RE: Meliorism - The rise of neo-atheism and the fall of reason
April 11, 2013 at 5:06 pm
(This post was last modified: April 11, 2013 at 5:20 pm by ManMachine.)
(April 11, 2013 at 3:07 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Perhaps the OP could come back and clarify this clusterfuck. I think it has the potential to be an interesting conversation, however, I'm inclined to believe this was less about the effects of science and was actually a thinly-veiled way to say, "stupid people are stupid people, and some of them are atheists."
This is about the notion that human action leads to progress. The debate does encompass science (and by inference scientific method) and technology including how the effects of these are distorted, particurlarly in a social sense, by this notion of progress. So far I've not been able to move much beyond the the initial concept to explore the issues behind it. Instead I have found myself having to explain the connection between atheism, certain teleological though processes and the idea of progress, an understanding of which is central to my debate.
MM
(April 11, 2013 at 3:25 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Well, I don't really care about his attempt to define a neo-atheistic movement and am really only concerned with the meat and potatoes of the argument that the thread title implies. I'll let the chips fall where they may, and if the conversation goes nowhere, I will seriously consider starting a new thread. If the thread needs to be split, I will perform that modly miracle for you peasants free of charge.
It's not an attempt to define anything. I used neo-atheism to distinguish meliorist thought from non-meliorist thought as it was my intention to later on (rather optimistically it seems) draw parallels with neoliberalism, but it seems no one is capable of getting that far into a debate without chucking their toys out of the pram.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
