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

[ManMachine]

>snip giant pile of ad hominem<

Fair enough, I deserve that.

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.

Misplaced comma. Should read.

'The notion that science and technology specifically, as a result of human action.'

That is to say, the results of human action that we specifically define as science and technology.

... 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."

It's ironic.

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.

I completely agree with what you say. I have never suggested that there needs to be an alternative to science and technology. My issue is not with science but with how it is used to prop up the notion of progress. That is the context in which all my comments are made.

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."

Yes, we are teleological entities, but that does not mean it cannot be questioned, there is no empirical support for a meaning to life. It is possible to recognise this and explore it's implications in a modern context.

It is obvious to me, at least, that the teleological thought process we use to frame our illusion of progress is Judao/Christian in origin. In an atheist context, that is definitely worthy of debate.

“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?

We can stand here at this moment in time and look back into history, from this point it is easy to identify change, I have absolutely no issues with that, but, change is not progress.

Of course, it is easy to see how short term material change can be interpreted as an imporovement in our lives. In the examples you have given, you have selected elements that support your notion of progress, also, we could both select elements that would not support your notion of progress e.g. Visigoths never had to worry about dirty-bombs, radioactive waste or paying the electricity bill. Also, this does not take into consideration the environmental changes that occur as a result of our behaviour the Egyptian Kings would never have had to face, HIV, drug resistant bacteria, CJD, swine flu, brid flu, climate change, etc. there are still plenty of issues that can lead to a 'miserable death'. We can debate tit-for-tat all night, suffice it to say the notion of progress is a very selective thought process.

I'm not disputing that scientific method had led to some wonderful discoveries, we know more about the material nature of our Universe than ever but, again, this is not progress, it is change.

I'm not a pessimistic person and I recognise that my questioning can come across as pessimistic, even more so because it is not my intention to provide solution here, just raise the question and see what, if anything, we can arrive at as a group through debate.

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.

Like I said, it's easy to be selective in persuit of the notion of progress.

As set out above, this has been covered.

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.

Yes, I do say.

I've no desire to get into pointless this-is-good-that-is-bad but suffice it to say I'm sure we are all aware that instantaneous communications can be, and is used for some very abhorent activity which I personally don't find funny in the least.

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

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

Your hyperbole aside, natural evolution.

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?

Look it up, it's a well established concept.

And, reason.

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?

Evidence provided.

The danger is fundamentalism, as stated.


MM

[ManMachine]

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...

You claim this is buuilt on 'pillars of strawmen', OK, I'm interested in what it is you think I am debating against and what in this context I have misrepresented.



MM

[frz]

[rises up to her full height of 5'3".]

PEASANTS?!?!

Braha ahaha, just had to laugh at this one. You are too funny.

[ManMachine]

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.

---

I used the words I wanted to.

I can't help what big words remind you of. Is this relevant in any way?

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?

Yes, I have read it and debated on it. I found many of Dawkins arguements poorly constructed. I don't find any of it offensive, nor have I said I do.

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.

Not their opinions, their reasoning.

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.

I'm not attacking people for not having a college education, I'm suggesting it's not difficult to go to the source material and read it for yourself rather than develop an ideology vicariously and inherit flawed reasoning.

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?

It is "a priori" I stand corrected.

Humansim is certainly part of the overall issue I am questioning but by no means all of it.

I can make a cake taste 'better' to me by adding less sugar to the mix, to you it might mean more frosting on the finished cake, so 'better' is a relative term. If you are asking who do I propose will make things better for us in your terms then I can't answer that and I'd be a fool to try.

What I am trying to do is question the notion of progress.

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.

Which bits of science do you exclude from this debate then?

I'm aware some people are not reasonable, that's part of the point I'm making, but more than that, I'm questioning the reason behind the notion science (or scientific method) and technology that many people believe leads to progress.

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.

My definitions are fine.

Any notion of progress or more specifically that science and thchnology leads to progress requires a belief that final causes exist in nature. Even if we are to use scientific method as our guiding principle, there is no empirical support for a final cause in nature and therefore any notion of progress is void of any meaning.

But, my point is teleology has become so embeded in how people think that the notion of progress as a result of scientific endeavour is accepted without question.

I'm questioning it.

“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?

No, see above.

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.

Thank you for the corrections.

It is a difficutl concept to get round because it flies in the face of how we have been taught to think, the notion of progress through science and technology is ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable.

I hope I have clarified some of the points.


MM

[EGross]

This has been an interesting thread.

Unlike being part of a religion, where there is leadership, authority figures, and heirarchy, atheism is devoid of all of those trimmings. And so, by taking on that interesting label, one distances from a system of controls and edicts and falls into a world where one needs to make personal choices.

The current most vocal speakers, authors, and media personalities really do not speak for a "movement", because just because one stops believing in a God does not mean that he or she is now part of a new group anymore than one who stops drinking is part of a group that shouts that drinking is bad.

While I do respect Richard Dawkins, what he has contributed, and so forth, I do cringe when I hear him attempt to debate. His forte is science, and I have enjoyed his "Nature of Reality" book. Sam Harris is great at philosophy and injecting humor, but his forte is not religion, and he often errs when speaking of Christian and Jewish theology during debates, which is sometimes embarassing. (I know almost nothing of Islam, so I cannot comment there). Even so, I do like his style, although I would not call him my leader. And that goes for the others who are quite vocal as well.

