with different clothing.


Yeah, I've gone back and forth on that issue myself and have eventually come to the conclusion that type of claim might be both true and false to some degree.

The root problem is that kids are involved. Religion actively scares the pee out of them and effectively runs a brainwashing program, years on end, untill they have people who are willing to hijack a plane and ram it into the WTC because they think they will get rewards in heaven.

Atheism is not the solution. The solution is you have to teach people to think for themselves and question the claims that are fed to them. Any viewpoint is valid as long as one can intelligently explain and defend it. But from that, often comes a skepticism towards religion.

[koan]

xyz;1339294 wrote: Or liberals, or atheists, or anyone else who has a definite point of view. Or are atheists really agnostics?


I recall being told that you're normally able to have reasonable conversations. I've yet to see it.

I don't see where I qualified the sentence in the way you're questioning it. Please don't ask me what that means. Just get a dictionary.

[koan]

yaaarrrgg;1339296 wrote: Yeah, I've gone back and forth on that issue myself and have eventually come to the conclusion that type of claim might be both true and false to some degree.

The root problem is that kids are involved. Religion actively scares the pee out of them and effectively runs a brainwashing program, years on end, untill they have people who are willing to hijack a plane and ram it into the WTC because they think they will get rewards in heaven.

Atheism is not the solution. The solution is you have to teach people to think for themselves and question the claims that are fed to them. Any viewpoint is valid as long as one can intelligently explain and defend it. But from that, often comes a skepticism towards religion.


There's a lot of kids raised in physically abusive homes who then grow up to be child beaters. Or raised in a way that was emotionally abusive and they grow up to abuse everyone physically and/or emotionally around them. What about the ones who grow up to con artists, embezzlers, war profiteers, etc... It's really a matter of human desire for power in whatever form that takes for them.

[xyz]

yaaarrrgg;1339295 wrote: Ah. I would guess the reason they do that, is it's the only thing that really concerns them. They are mostly dealing with the point of conflict between a religion and science. They are primarily arguing against one particular idea of God (who wants to destroy science).
But the strategy they used did not encourage one to believe that they were merely concerned with crackpot fundies messing up education- a highly valid concern, of course. No, they implied that, by dispensing with the fundie god, they had thrown out the Christian one. What they could have done, imv should have done, is join in with the Christians who were also concerned with educational standards, who were and are quite often biologists anyway, who opposed the fundamentalists. But one could say that they have done that now.

So the only relevance it would have in the evolution debate would be if interpreted literally. But to do so, I think, may miss the larger point of the story.
It certainly would, because the stories (there are two quite separate ones), which certainly relate to cultural context, carry a religious message, and have not a shred of scientific value to them!

[xyz]

koan;1339297 wrote: I recall being told that you're normally able to have reasonable conversations.
One of the very few here. Which is why you are evading my questions, presumably.

Perhaps another reader can explain what the author of this book meant in this case.

[koan]

xyz;1339302 wrote: One of the very few here. Which is why you are evading my questions, presumably.

Perhaps another reader can explain what the author of this book meant in this case.


I've had this exact conversation with you before. I'm not evading a question. You've created a red herring and I'm not hungry.

Perhaps someone else will be more entertaining for you.

[xyz]

koan;1339303 wrote: I've had this exact conversation with you before. I'm not evading a question. You've created a red herring and I'm not hungry.

Perhaps someone else will be more entertaining for you.
Can't be more inventive, anyway!

[koan]

Here we go, I found a Salon interview with him that's both printed and available on podcast. A nice highlight:

Do you think the new atheists are similarly uninterested in their impact? It seems that what the New Atheists write and say is somewhat a performance.

Well, not Harris. Harris is just intellectually shallow. Harris doesn't know anything about religion or the Middle East. For Hitchens, it's about a performance, and that was true when he was on the left. He hasn't changed. It's all about him. It's all about being a contrarian. He reminds me of Ann Coulter, he's that kind of a figure. He's witty, and he's funny and insulting. You know I debated him, and in the middle of the debate he starts shouting, "Shame on you for defending suicide bombers!" Of course, unlike him, I've actually stood at the edge of a suicide bombing attack. That kind of stuff is just ... it's the epistemology of television. They make a lot of money off it, but it's gross and disgusting and anti-intellectual and not at all about real discussion.

