Meliorism - The rise of neo-atheism and the fall of reason

[Lord Privy Seal]

>snip giant pile of ad hominem<

The central theme running through neo-atheism is meliorism. The notion that science and technology, specifically as a result of human action,

We don't have access to a lot of science and technology that isn't the result of human action, unless you believe Stealth bombers were copied from a crashed flying saucer.

brings progress (and equally that and backward revision is retrogressive) is, in my experience dealing with neo-atheists, so central to their thinking it has become the priori on which their philosophy (if it can be called that) is predicated.

I find your seething hate for the concept of "progress" curious, since you define your own views as "progressive."

So convinced of the absolute inviolability of modern science, the neo-atheist behaves like a fundamentalist in their defence of their belief. Offering up misinterpretations and meaningless quotes stripped of context to maintain purchase on their belief, attacking reasoned enquiry like cyber-crusaders lopping off the heads of anyone who dare violate the first commandment of neo-atheism – Science is a jealous god and thou shalt not have any other god before it.

Could you cite an example? I don't know of anyone, especially scientists, who asserts "the absolute inviolability of modern science" or that technology is only and always good. The reason that New Atheists tend to appeal to the scientific method is that it is, so far, the method that works best to test and validate ideas about how Universe works. It's not perfect. Nothing human is. It works as well as it does because it is designed to, as much as possible, remove "the human element" (our biases, perceptual foibles, etc.) and let reality speak for itself. E.g., a "double-blind" medical trial is set up so that the scientists conducting the experiment do not know whether the samples they're working with are in the test group or the control group, so that their biases, whatever they might be, can't affect the data they record.

Science is the only method of inquiry by which people with different starting points can determine to mutual agreement which, if either, is most correct. Scientists who believe in, and disbelieve in, neutrinos that can travel faster than light can set up experiments that they agree will test the proposition in question, and (eventually) agree on who was correct. Philosophical "pure" logic can't do this (people are still arguing Plato vs. Aristotle), and faith can't even get out of the starting gate. There is no way a Christian and a Muslim can sit down and come up with a way to demonstrate which if either of them is correct about the nature of "God" to the satisfaction of both.

If you can produce some other method of acquiring and validating knowledge that works better than science, I for one will gladly embrace it.

The eighteenth century dream of human progress is alive and well and masquerading as neo-atheism. Any notion of progress or regression can only make sense within a system of teleological thought. Teleological thought has embedded itself into the neo-atheist psyche so deep it has become the embodiment of reason.

So? We humans are teleological entities. We do things in order to accomplish our purposes. Theism does not own the copyright and trademark on teleological thought. The notion of "gods" as human-like (psychologically, and often in form as well) social beings who seek status among humans ("I am King of Kings and Lord of Lords!") looks a lot more like projection of human mind upon the Cosmos, than observation of real immortal, superhuman beings. They're basically ancient humanity's equivalent of Star Trek's rubber-forehead "aliens."

“Eighteenth-century social philosophy was convinced that mankind has now finally entered the age of reason… With the progress of time society will more and more become the society of free men, aiming at the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Temporary setbacks are, of course, not impossible. But finally the good cause will triumph because it is the cause of reason.” [Bettina B. Greaves 1996]

But this is easily exposed as a myth. When we look back from any given state to the state of things in the past it is fair to use the terms development and evolution in a neutral sense. From this point it is easy to identify the process that led us from one state to the next, but we must guard against confusing change with improvement or progress.

So, you sitting somewhere typing on a computer in a room with light and temperature control, expressing your ideas publicly without any fear of punishment, is no improvement over toiling in the fields under the whip and sword of a lord or master who may dispose of your life and the products of your labor as he sees fit, where a broken leg or a bacterial infection can easily lead you to a miserable death, and Visigoths or Vikings or Mongols can come over the hill and ravage you and your loved ones at any time?

I've got two words for anybody who does not think that "progress" has produced any improvement in the human condition: Childbirth. Dentistry.

This is not to say that the the Enlightenment, science, technology, etc. have produced nothing but analloyed bright shiny loveliness. But they have produced a lot of good. The scourge of smallpox has been swept away, if you are a woman, you have opportunities your sisters in previous ages could not even dream of, etc.. Have we achieved perfection? Not by a long shot. Would anyone reading this trade places with a randomly-chosen person living under the Pharaohs, the Assyrians, or a medieval king?

There is no progress against concrete goals, the general notion of progress and improvement is measured against a change in state, it simply doesn’t stand up to critical examination.

Tell that to Neil Armstrong's footprints on the Moon. Concrete goal. Progress toward it. Achievement of the goal.

The term progress is nonsensical when applied to a comprehensive world view.

Says somebody communicating instantaneously across the globe through a computer network instead of sending smoke signals.

To compound the matter neo-atheists assert human action as the agent of this progress.

Who else would you suggest? Space aliens? Princess Celestia?

It is not permissible to substitute pseudoscientific anthropocentrism for the anthropocentrism of religion and older metaphysical doctrines.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. What "pseudoscientific anthropocentrism" are you talking about? And who is denying the permission and dishing out the spankings?

The danger with Neo-atheism, as I see it, is that it has absorbed pseudoscientific anthropocentrism and the delusion of progress, and has rapidly become fundamentalist in its defence of these mistaken beliefs.

Even if this was true (you have provided no evidence for any of your assertions), what is the "danger?" Does it make baby Horus cry or something?