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

[frz]

@MM, I've gone back and re-read your arguments and this is what I'm getting from you; we, the human species, have not progress since we've been here on this planet. That anyone who thinks any different is being a theist because, as you so put it, these neo-atheists, are deluted in this notion of progress that they have base on the facts of what we humans have accomplished in the fields of science and technology.

[The Grand Nudger]

Reads thread-wonders if any large quantities of fertilizer have been purchased lately......

[ManMachine]

@MM, I've gone back and re-read your arguments and this is what I'm getting from you; we, the human species, have not progress since we've been here on this planet.

In essence, yes.

I am not refuting that we have gained power through science and technology, neither am I refuting that science and technology has brought change, it clearly has brought both.

yone who thinks any different is being a theist

No, Im not saying that anyone who thinks that is a theist, it takes far more than stray Christian dogma to make a theist. That's an absurd thing to say.

... because, as you so put it, these neo-atheists, are deluted in this notion of progress that they have base on the facts of what we humans have accomplished in the fields of science and technology.

Because progress of any kind must be measured against something.

If I want 50 cats and I only have 30 then gaining 5 would be progress against my target of 50. If I just want an unspecified number of cats then an extra 5 is a gain (or a change) in the number of cats I have but cannot be called progress because there is nothing for it to progress toward. Any kind of 'progress' needs a measure.

When we think about species progress we do not imagine elephants, bears, pythons etc. have progressed as a species because it makes no sense, why then do we think it about our own species? There is no question we have some special talents, complex language and skills that enable us to manipulate resources; we can fly through the air and harness the power of the atom but how has any of this progressed us as a species?

The only way this makes sense is if we imagine we are somehow different to other animals, that we are immune to the genetic drifts that we emerged out of, that among all the species we alone are immune to the random events that govern evolution. If we look at this in a disinterested scientific way, there is no empirical evidence to support this point of view.

To a Christian it makes perfect sense we are different to other animals, it makes perfect sense we are masters of the planet, because it is inherent in Christian Dogma. The belief that we are different, this species ego or anthropocentrism is a remnant of Christian Dogma that has permeated into our modern thoughts.

This does not make all atheists who think this way theists but if we are to hold science up as the best way to investigate the universe then we must apply it to all our thoughts and not be selective in persuit of our collective ego and the notion of progress.

For most atheists this is not really a big issue but for those who go after religion in the name of reason it makes for deep hypocrisy.


MM

[The Grand Nudger]

In essence, yes.

That is patently absurd.

[ManMachine]

Reads thread-wonders if any large quantities of fertilizer have been purchased lately......

It didn't smell like this 'till you walked in.



MM

---

In essence, yes.

That is patently absurd.

I'd imagine in isolation stripped of it's context it is. But then what sort of fool would do that?


MM

[The Grand Nudger]

In my humble opinion...lol, you'd probably get more traction detailing the ways in which you don't find some particular area of progress desirable...rather than decrying the very existence of demonstrable progress in any conceivable area, of human existence-since the dawn of human existence.

In that context, I'd probably agree with you on many counts. Though I'd still maintain that science was the best way to redress the issues that we might agree on.
(I'm a rabid alt ag/dev guy, for example)

[ManMachine]

In my humble opinion...lol, you'd probably get more traction detailing the ways in which you don't find some particular area of progress desirable...rather than decrying the very existence of demonstrable progress in any conceivable area, of human existence-since the dawn of human existence.

That would be like argueing against Christianity by quoting the Bible.



MM

[The Grand Nudger]

Not even remotely, but you're committed, so I grant that it may seem that way to you.

[Strongbad]

As for being 'part of a group', being an atheist is not a social choice for me it's a personal assertion that there is no god(s). As far as I'm concerned there is no 'group' just individuals with a variety of opinions, ideologies and philosophies who agree on one point, that there are no deities.

Your lack of understanding of what atheism is only serves to bolster the suspicions of members here (including myself) that you are simply posing as an atheist. Very few atheists make the claim "there are no deities". Sure, a small fraction of atheists are "strong atheists" and will make the positive claim, but of course that is recognized by most of us as simply a bare assertion.

Further, your disjointed claim that "neo-atheists" embrace Meliorism and somehow "hold all modern science to be inviolable" doesn't help your case much. Neither Meliorism or science have anything to do with disbelieving the deistic claims of others.

[JesusHChrist]

As far as I can tell, MM has yet to define "Human Progress" and how we would know it if we saw it.

Metrics such as life expectancy, child mortality rates, starvation rates, numbers of women dieing during childbirth, murder rates and so on, are apparently not useful to measure progress.

So what is then?