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

[Whateverist]

To expect all atheists to be intellectual heavyweights is akin to expecting cats to come falling out of the sky, pissing liquid gold.

I don't know much at all. I'm not proud of it. Those who take pride in ignorance are the pits. But, I understand enough to result at a highly logical agnostic atheist position. However, I'm sure I've done fallacious arguments in my time, who hasn't?

The more fellatious the better, as far as I'm concerned. Nothing to be ashamed of there .. unless that turns you on, you very naughty girl. (Who needs a spanking?)

---

The God Delusion is well-written, but it isn't groundbreaking. It seems to cover ground that has been well-trod for a long time. I wonder if it wasn't written to be some kind of primer for 'new' atheists, which means that it could be the first exposure to those arguments that many athiests see, and so they consider it a transcendental work. That might also be why it gets so much attention. My guess is that most people who read it eventually move on to more substantive works and leave TGD behind.

I just heard of new book by a biologist called "The Science Delusion" which sounds pretty interesting. He gave a TED talk which controversially was taken off of their youtube account. I'm still investigating.

[Cato]

I just heard of new book by a biologist called "The Science Delusion" which sounds pretty interesting. He gave a TED talk which controversially was taken off of their youtube account. I'm still investigating.

I'm just diving in. This is what I've found so far, including the video that was taken down by TEDx.

http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-...sheldrake/

[Norfolk And Chance]

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

What shit.

[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

What shit.

Care to elaborate or do you have the same regard for ecientific method which is what uderpinns my arguement?


MM

---

To expect all atheists to be intellectual heavyweights is akin to expecting cats to come falling out of the sky, pissing liquid gold.

I don't know much at all. I'm not proud of it. Those who take pride in ignorance are the pits. But, I understand enough to result at a highly logical agnostic atheist position. However, I'm sure I've done fallacious arguments in my time, who hasn't?

The more fellatious the better, as far as I'm concerned. Nothing to be ashamed of there .. unless that turns you on, you very naughty girl. (Who needs a spanking?)

---

The God Delusion is well-written, but it isn't groundbreaking. It seems to cover ground that has been well-trod for a long time. I wonder if it wasn't written to be some kind of primer for 'new' atheists, which means that it could be the first exposure to those arguments that many athiests see, and so they consider it a transcendental work. That might also be why it gets so much attention. My guess is that most people who read it eventually move on to more substantive works and leave TGD behind.

I just heard of new book by a biologist called "The Science Delusion" which sounds pretty interesting. He gave a TED talk which controversially was taken off of their youtube account. I'm still investigating.

'The Science Delusion' is written from a similar perspective to mine.

There are some 'dogmas' used in defence of science that are, if not unsubstantiated, very questionable.

The TEDx lecture briefly mentions some of the issues I make reference to. I've touched on some of the points in other threads.

I think it is very interesting that the lecture was removed from youtube as what is being said, while certainly controversial, is actually well reasoned and does not constitute pseudoscience at all, just a challenge to percieved scientific authority. This is exactly the kind of issue I was relating to in my OP when I said,

"... attacking reasoned enquiry like cyber-crusaders lopping off the heads of anyone who dare violate the first commandment ... Science is a jealous god and thou shalt not have any other god before it."


in much the same way as Copernicus challenged helio-centrism there is a sound rationality in challenging anthropo-centrism. In much the same way we view the Christian world before Copernicus I see new atheism. It seems so obvious to me that anthropo-centrism dictates the 'dogma' in this way of thinking. It took me a while to grasp it, it's a paradigm shift, I'm not surprised my OP generated the responses it did.


MM

[Darkstar]

It is simply the fact that science gets consistent results that I find it odd to question it. Sure, you can question individual parts of science, it is supposed to be self correcting, so if a mistake is made it is imperative that it be challenged. However, to challenge the legitimacy of science in and of itself is a bit absurd, considering how far we have come with it, and how much farther we can go.

And no, you don't apply quantum physics to see how you should go about a relationship, science isn't useful like that (though a "soft" science like psychology might provide some assistance).

If there is a reasonable argument as to why science in and of itself is untrustworthy, I have not heard it.