Do you think Hitchens really believes what he writes?

I think he's completely amoral. I think he doesn't have a moral core. I think he doesn't believe anything. What's good for Christopher Hitchens is about as moral as he gets.

[yaaarrrgg]

koan;1339299 wrote: There's a lot of kids raised in physically abusive homes who then grow up to be child beaters. Or raised in a way that was emotionally abusive and they grow up to abuse everyone physically and/or emotionally around them. What about the ones who grow up to con artists, embezzlers, war profiteers, etc... It's really a matter of human desire for power in whatever form that takes for them.


That's a valid point. Many religions do a few things to make this situation worse. They put emphasis trust, faith, deference to authority, obedience (to God, or his delagates), acceptance of things that just don't make sense, "not leaning to one's own understanding," females submitting to their husbands, etc. This makes the followers of the religion sheep for these lions. Hedges also makes the point that if fascism comes to America, it will do it through religion. A bit of skepticism and critical thinking, not necessarily atheism, is what robs these bad apples of their power to cause massive destruction.

[koan]

yaaarrrgg;1339309 wrote: That's a valid point. Many religions do a few things to make this situation worse. They put emphasis trust, faith, deference to authority, obedience (to God, or his delagates), acceptance of things that just don't make sense, "not leaning to one's own understanding," females submitting to their husbands, etc. This makes the followers of the religion sheep for these lions. Hedges also makes the point that if fascism comes to America, it will do it through religion. A bit of skepticism and critical thinking, not necessarily atheism, is what robs these bad apples of their power to cause massive destruction.


I think you made a really valid point too, about empowering individuals. If they feel empowered they won't be as drawn to stealing it (eta: power) from others. That includes teaching people to ask questions and find their own answers.

If religion didn't exist the fascist would find another sheep's clothing.

[xyz]

yaaarrrgg;1339309 wrote: Many religions do a few things to make this situation worse. They put emphasis trust, faith, deference to authority, obedience (to God, or his delagates)
One religion does everything to make this situation better. Its practitioners put emphasis on trust, faith, obedience to God, who has no delegates. They stress that all who take on what limited authority is necessary need to be able to reason and to prove the things they teach, and to practise what they preach. They reject entirely those who misquote and misrepresent, though they do not do to liars what used to be done to them, which is burn them alive.

So maybe one should be grateful that cries of pain are expressed only light-heartedly, and not with real feeling.

[recovering conservative]

koan;1339291 wrote: Hedges also states that he feels the New Atheist assumption that people are becoming more advanced morally is erroneous.


He is surprisingly pessimistic considering that he still views himself as a Christian....of a very liberal variety. The concept of moral progress started with people like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and other liberal process theologians -- they split the horns of the dilemma of the Problem of Evil by saying that the Creator is not omniscient, and is learning -- just like us, his/her advanced creations! So, I'm surprised that Chris Hedges doesn't follow along, and many atheists who are big on scientific progress, like Dawkins, do preach moral progress.

On the other hand, he's probably right, because history seems to lead to a conclusion that moral progress is cyclical, and advances when times are good, and degenerates during the bad times, like when civilzations collapse....which we seem to be heading in the direction of btw.

[koan]

recovering conservative;1339326 wrote: He is surprisingly pessimistic considering that he still views himself as a Christian....of a very liberal variety. The concept of moral progress started with people like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and other liberal process theologians -- they split the horns of the dilemma of the Problem of Evil by saying that the Creator is not omniscient, and is learning -- just like us, his/her advanced creations! So, I'm surprised that Chris Hedges doesn't follow along, and many atheists who are big on scientific progress, like Dawkins, do preach moral progress.

On the other hand, he's probably right, because history seems to lead to a conclusion that moral progress is cyclical, and advances when times are good, and degenerates during the bad times, like when civilzations collapse....which we seem to be heading in the direction of btw.


