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

[ManMachine]

Perhaps you should explain to me why "greater" doesn't equal an objective sort of progression, and why change doesn't equal progress (for it does, at the very least, some of the time), for I seem not to understand your position. I don't want colorful, flowery prose. Stating a position should be done in accordance with maximum effort at clear and concise communication, not what sounds pretty.

Greater simply means more it doesn't mean progress.

Progress implies a movement against some kind of measure. If I want to collect 10 milk bottle tops and I have 3, any increase in this number is progress because I have a pre-defined goal of 10.

Darwin tells us that 'species' are only assemblies of genes interacting randomly with each other in shifting environments. 'Species' cannot control their fates.

Outside of anthropomorphic projection, we do not consider that other species of animals progress. Why then should we consider this for ourselves? It's simply not scientific and it doesn't stand up to reason.

Going back to your OP.

It’s becoming clear to me that there is a new kind of atheism. It stems from the cut n’ paste vox-pops puppets who think Dawkins’ greatest contribution to atheism is his ill-conceived disasterwork, ‘The God Delusion’ and who wouldn’t recognise a Selfish Gene if it broke into the bedrooms and stole their laptops.

I didn't realize there was a "kind" of atheism. Atheism is a blank slate. What you stand for or against gives you another label. This is why we rail against those Atheism+ fucks. Everything is a plus from atheism, as you're adding something to the blank slate. Are you talking about a particular kind of anti-theist?

Atheism as a blank slate is not an idea I can agree with. People arrive at an atheist stance from many different avenues, to isolate atheism as some kind of blank slate devoid of bias or influence is wishful thinking at best.

Atheism is defined by a stance that deities do not exist, which would seem to imply anti-theism of one kind or another.

People who are characterised by an atheist philosophy not born of critical thought and diligence but congealed out of a conflation of sound-bites from youtube clips of proselytising egoists and ratings-driven public access panels of smug half-educated, half-wits with half-baked notions of the absolute truth and authority of science delivering what they consider to be progress.

There is no atheist philosophy. There might be atheisTIC philosophies - that is, philosophies which have no god-belief inherent in them.

That's true but atheists can (and do) have philosophies, by definition, atheist philosophies.

But since you provide no examples beyond Dawkins as to who you consider a half-wit or an egoist, I maintain that you're making empty words again.

You misunderstand me. I'm not calling Dawkins a half-wit or an egoist. I think his work in the 'Selfish Gene' is outstanding, I am not of the same opinion of his work 'The God Delusion'. That's all I'm saying about Dawkins.

This neo-atheism would be quaint if it were not so dangerous.

How cute.

Quite.

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

So these atheists believe that science and technology can lead us forward and have. And you don't like it. Big whoop. Again, that doesn't change the fact that it has. Perhaps you need to explain why you think it's a bad thing, instead of railing on about how wrong we are.

I'm not saying technology is bad, that's just as mistaken as saying it's good. I'm saying technology is neither good nor bad, I have responded in a negative stance in this thread only to present a counter-arguement to show how pointless a debate about good and bad technology would be.

Again, I'm not saying I don't like the idea technology has led to human progress, I'm saying the notion does not stand up to reason and completely fails if we apply scientific method.

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.

Example? I have never seen an atheist treat science like god. This is a misinterpretation by theists who have no understanding of science as both a noun and a verb.

I've responded to an actual example earlier on in this thread.

Plus, you need to explain to me why science is "flawed."

1. There is no empirical evidence for an objective reality
2. There is no empirical evidence for temporal invariance
3. Science is not and can never be 'disinterested'

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.

[jerking off motion]

Well, you could at least try.

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

You're just making alphabet soup here.

Ditto.

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

Well, humans have to actually make things and use things.

If we do it doesn't mean we have progressed. Which is kind of what I've been saying all along.

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.

[more jerking off]

*sigh*

You picked up on the more flippant section of my post and became flippant yourself when I got into the substance of my debate. I suppose I'm in no position to gripe about that. What goes around... and all that.


MM