Salient: New Atheism

Showing posts with label New Atheism. Show all posts

Always a Dangerous Thing

I've been thinking . . . always a dangerous thing.

More from The Great God Divide: European Secularism and American Religiosity: the following comments were excited by the speaker's impressions of the Great Arch of La Defense, President Mitterrand’s monument to the bicentennial of 1789.

"And that put a question in my head . . . which culture could give a better account of its commitments to the rights of men, which was being memorialized here, the culture that produced this rational, striking, but essentially featureless cube, or the more complicated culture that had produced gargoyles and flying buttresses and crosses and the holy unsameness, if you will, of Notre Dame.

It’s a question of what a society loses when it completely and self-consciously cuts itself off from those civilizing and civilizational roots, represented in this case by the cathedral, and attempts something that I think is quite unprecedented in human history; namely, the creation of democratic political community on an essentially religiously featureless social and cultural terrain."

This remark is yet another example of a romantic apology for religion. Certainly, the flying buttresses of Notre Dame (at top), for example, are much more visually interesting than even the most interesting view of the Great Arch (below). However, few rational people would argue that 13th century Paris gave a better "account of its committment to the rights of man" than 21st century Paris, its frustrations with Muslims notwithstanding.

I think that the speaker was ignoring the fact that the cost of stone masons and the time required to construct a cathedral such as Notre Dame, and not secularist politics, preclude the construction of another such cathedral. Construction on the cathedral began in 1163 CE. Does anyone wish to guess when the cathedral was completed? [answer]

All of which brings me to thinking about the so-called New Atheism. Atheism as nonbelief about the existence of deities (or belief of nonexistence if you recognize what disbelief actually means) is scarcely new. The new element lies in the refusal to be polite about the content of religious delusions and emphasis on the dangers posed by religionist elements (not by religious moderates, but by religious fundamentalists).

I don't think that there is any paucity of empirical historical evidence that links religious extremism to harm. Nor do we lack evidence that links dictator-exploited ideological extremisms such as communism or, its mirror, fascism to harm.

I think that the key element of any harmful -ism lies in extremism in its application – perhaps I should say misapplication. Obviously, this is also true of the harmful misapplication of scientific advances, particularly those in military technologies, that have caused damage and distress. Alfred Nobel invented gunpowder in the hope that such a dangerous weapon would prove to be a deterrent from warfare. Clearly he did not succeed, and nor has the 'atomic' bomb succeeded, except insofar as gunpowder conflicts have so far stopped short of nuclear holocaust.

Sam Harris' Islamophobia smacks of paranoiac visions of annihilation such as followed 1945. Ironically, and nontheless tragically, the greatest recent Islam-related deathtoll is of innocent Iraqi civilians brought about as a result of the stupid decisions of a president not-elected largely as a result of the politicking of the Conservative Religious Wrong.

The Middle East has presented a political problem ever since Zionists decided that Jewish problems could be solved by turning Palestine from a Jewish symbol of exile into a homeland. This is not to dismiss the influence of earlier capitalist exploitation of the Middle East nor to ignore the long-standing perceived threats of imposed secularization within Islam. In other words, it is not only religion that causes harm. The problem is that religion perpetuates ancient divisions that exacerbate political schisms.

answer: The towers were completed around 1245 CE, and the cathedral was completed around 1345 CE – a mere 182 years, or about 6 generations.

atheism, religion,

Style Complementarity in Atheist Activism

Carnival of the Godless #76 linked to this post on Greta Christina's blog: Good Cop, Bad Cop: Atheist Activism.

Greta compares the current rise of vocal atheism to the queer activist movement of the '80s and '90s and argues convincingly that different styles of atheist activism are both individually appropriate and, more important, complementary.

But when it comes to the basic question of "sympathetic compromiser versus passionate idealist" tactics, I think we'd all be better off if we stopped spending our time and energy squabbling with each other, and left each other the hell alone to do what we're good at and what we're inspired to do.