Not surprising, considering he's spent 20 years in the middle of war zones.

[recovering conservative]

koan;1339175 wrote: Yes, I think he makes that distinction quite clearly. Just as there has always been religion in various forms and degrees, there will continue to be atheists. He's more concerned that no group takes the immovable stance that their way is the only way.


What's being called 'New Atheism' is what you inevitably end up with when someone like Richard Dawkins or the late Madelyn Murray O'Haire try to organize atheists (who only share unbelief in God and anything supernatural) into a movement. It's not exactly new, since O'Haire's group -- American Atheists, is still lurking in the shadows somewhere. If a group can only be coordinated on a basis of non-belief, it is probably inevitable that people who are highly anti-religious are going to be the ones who sign up for membership. So, advocating an end to religion, becomes the main purpose of the group.

What's different today is that we have the internet -- so hardcore atheists scattered all over the world can be part of a sizeable cyber-community. And the other big change -- and the one that is behind the surprising amount of media attention that Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens have received -- is that they are extreme exponents of Western and American cultural supremacism.

Another writer who does a good job of explaining Christian Right politics, and showing a surprisingly close political relationship with someone like Hitchens gains so much air time is Frank Schaeffer -- son of Francis Schaeffer, who along with Jerry Falwell and C. Everitt Koop, pretty much started what is known today as the Religious Right:

FS: Christopher Hitchens is a good example of the New Atheists. That’s why I devote an entire chapter in my book about him. Hitchens started out as a socialist liberal and he has moved from that to being a warmonger. He was one of George W. Bush’s biggest supporters in going to war into Iraq. As far as he is concerned, we should attack all the Islamic countries. He talks in a way that makes Barry Goldwater look like a leftist. Many of the New Atheists are incredibly anti-Islamic. This is very similar to some of the right-wing Christians. Hitchens and right-wing Christians would all be looking at the same things and wanting the same solutions, which are military solutions to everything.

[koan]

Part of the frustration I've had trying to voice similar ideas about "New Atheists" is that I didn't know there was a classification. Christians will jump in to point out that there are fundamentalists who don't speak for all of Christianity but atheists haven't allowed for fundamentalism existing for them as well. It may not be "New" but, to me, the term is new and it finally allows for discussion of anti-religious extremism.

Now we can say to the nice, normal atheists... yes, I realize you aren't a fundamentalist... but Hitchens is and he's an *******.

[koan]

Interesting link, btw. Thanks. I'll have to read it more carefully tomorrow.

[gmc]

koan;1339330 wrote: Part of the frustration I've had trying to voice similar ideas about "New Atheists" is that I didn't know there was a classification. Christians will jump in to point out that there are fundamentalists who don't speak for all of Christianity but atheists haven't allowed for fundamentalism existing for them as well. It may not be "New" but, to me, the term is new and it finally allows for discussion of anti-religious extremism.

Now we can say to the nice, normal atheists... yes, I realize you aren't a fundamentalist... but Hitchens is and he's an *******.


There isn't such a classification the religious right need a label to argue against. It's a classic tactic, if you can apply a label to someone you can immediately devalue and detract anything they have to say. One thing you can say about atheists is they are unlikely to let someone tell or dictate to them what they should believe. You know there isn't even an atheist society in the UK?

More to the point you can be an atheist without reading Nietzsche et al. Spinoza and Luther were condemned as heretics and atheists by the catholic church, Luther most definitely was not and spinoza started out jewish so he was condemned right from the word go. John calvin wasn't an atheist either yet still condemned as a heretic.

The catholic church even today still categorises anyone who is not a catholic as a heretic and not christian and possibly atheistic although they are a bit more careful about that particular accusation.

There isn't an atheist movement or anything remotely like it, nor is an alternative to religion. The only reason it seems to be becoming an issue is because of the religious right, especially in America, and their entry in to politics pursuant of their own agenda. Not being an American of course I can't really comment but it seems to me the rise of outspoken atheists and the support they are gaining in the states is a response to fear of religious fundamentalism and what it can lead to.

