By "the New Atheism" I don't mean the belief that the preponderance of evidence points to the nonexistence of God. That's just atheism. New Atheism takes it several steps further and treats the nonexistence of God, the afterlife, and the like as settled questions. The merest hint of theism has to be banished. And somewhere between the end of last century and the first few years of this one, they won. In institutionalized science and the bulk of the humanities, you have to reduce your philosophy to pure materialism to be taken seriously.
This has had two dire effects. First of all it's infected rationalists with the arrogance of the crusader. Start out with the idea that for the good of humanity religious belief must be stamped out and both your actions and perceptions will be warped.
It also gives the scientifically-minded, or those who just think they are, license to dismiss certain ideas out of hand. The ultimate result has been much of the scientific community starting from preferred conclusions and working backward, or not working at all. The last three years have seen a lot of this.
So yes, it was a mistake. And it will be reckoned with, perhaps corrected, elsewhere.
2 comments:
I saw this article on Unherd and dismissed it out of hand because I have disagreed with his philosophy for a very long time after reading both The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion. He uses all the nasty tricks of dogmatic religion to attack religions. Thanks for describing 'New Atheism' for me as I wasn't familiar with the concept.
Now I've read the transcript I see that he holds similar views as us about gender as a social construct and affirmative action in regard to racial guilt. However, I still can't take seriously his views on religion - that he doesn't believe in anything beyond the material world and anyone who does is quite obviously confused or stupid. I would say you're right that he appears unable to examine his conclusions - never mind the question.
Greer's post this week called The Myth of Modernity might be seen as the antithesis of Richard Dawkins' doctrine. The article is worth reading but you don't have to - the following quote is a fitting sample:
Jason Josephson-Storm suggested that one of the most fundamental assumptions of modern thought—the notion that we modern people are disenchanted, freed from the superstitious burdens of the past and venturing heroically forward into a new world free of myth and magic—is simply another myth, playing the same role in our culture that the things we like to call “myths” play in other cultures..
Dawkins is the high priest of Scientism, that new religion replete with its dogma, certainty, instant dismissal of counter views and occasional fanaticism. I think the necessity of reopening the discussion will eventually prevail. The coldly clinical nature of the debate simply doesn't resonate with the human heart.
You've probably read more of him than I have at this point. But it is true that the same techniques of propaganda are used by people on both sides, leaving propaganda itself as the winner. The wording of the definition is my own but it seems to track pretty well with how other sources
His reasonable views on race and gender are somewhat encouraging. He does feel obliged to defend humanism. But he seems to see humanism and secularism as anonymous, which honestly a lot of people do now. Intellectuals especially. But they're not the same thing.
I did read that piece by Greer and it was very good. Worth rereading, I daresay. So far I haven't read any of Jason Josephson-Storm, but maybe I will in the near future. The idea that our belief we've outgrown the superstitions of the past is just another myth is intriguing, and more compelling the more I think about it. It's not necessarily the first time that we've thought that, even. It's a post-Enlightenment idea taken a little further. It may just point to an exhaustion of the old paradigm, and in that be a temporary condition.
I do think that people need something to believe in, something to give life meaning. Maybe there are a few like Carl Sagan who can just take solace in the scientific wonders of the universe. But that's not the only way to go, nor will it work for everyone.
Post a Comment