In saying this, Greta echoed something that Russell Blackford said in a comment on a post by Jason Rosenhouse.

If we are going to expend energies typing, then we might have better results through criticizing theistic illogic than debating other theists on whether or not Christopher Hitchens is a tad too acerbic, or whether Richard Dawkins actually accused all theists of suffering from a mental disorder. (I think that religionists actually enjoy their chosen brand of cognitive disorder.)

Haidt Hype

In an article entitled Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion, Jonathan Haidt demonstrates a misunderstanding of New Atheism and, in my opinion, of what should determine moral behavior.

Haidt’s description of moral psychology blurs the distinction between personal emotionality and moral philosophy. Haidt dismisses rational moral systems as too slow, in comparison to gut reactions, to determine behaviour: “Reasoning by its very nature is slow, playing out in seconds.”

Haidt appears to be conveniently ignoring the fact that seconds rank as fast enough to override emotional responses so that our behaviour can be governed by our cognition rather than by every passing emotion. Most people regard this ability as associated with socialization, emotional maturity, and self-control.

Haidt’s description of studies performed for his dissertation demonstrate self-fulfilling experimental bias: “I told people short stories in which a person does something disgusting or disrespectful that was perfectly harmless (for example, a family cooks and eats its dog, after the dog was killed by a car). I was trying to pit the emotion of disgust against reasoning about harm and individual rights.” Needless to say, Haidt found what he was looking for: “I found that disgust won in nearly all groups I studied.”

We Westerners are accustomed to viewing dogs as beloved pets and would react with disgust to this story—after all, the story was designed to disgust. Substitute “pig” or “lamb” for “dog” and the semi-cannibalistic element of the moral story diminishes considerably. In Asia, dogs are considered a food group, so I’d predict that Vietnamese Americans might not have reacted with disgust to this practical, harm-no-animal, meal. In essence, emotive reactions are culturally governed and even though emotion might kick in more quickly than cognitive assessment of this story, the cognition— that dogs are family members—was established by custom before the aversive reaction could occur.

Haidt classifies the criteria for assessing morality: the classically recognized parameters of harm/care and fairness/justice, plus Haidt’s s proposed additional parameter of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.

The inclusion of these additional parameters, which seem to govern conservative moralizing attitudes, lead Haidt to the mistaken conclusion that morality is equated with religion. Yes, the Abrahamic religious systems include moralistic rules, and, yes, the Abrahamic religions have flourished by emphasizing community, but this does not mean that religion is the only route to moral behaviour or community involvement.

Conservative insistence on giving primacy to the moral codes of ancient Israel too often runs counter to harm/care and fairness/justice to truly represent moral attitudes. Too often, conservatives clearly act solely under the dictates of emotional reactivity or inculcated absolutes without any regard for potential harm or injustice. Even Haidt would probably not argue that killing others in the name of fundamentalist religious dogma hardly qualifies as moral behavior. Loyalty, respect, and sanctity are not necessarily good guides to moral behavior because those who claim to have moral authority may be manipulating believers to serve the claimants personal economic or political ends.

Haidt focuses on the group survival advantage of religious belief to criticize Dawkins’ New Atheist position. I have not yet read Dawkins, but PZ Myers states that Dawkins did not summarily dismiss group selection, as Haidt would have us believe. I shall have to read Dawkins and judge for myself. Regardless of what Dawkins actually said, it strikes me that in large, post-agricultural societies religion probably best served rulers and priests rather than the society’s individuals. Some South American religious superstitions, which involved ever increasing human sacrifice during times of stress, could hardly be said to have ensured group survival.

Elsewhere : PZ Myers Hmmm...I found the moral philosophy of chimps more convincing :

Video : Haidt's presentation at Enlightenment 2.0, where he explains his research into moral thinking and makes a good argument as to why liberals need to borrow the conservative lesson regarding in-group solidarity to defeat the enemy,

atheism