A Proletarian critique of 'New' Atheists

[Audley Strange]

It's waffle dressed up to appear like academic noise.

Okay, that was hilarious. Nice one.

[punter18]

Well, I do not think that the author is explicitly advocating worshiping of (Abrahamic) God. His position at best seems to be that of an agnostic, although even in conclusion he's not proffering what people must necessarily be doing with their notion of supernatural (and why should he?). However, his criticism of 'New' Atheists is strictly coming from a working class's perspective. I have read The God Delusion and God Is Not Great, and, in my opinion, the author's critique of both is not entirely invalid. Most of us are already aware that the religious scholars have accused Dawkins for misunderstanding religion after TGD came out. I know PZ Myers has made a tongue-in-cheek defense against such accusations. However, that still wouldn't preemptively excuse Dawkins et al of the "cold rationalism" and (borderline) arrogance he puts forward while dealing with century-old arguments -- Teleological argument, Pascal's Wager, etc -- that have been presented in favor of God hypotheses. The author is right in asserting that the five odd pages that Dawkins devoted to dismiss the arguments would sound convincing to the already converted, not to the believers. Obviously, the fundamental error being made by Dawkins here is his equating of god "experience" with that of mere hallucination of the mind. This is plain arrogance shown in face of huge pile of mystics' experiences separated 1000s of years apart. And this is where Jung and Freud depart from Dawkins in that the former did give due attention to the subjective experience of the mind whereas the latter ended up advocating purely objective viewpoint.

This is to conclude that views expressed by Dawkins and others remain inadequate to sufficiently explain as to why people cling on to the belief that they do. In that respect, the author is merely suggesting that blokes like Marx and Freud present a better analysis of the "belief" in the supernatural.

What Dawkins puts forward as consolation of unbelief is rooted primarily in science, in the wonders of the universe, a viewpoint that goes untouched of any critical analysis. I will give my account as to why I strongly agree with this position in my next post. In the meanwhile, I will request those who are misunderstanding the author's position as that of someone peddling fairy tale view or smiting the atheists, to go through it again in its entirety.

[Animavore]

'Mystics' still exist now and in my experience they're mostly crackpots and ding-bats. It doesn't take much to infer it has always been so.
Dawkins states in his book he doesn't think his arguments will convince the believer, that he's reaching out to the undecideds so he already covered that base if the author of the piece had've paid attention, so what's his problem?

[FBM]

...he author is right in asserting that the five odd pages that Dawkins devoted to dismiss the arguments would sound convincing to the already converted, not to the believers...

I recently had an e-mail exchange with a NEC. Nothing is convincing to them except what they already believe. No amount of factual matter, no amount of explanation of their logical fallacies, nothing is convincing to them because they're already convinced of the opposite and are willing to renounce empirical data, necessary inference and logic altogether in order to retain their emotionally preferred version of reality. As the old chestnut goes, it is practically impossible to reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

"Cold" rationalism is an emotive description. There's nothing colder about a rational analysis of the universe and of the human's place in it than there is in the belief that an all-loving, all-powerful creator thingy will cast you into eternal suffering for not believing, while at the same time refusing to provided evidence for its own existence. Which is colder? The intellectually honest position that as far as we can tell consciousness ends with brain death, or the position that the divine creator is narcissistic to the point of sending his own creations to hell for not worshipping it, and sadistically playing hide-and-seek so that there's sure to always be some doubt?

I don't have strong feelings for RD one way or the other, but I've read TGD his arguments are solid for those willing and able to engage them with intellectual honesty. RD is not a philosopher or he might've done a better job of it, but it still wouldn't matter, because those who earnestly don't want to admit the strength of those arguments will never do so, anyway, until they take the first step of admitting even the possibility that they might be mistaken.

[Seabass]

As soon as someone uses the word bourgeois I dismiss them as a wanker.

[Robert_S]

Most of us are already aware that the religious scholars have accused Dawkins for misunderstanding religion after TGD came out.

Religious scholars? Are those prole or bourge?

[Svartalf]

Courge more like...

[punter18]

Most of us are already aware that the religious scholars have accused Dawkins for misunderstanding religion after TGD came out.

Religious scholars? Are those prole or bourge?

I believe there are just two classes: the ruling class (bourgeois) and the working class (proletarian). Rest of the classes are made up by the bourge themselves to maintain the rule in the economy. The middle, upper or lower class are based on sociological differences which the advertisers and the mainstream media love to exploit.

So, the religious scholars would necessarily be among the proles.

[FBM]

Being religious, they probably ban prole dancing.

[Svartalf]

except real proles could never get that kind of education, so they are either from the bourgeoisristocracy, and possiply spitting in the soup pot, or class traitors.

[laklak]

How about the lumpen? Nobody ever worries about us lumpen.

Where can I get some of this new atheism? My atheism is about 58 years old and it's getting a bit shabby.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's hard to take critique based on ideology seriously.

LOL. Please tell me of a critique that is not based on one ideology or another.

Can you tell me why I prefer Bach to Beethoven? Or why F=mv? "Jewish" physics, anyone?

Don't be dense. Critical analysis of facts or events can be and often is shorn of ideology. Accepting the existence of mental filters when analyzing an argument is permitting the installation of bias into what ought to be objective.

If that suffices for you, so be it. It's slipshod thinking.

[Pappa]

Should I read it or consider it academic noise?

By all means read it, but in my view the essay does not rise to academic anything. It's waffle dressed up to appear like academic noise. There are better argued opinion pieces in the (bourgeois) papers.

That was my feeling after reading a short section. Then I yawned as I realised I'd heard it all before.

[Audley Strange]

All this ridicule now makes me want to read it, but I fear I'd end up wasting time nitpicking through it and for what? How does such a text affect anyone really? Fervens Spiritus!

(My Latin is probably shocking.)

[Robert_S]

http://libcom.org/library/critique-new-atheists

The writer is labeling 'New Atheism' bourgeois atheism and criticizing it for its tendency toward scientism, and cites Dawkins's The God Delusion and Hitchens's God Is Not Great, among other western writers, to formulate the critique. I think I would agree with this conclusion of his in the article:

In conclusion the problem with the New Atheists is that there is nothing new about them: it is the same old bourgeois atheism which cannot offer humanity anything except the cold dead universe of scientism, to replace religious illusions. It leaves humanity forever trapped inside its own ego, forever peering out into a hostile alien universe which threatens at all times to engulf them. This is not a ‘view’ which is thought of and articulated consciously by many writers but rather a trend of modern consciousness in general, reflecting the material workings and basis of bourgeois society.

What are your thoughts on it?

The thing, the very big thing that so many "critiques" keep missing is that it is a-theism not athe-ism. This nu-atheism is nothing more than a widespread letting go of the pretense that religious ideas automatically deserve respect and shouldn't be called out. It is not a coherent philosophy, or even much of a cohesive group of people. There is much more to the movement/s than Dawkins and Hitchens. The author has assumed that, like Marxists and some other religious folk, we have a Prophet who is revered and who's word is to be interpreted and reinterpreted.

If I had to sum up succinctly what qualifies someone as a "New Atheist" it would be that they wouldn't mind saying: "There is probably no god, and there is nothing wrong with saying so." It doesn't offer meaning and purpose, but neither does having been cured of cancer. If the author wanted to actually reduce human suffering, then they would do better to forge a new philosophy, or repackage old philosophies in such a way as to provide that meaning, purpose and comfort without the supernatural silliness we've been burdened with all these centuries.