[xyz]

recovering conservative;1339329 wrote:

Another writer who does a good job of explaining Christian Right politics, and showing a surprisingly close political relationship with someone like Hitchens gains so much air time is Frank Schaeffer -- son of Francis Schaeffer, who along with Jerry Falwell and C. Everitt Koop, pretty much started what is known today as the Religious Right


Note the difference- 'Religious Right', 'Christian Right'. Skepticism is allegedly based on a thorough and rigorously logical analysis, but it fails time and again on this very criterion, so cannot be taken seriously. It alleges that religions are the sources of morality, while they are actually the consequences of morality. It imagines that religion is confounded if evolution is proved. It stamps its foot saying without proof that there is no deity, thereby showing its own belief in deity. So when skeptics talk about 'Christian Right', are they demonstrating a lively belief in the Christian deity? Where is the perceptive power they claim to apply? Do they check claims for Christianity against some objective, agreed standard, or do they take advantage of any fake claim that comes along, and smear Christianity with a point of view that it pointedly contradicts? That would appear to be chronically, doggedly the case, so 'atheism' will remain discredited and a mere 'noise off' until it gets an honest grip on reality.

[Ahso!]

xyz;1339302 wrote: Which is why you are evading my questions, presumably.pot/kettle

[spot]

xyz;1339290 wrote: they are as qualified in science as Dawkins, and also know the Bible far better than the fundamentalistsNeither, if you'll excuse the observation, seems at all probable.



xyz;1339294 wrote: Or are atheists really agnostics?The words are scarcely synonyms, are they.

[yaaarrrgg]

gmc;1339340 wrote: There isn't such a classification the religious right need a label to argue against. It's a classic tactic, if you can apply a label to someone you can immediately devalue and detract anything they have to say. One thing you can say about atheists is they are unlikely to let someone tell or dictate to them what they should believe. You know there isn't even an atheist society in the UK?

More to the point you can be an atheist without reading Nietzsche et al. Spinoza and Luther were condemned as heretics and atheists by the catholic church, Luther most definitely was not and spinoza started out jewish so he was condemned right from the word go. John calvin wasn't an atheist either yet still condemned as a heretic.

The catholic church even today still categorises anyone who is not a catholic as a heretic and not christian and possibly atheistic although they are a bit more careful about that particular accusation.

There isn't an atheist movement or anything remotely like it, nor is an alternative to religion. The only reason it seems to be becoming an issue is because of the religious right, especially in America, and their entry in to politics pursuant of their own agenda. Not being an American of course I can't really comment but it seems to me the rise of outspoken atheists and the support they are gaining in the states is a response to fear of religious fundamentalism and what it can lead to.


Yes, the classification is bizzare, from my perspective. I think it would be funny if I dug up two old shoes in my back yard, and then decided that they were my diety that I worshipped and prayed to. I may then classify all the non-believers (the rest fo the world) as atheists, since they reject the one true shoe god. Then, I sub-categorize these non-believers into three sub-groups:

a) people who don't agree with me, but see me as harmless and ignore me

b) people who actively engage me in discussion, and try to debate the merits of my belief in the holy shoes

c) those who try to shut my whole operation down, because they perceive me as a threat.

Of course any individual that I classified might have good reason for falling the category I've assigned to them. Especially if I'm creating a cult following that wants to fly planes into buildings, because the buildings don't have laces.

I think in part the classification is based on the perception of the amount of danger I pose to a group. If I'm acting hostile, more people are going to migrate from group a to group c. Mostly though, the distribution would all be a reaction to my behavior I think. I would be the one creating that perception.

[koan]

gmc;1339340 wrote: There isn't such a classification the religious right need a label to argue against. It's a classic tactic, if you can apply a label to someone you can immediately devalue and detract anything they have to say. One thing you can say about atheists is they are unlikely to let someone tell or dictate to them what they should believe. You know there isn't even an atheist society in the UK?
Yes, there is such a classification now. Maybe it's a tactic but I see it as a way to argue with obnoxious atheists without having to condemn them all. Just as someone might have an argument with a person who insists the bible is literal but doesn't have a problem with less rigid Christians. It's a valid way to take exception to some arguments without throwing away the entire philosophy. I'm glad there isn't an atheist society. I don't belong to any societies or organizations either.