Unless I am mistaken (and forgive me if I am), MM has taken issue with those athiests who have a need for structure, seek leadership, and would subscribe to dogma as defined by the handful of popular personalities. Just notice the reaction when MM says that he didn't care for the writings of Dawkins. The reaction was almost akin to me telling my neighbor that the Rambam speaks in circles and his reasoning is contrived! How dare I speak thusly about a defacto leader.

Compare the Tea Party to Occupy Wallstreet. TP is a religious based ideological group. OWS had no real leadership, everyone had his or her own agenda, and there was no single message. I would suggest that a TP format would probably be seductive, but it is not a direction that I would be comfortable with, anymore than I am comfortable with Sam Harris using terms like "mystical" and "spiritual" in a worldview that is very metaphysical.

I am not into being a joiner. Nor am I interested in an atheist bible, dogma, or being branded as part of a movement. The "Amazing Atheist" does not speak for me. And I would hope that all of us would speak for ourselves.

[frz]

Well, we have witnessed that only through science has there been any progress, or change as you so put it in the history of man. What else or other means would we need to find then to achieve anything? And even science has its shortcomings, don't forget all the religious people of all faiths constantly fighting against it for centuries, although they'd be the first one in line to reap the benefits of its labor. When Dick Cheney needed a heart he had no issue running to the hospital and have someone else's heart scientifically implanted into him to keep him alive.

[Whateverist]

Unless I am mistaken (and forgive me if I am), MM has taken issue with those athiests who have a need for structure, seek leadership, and would subscribe to dogma as defined by the handful of popular personalities. Just notice the reaction when MM says that he didn't care for the writings of Dawkins. The reaction was almost akin to me telling my neighbor that the Rambam speaks in circles and his reasoning is contrived! How dare I speak thusly about a defacto leader.

I've ruffled feathers here by dissing Penn Jillette who I find an insufferable blowhard. (His bromance with Glenn Beck also condemns him.) Penn's penchant for condescension and representing his every opinion as obvious truth marks him as a fundamentalist with or without God.

[ManMachine]

Well, we have witnessed that only through science has there been any progress, or change as you so put it in the history of man. What else or other means would we need to find then to achieve anything? And even science has its shortcomings, don't forget all the religious people of all faiths constantly fighting against it for centuries, although they'd be the first one in line to reap the benefits of its labor. When Dick Cheney needed a heart he had no issue running to the hospital and have someone else's heart scientifically implanted into him to keep him alive.

Science has made material changes, I have never said it hasn't.

What we should guard against is the notion that this is progress. The idea that science (or scientific method et al) can lead to progress requires a teleological thought structure.

However, if we are to use scientific method as our guide then we must question that teleological thought structure. The idea that we are progressing requires a final cause and no such final cause exists that can be reasonably supported by empirical evidence.

To blindly accept human progress as a result of scientific endeavour is to buy into the idea of some kind of metaphysical universal design or purpose. Which is unscientific.

Science is a neutral discipline, and that's exactly what it should be.


MM

[thesummerqueen]

[rises up to her full height of 5'3".]

PEASANTS?!?!

Braha ahaha, just had to laugh at this one. You are too funny.

At least I amuse someone.

Just notice the reaction when MM says that he didn't care for the writings of Dawkins.

Forgive me, as I have a headache that started upon waking up at 6:00 this morning (it's now 13:25) and hasn't abated, hence me ignoring ManMachine right now since I don't feel like wading through the answers until it goes away (sorry, dude - by the way, you haven't seen toy chucking yet), but did I miss that portion of the thread where we defended Dawkins?

I personally avoided giving an opinion of him either way because I, 1) haven't read The God Delusion yet and 2) don't watch debates because I find them almost as much a waste of time as philosophy - as much a bunch of word masturbation as thought. Anything I have heard Dawkins say, which is limited, of course, I haven't found in the slightest bit embarrassing. The argument I hear from most people is that he's a biologist, not a theologian, and thus this isn't his field of expertise. I'd like to point out that Hitchens, as far as I knew, was a journalist - also not a theologian. No one ever seemed to have a problem with his debates, other than to complain about his drunkenness. Why is that? Is it because Hitchens was a better debater? I think we established in other threads that debate often has little to do with truth and more to do with what sounds good. Is what Dawkins saying any less true for not being well-spoken in the debate?

Anyway, to get back to what you said, there are plenty of people in this forum who also don't like Dawkins sticking his nose into atheistic affairs. I think it's a misrepresentation to say that Dawkins, or Penn, get overly protected here. I'm speaking with over two years time here though so I could be running on cumulative 'evidence' in which I missed key arguments, but I don't think either one is rabidly defended on this forum.

We save that sort of behavior for PZ's butt-buddies on his blogsite.

[Mister Agenda]

Because no one here would ever defend an author in matters not concerning atheism. Tell us Tolkien was a hack not worth reading and you'll get nary a peep.

I'm very tired of argument from 'you wouldn't defend the merits of so-and-so's work unless you considered so-and-so your leader'.