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

[ManMachine]

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

“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. 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.

To compound the matter neo-atheists assert human action as the agent of this progress. It is not permissible to substitute pseudoscientific anthropocentrism for the anthropocentrism of religion and older metaphysical doctrines.

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.


MM

[Brayton.l]

Love me some big words.
Reminds me of the guys that have to have the biggest, loudest, most jacked up F150 in the little Hamlet I call home.
Napoleon Complex I think it's called.

---

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 disaster work, ‘The God Delusion’ and who wouldn’t recognize a Selfish Gene if it broke into the bedrooms and stole their laptops.

Sigh, have you read it? What part of it was disastrous? Or was it just the subject matter you found offensive?

People who are characterized by an atheist philosophy not born of critical thought and diligence but congealed out of a conflation of sound-bites from Youtube clips of proselytizing 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.

You mean their opinions? If you don't like them, don't watch them. I'm sure they appreciate the hits though, so carry on.

While I agree there needs to be more study of the classic Freethinkers, attacking people simply because they have not been exposed to them, or haven't taken a college course on Philosophy is just plain mean.

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

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.

Meliorism. Meliorism Merriam-Webster

Its "A Priori"

It's called Humanism, and in case you weren't aware, your in an Atheist forum, so it's probably Secular Humanism. Who do you propose will make things better if not us?

So convinced of the absolute inviolability of modern science, the neo-atheist behaves like a fundamentalist in their defense of their belief. Offering up misinterpretations and meaningless quotes stripped of context to maintain purchase on their belief, attacking reasoned inquiry 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.

It's not science we cling to, but scientific method and reason. Does that make every one of us reasonable and rational. Nope. Makes us human. Some are laid back, easy going people, and some are raging assholes. Deal with 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.

I don't think that paragraph makes a damn bit of sense. It's just wrong from beginning to end. Check your definitions.

“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. 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 argue that we have made no progress when applied to a comprehensive world view, simply because we had no concrete goals as we progressed?

To compound the matter neo-atheists assert human action as the agent of this progress. It is not permissible to substitute pseudo-scientific anthropocentrism for the anthropocentrism of religion and older metaphysical doctrines.

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 defense of these mistaken beliefs.


MM

That's my two cents. Maybe someone else on the board has the energy to unravel this Gordian Knot of babble. I just don't feel like it tonight. I did do my best to correct your many spelling mistakes.
Your welcome.

[Creed of Heresy]

So...do you have anything of substance to say, or was this just a rambling about your own personal feelings? Because if they are your own personal feelings, they're kind of built on pillars of strawmen...

[Polaris]

This is more true of many American atheists who post online (well the more active individuals)....they are the biggest detractors to atheism and the biggest threat as well (they're just like those Christian Fundamentalists who ruin the image of Christianity)...sad that both are too arrogant to admit they are harmful rather than beneficial to their respective groups.

I have noticed they also both are quite gullible...say something they want to believe when it's clearly not based in fact or reality and they will believe it the majority of the time.

For these atheists, I think their major logical misstep is assuming that everyone who is religious is extremely dumb, so they don't feel the need to actually do any academic research on subjects they babble on about...it's like they are constantly debating a figment of their imagination.

And that cut-and-paste mindset reminds me when the Catholic Church only allowed the Bible to be written in Latin so only the priests could read it....except the difference is there is actually a choice for them to do research, so I lose further respect for these atheists because they have proven themselves to be lazy and worthless.

[Creed of Heresy]

it's like they are constantly debating a figment of their imagination.

LOL. Oh if only you knew the definition of irony...

Do tell us what your spectacular triumphs of wit or debate have been on this forum. I gotta hear this.

[Polaris]

it's like they are constantly debating a figment of their imagination.

LOL. Oh if only you knew the definition of irony...

Do tell us what your spectacular triumphs of wit or debate have been on this forum. I gotta hear this.

The definition of irony applies to you...

Let's see..you mean in the last day or so when I actually made minimalist backtrack on his assertion that Easter is based off a pagan ritual or when I asserted that strong unions are a poison to liberal values?

[Cyberman]

This is more true of many American atheists who post online (well the more active individuals)....they are the biggest detractors to atheism and the biggest threat as well (they're just like those Christian Fundamentalists who ruin the image of Christianity)...sad that both are too arrogant to admit they are harmful rather than beneficial to their respective groups.

There is a tendency, however, of those active atheists being more of a threat to themselves than to anyone else, with their opinions serving more to alienate themselves from the more mainstream atheists - I'm thinking principally of TJ The Amazing Atheist, P Z Myers and the whole Atheism+ thing.

Compare that to the outspoken xtian fundamentalists who tend to attract an increasing and increasingly strident following and who, more often than not, manage to get their opinions into the mainstream.

[Polaris]

This is more true of many American atheists who post online (well the more active individuals)....they are the biggest detractors to atheism and the biggest threat as well (they're just like those Christian Fundamentalists who ruin the image of Christianity)...sad that both are too arrogant to admit they are harmful rather than beneficial to their respective groups.

There is a tendency, however, of those active atheists being more of a threat to themselves than to anyone else, with their opinions serving more to alienate themselves from the more mainstream atheists - I'm thinking principally of TJ The Amazing Atheist, P Z Myers and the whole Atheism+ thing.

Compare that to the outspoken xtian fundamentalists who tend to attract an increasing and increasingly strident following and who, more often than not, manage to get their opinions into the mainstream.

That's because liberal media likes to report on what scares them.

[Cyberman]

Only the 'liberal' media? I've lost count of how many news stories have popped up in which some religious authority or other has been wheeled out to give their opinion in the name of "balanced reporting". One notable occasion that springs to mind involved Sir Elton John and his partner David Furnish becoming surrogate parents, with Christian Voice's Stephen Green being interviewed for his opinion, predictable as it was. I remember emailing the BBC myself, not to complain about giving the man airtime to express his views, but to point out that the interview had omitted the fact that Green and his organisation are the kind of thing that give religious authorities the bad press you bemoaned earlier; spreading hatred against minorities, malicious litigation, campaigning for people to be killed etc. Basically, behaving in exactly the sort of ways that Muslim preachers have been expelled for. Indeed, they had previously organised a hate campaign against the BBC for their intended showing of Jerry Springer The Opera. I asked that, in the interests of fairness and impartiality - two of the Beeb's buzzwords - the viewer be informed of these facts.

[Creed of Heresy]

Mm, no, actually, I've not said anything ironic yet. See, I've yet to make any claims to victory in debates, given that I don't really partake in them. I prefer to study them and read them and learn from them, because, get this, I actually don't like talking about things I am poorly-informed on.

Easter IS based in a pagan tradition, by the way. Read up on Astarte, also known as Ishtar, and the celebration and the rites of the celebration...like the painted eggs, the spring bunny rabbit, the basket, the hiding of said eggs and children seeking them. I read the thread. You didn't make him backtrack, he merely replied with "I speak one of them" in regards to the two languages that know of it as Easter. Is THAT the backtrack you're speaking of? Cuz I don't see any backtracking of any kind anywhere in that thread, I just read your post asserting it was a Jewish holiday, even though the ancient Babylonian celebration, where the Jews got it from to begin with, came first overall.

Learn history, ok? And English. You just made two failings in one post; asserting victory where there was none, and claiming irony where there wasn't any. That's not good, man.

---

http://www.champs-of-truth.com/books/easter.htm Here. Some reading for your face.