More to the point you can be an atheist without reading Nietzsche et al. Spinoza and Luther were condemned as heretics and atheists by the catholic church, Luther most definitely was not and spinoza started out jewish so he was condemned right from the word go. John calvin wasn't an atheist either yet still condemned as a heretic. Can you be an atheist without believing in memes? That would be good news.



The catholic church even today still categorises anyone who is not a catholic as a heretic and not christian and possibly atheistic although they are a bit more careful about that particular accusation.

There isn't an atheist movement or anything remotely like it, nor is an alternative to religion. The only reason it seems to be becoming an issue is because of the religious right, especially in America, and their entry in to politics pursuant of their own agenda. Not being an American of course I can't really comment but it seems to me the rise of outspoken atheists and the support they are gaining in the states is a response to fear of religious fundamentalism and what it can lead to.


Memetics is actually threatening to become a cult. We can thank Dawkins for that.

You mention classification by the Catholics, and no Christian will dispute that Catholics do that. What about classification by Memetics? I've experienced what warped thinking it breeds. If you don't agree with them you are demoted in colour.

[koan]

Ahso!;1339346 wrote: pot/kettle


I object to being called a kettle.

The answer was, "that's a red herring."

[yaaarrrgg]

koan;1339363 wrote: Can you be an atheist without believing in memes? That would be good news.




I don't think "meme" when I see fundamentalism. I think "computer virus."

[koan]

yaaarrrgg;1339366 wrote: I don't think "meme" when I see fundamentalism. I think "computer virus."


when I start hearing Spiral Dynamics talk I think of brain viruses

To be fair, Spiral Dynamics takes memes to a different level.

[Ahso!]

xyz;1339302 wrote: Which is why you are evading my questions, presumably.Thats a red herring.

[koan]

Ahso!;1339378 wrote: Thats a red herring.


ultimately true, but I had "Or are atheists really agnostics?" in mind when I mentioned it. lol

either way, only the pot is black :p

[recovering conservative]

koan;1339330 wrote: Part of the frustration I've had trying to voice similar ideas about "New Atheists" is that I didn't know there was a classification. Christians will jump in to point out that there are fundamentalists who don't speak for all of Christianity but atheists haven't allowed for fundamentalism existing for them as well. It may not be "New" but, to me, the term is new and it finally allows for discussion of anti-religious extremism.
In the general category of unbelievers, New Atheism is about a difference in tactics from the way nonbelievers have generally dealt with the topic of religion and supernatural beliefs.

In many scientific fields (such as biology for some reason) there are a high number of materialists, who don't believe in gods or supernatural forces. Traditionally, most scientists and science educators would ignore religion and religious claims, except where religious and secular supernatural beliefs threatened to degrade science education.

Teaching the Theory of Evolution, would be the most obvious example. And most science educators would not want to bother attacking religion directly, except to say that 'if evolution and the geologic record of life and the age of the Earth' conflict with your religious teachings -- then you need to reinterpret or reevaluate your creation stories! But, when Richard Dawkins started doing public lectures about these problems, he argued that science and religion are incompatible, and religion must be fought against until it eventually disappears. Making bold and strident statements also makes headlines, so it's no big surprise that Dawkins became the spokesman for atheism in the mainstream media.

Other strident claims come from people like Sam Harris -- who stated that he has more respect for fundamentalists than he does for religious moderates -- apparently because moderates are in the way of an all out ideological battle between science and religion. Traditionally, secularists would seek common cause with religious liberals; but Harris, Dawkins, and NeoCon - Chris Hitchens, argue that this is "Accommodationism," and we should be trying to eradicate all religious memes, rather than working with believers who are with us on the most important issues.

So, since religious fundamentalists believe that their truth should reign supreme -- it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that atheists who believe that all religious beliefs and practices are cultural adaptations, and can be replaced with secular alternatives -- are going to look like the mirror images of religious zealots.

Now we can say to the nice, normal atheists... yes, I realize you aren't a fundamentalist... but Hitchens is and he's an *******.
I don't want people thinking that Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, PZ Myers etc. represent the way I think, and I don't want to judge all Catholics by the Pope's actions, or judge Muslims by what Bin Laden or Ahmadinejad are saying either. Reasonable voices on all sorts of issues get ignored by the media, which wants to follow the crazies who stir outrage and create controversy.

[koan]

Thank you. There is a lot in that post to respond to, but I just want to say that the last segment is what I was trying to express. I do believe that atheism is valid and doesn't have to be obnoxious.

I'm tempted to respond first to the "religious memes" statement. My really brutal exposure to Spiral Dynamics has, admittedly, created a resistance to the word meme so I want to ask first for a definition of what a religious meme is.

[recovering conservative]

gmc;1339340 wrote:

There isn't an atheist movement or anything remotely like it, nor is an alternative to religion.
If you go online and check out one of the atheist virtual communities, like Atheist Nexus, or Think Atheist, you might think you have just stepped into some kind of religious cult where everybody has to follow the same line about religions, or be shunned by the community. Maybe these groups, along with the RDF, can't get a real atheist movement going; but that has more to do with the fact that it's hard to unite people around what they don't believe, rather than that they haven't been trying!

The only reason it seems to be becoming an issue is because of the religious right, especially in America, and their entry in to politics pursuant of their own agenda.
NO, I would argue that the religious right finds new atheists to be useful adversaries for the same reasons that the new atheists would rather debate a ranting young-earth creationist, than some liberal theologian who does not claim that faith and belief in God are objective propositions. I've heard Dawkins refer debating God with liberal theologians as "trying to nail jello to a wall." But, why is he trying to nail jello to a wall in the first place? Except that he's a fundamentalist trying to stamp out all supernatural heresies.

[recovering conservative]

koan;1339446 wrote: Thank you. There is a lot in that post to respond to, but I just want to say that the last segment is what I was trying to express. I do believe that atheism is valid and doesn't have to be obnoxious.

I'm tempted to respond first to the "religious memes" statement. My really brutal exposure to Spiral Dynamics has, admittedly, created a resistance to the word meme so I want to ask first for a definition of what a religious meme is.


On the subject of memes, you might want to check out Richard Dawkins's essay Viruses Of The Mind , which he wrote almost 20 years ago, and I came across several years later when I bought the book "The Devil's Chaplain." In that little essay, Dawkins proposes an idea that the evolution of biological life, and the evolution of culture may be following similar principles. In biology, he presented a gene-centered process where those building blocks of life, are selfish replicators, just trying to make as many copies of themselves as possible....and he wondered if the same process might be happening in the evolution of human culture.

One obvious difference being that the replicant of concepts or ideas -- memes -- is an abstract idea, rather than a something that can demonstrated to actually exist. The mind virus of that essay is religion. In this line of thought, religious memes are costly to those infected with them. They demand great sacrifices of money and time from those infected with them; impose health risks and make people believe things that are false or imaginary. Like real viruses, they try to make as many copies of themselves as possible, by using promises and threats, so that people will not only accept them, but also want to pass them on.

So are religions harmful mind viruses? The first problem with this description is that religions are complex collections of beliefs, rules, rituals, spiritual practices, that would likely include a lot of good stuff and a lot of bad things that need to be changed or reformed. But meme theory would propose that even the biggest, most elaborate religious system is a giant collection of mind viruses that your mind has to be cured of by correct information which can be provided from scientific evidence.

In the subheading Is Science A Virus? he argues that science and religious memes have superficial similarites, but the scientific ideas have to withstand a natural selection process of peer review -- so scientific memes are good memes....sort of like a vaccination against those harmful religious memes:

The rapid spread of a good idea through the scientific community may even look like a description of a measles epidemic. But when you examine the underlying reasons you find that they are good ones, satisfying the demanding standards of scientific method. In the history of the spread of faith you will find little else but epidemiology, and causal epidemiology at that. The reason why person A believes one thing and B believes another is simply and solely that A was born on one continent and B on another. Testability, evidential support and the rest aren't even remotely considered. For scientific belief, epidemiology merely comes along afterwards and describes the history of its acceptance. For religious belief, epidemiology is the root cause.

A couple of years back, when I was a regular on a popular atheism community, I got a lot of grief for asking if any of the meme-believers and others who were for other reasons sure that religious beliefs were harmful and could be eradicated, had ever heard anything from what some developmental psychologists have to say about religious or supernatural beliefs. One book in particular that I read: Supersense, by Bruce Hood makes a pretty compelling case that our basic mind design leads towards believing supernatural ideas, and even if we become rational, analytical adults, our intuitive instincts betray an underlying essentialist way of understanding the world.

If he's right, we will never have a completely materialist, non-religious world, and the only sensible way of dealing with these issues is to confront beliefs and practices that clearly cause harm, rather than going on some futile quest to turn everyone into an atheist. This sort of thinking by the hardline new atheists looks like it is in fact behind the times when it comes to keeping up with the latest science. They are using a 19th century concept of how are minds function, and seem to have ignored everything that psychology and neuroscience could have told them on this subject.

[koan]

wow, thanks for the thorough description. I'm somewhat familiar with the ideas but wanted to make sure I separate the spiralistic parts out from Dawkins' philosophy.

"In this line of thought, religious memes are costly to those infected with them. They demand great sacrifices of money and time from those infected with them; impose health risks and make people believe things that are false or imaginary. Like real viruses, they try to make as many copies of themselves as possible, by using promises and threats, so that people will not only accept them, but also want to pass them on." sounds exactly like what a political meme would be described as too.

His explanation as to why science memes are exempt is a good example of spiral dynamics though. "I'm aqua!" Of course religions undergo peer review as well, by other sects as well as their own. imo, that's why the bible is whittled down to the strange version that exists (oh, sacrilege! I hear some denounce) Though some religions ask for blind faith, some also encourage people to question everything and find their own satisfactory answers.

Aside from whether or not science memes are similar to religious, isn't the concept of memes just another way to place a structure on a chaotic world that scares them?

[recovering conservative]

koan;1339454 wrote: wow, thanks for the thorough description. I'm somewhat familiar with the ideas but wanted to make sure I separate the spiralistic parts out from Dawkins' philosophy.

"In this line of thought, religious memes are costly to those infected with them. They demand great sacrifices of money and time from those infected with them; impose health risks and make people believe things that are false or imaginary. Like real viruses, they try to make as many copies of themselves as possible, by using promises and threats, so that people will not only accept them, but also want to pass them on." sounds exactly like what a political meme would be described as too.

His explanation as to why science memes are exempt is a good example of spiral dynamics though. "I'm aqua!" Of course religions undergo peer review as well, by other sects as well as their own. imo, that's why the bible is whittled down to the strange version that exists (oh, sacrilege! I hear some denounce) Though some religions ask for blind faith, some also encourage people to question everything and find their own satisfactory answers.

Aside from whether or not science memes are similar to religious, isn't the concept of memes just another way to place a structure on a chaotic world that scares them?


I'm glad you found this useful. On my part, I'll have to take a look at spiral dynamics; I haven't read anything about it before.

Memetics looks like a pretty obvious attempt to try to streamline culture and reduce everything that's complicated into tiny components. There may be a good analogy with explaining how certain ideas and fads can go "viral" and then just disappear. But these people have tried to explain too many things that meme theory didn't apply very well to.

And, maybe that's a good thing! If it was a stronger theory, it's possible to envision a tyrannical movement built around the notion of eradicating harmful mind viruses. It's a good thing that it looks like memes are running out of steam as an explanatory tool.

[koan]

It is extremely relevant to the thread though, to show that atheists are capable of constructing their own bibles.

Spiral Dynamics drifted into a disagreement between co-authors, one of which took the concepts to an extreme. The wikipedia article likely gives a good overview though it has major noted issues that are just as revealing lol

This article has multiple issues...

Its neutrality is disputed. .

It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. .

It may be confusing or unclear for some readers..

It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

That's about it, without having to read a bunch of pseudo-psychobabble.