[ManMachine]

It is simply the fact that science gets consistent results that I find it odd to question it. Sure, you can question individual parts of science, it is supposed to be self correcting, so if a mistake is made it is imperative that it be challenged. However, to challenge the legitimacy of science in and of itself is a bit absurd, considering how far we have come with it, and how much farther we can go.

And no, you don't apply quantum physics to see how you should go about a relationship, science isn't useful like that (though a "soft" science like psychology might provide some assistance).

If there is a reasonable argument as to why science in and of itself is untrustworthy, I have not heard it.

To make myself clear. In this post, I am not questioning the legitimacy of science. That is not to say there are not problems with some fundamental assumptions such as objective reality and invariance, or whether or not science is truly the disinterested persuit of facts, but those are for another time, perhaps.

I accept that scientific method and the technology that arises from it has made some significant changes to how we live, this is not in question.

What I am questioning is the use of science and technology to prop up the notion of human progress.

We can spend the next year posting examples of where science has been put to good uses and where it has been put to bad uses and we would get nowhere. The information and technology that results from human endeavour is neither good nor bad, it is the use to which it is put that is either a good use or a bad use, and I've spent a lot of time in this thread trying to get that simple point across to people who have posted examples of where they think science has led to human progress.

I'll set out some of the basic principles on which I built my arguement, that might help explain it a little better.

I find that many scientific theories are reasonable to me, that means I find that I can reason them easily and they make sense to me. This does not mean I accept them as Universal truths, they are as I said, for the time-being, reasonable to me but new information could come along and change that opinion.

Evolution is a theory I find reasonable. There is a wealth of empirical evidence and the theory, for the most part, fits the available evidence. This does not mean it is a fact to me but means it is open to revision and occasionally change but I'm comfortable with the theory as it stands and there is still room for any future revisions should that be reasonable to me.

Evolution tells us that the human species (Homo sapiens) evolved as a result of random mutation, genetic drift and possibly a little interspecies breeding along the way (and a few other things). Homo sapiens evolved by the same process as any other evolved species.

To ask the question, 'what is the goal or aim of elephants as a species?' seems fairly ridiculous to ask of any animal let alone poor old elephants. Yet, we ask it of our own species and we do not think it a strange question to ask. Evolution does not tell us elephants exist as a species because they have a special goal or meaning or aim or whatever, and it does not tell us about any species goals, meanings, aims, etc. for humans either. Religion does, but science does not.

Scientifically speaking, it is ridiculous to ask what the final cause (the purpose, end, aim, or goal) of the human species is because it doesn't have one. We are a current in the genetic tide and one day we will be washed away like all the extinct species that have gone before us.

When we talk about human progress we invoke a final cause, something to measure human progress against. This is utterly groundless. The belief that humans can progress is built on religious and in particurlar the Judao/Christian notion that we are somehow not like other animals. This is what I mean when I talk about anthropocentrism, our species ego, and is just not supported by empirical evidence.

To talk about human progress via science and technology is unscientific, but it is religious.



MM

[Tonus]

Oh, okay. I think I understand what you're getting at now. It sounds like the idea of "man's place in the universe," which presumes that we have some greater purpose instead of accepting that we're just another life form that developed on this planet. I do think that the idea of "human progress" in that context is religious or spiritual, presuming some transcendent quality that leads us towards something greater, instead of simply being a way of making life more tolerable before the Sun expands and fries the planet to a crisp.

I can dig that. I'm glad for whatever it was that led humans to design LCD televisions and microkinis, though. It may not progress us towards some greater universal goal, but... damn...

[Darkstar]

Scientifically speaking, it is ridiculous to ask what the final cause (the purpose, end, aim, or goal) of the human species is because it doesn't have one. We are a current in the genetic tide and one day we will be washed away like all the extinct species that have gone before us.

When we talk about human progress we invoke a final cause, something to measure human progress against. This is utterly groundless. The belief that humans can progress is built on religious and in particurlar the Judao/Christian notion that we are somehow not like other animals. This is what I mean when I talk about anthropocentrism, our species ego, and is just not supported by empirical evidence.

I think I understand your argument a lot better now.

One can only make progress if there is a goal in the first place. I would not say that there is an objective goal (unless you count survival), but I think a subjective goal that progress has been measured against (most simply) is increasing standard of living.

[Violet]

I think this is just the realization that a person's belief system doesn't change them as much as we like to think it does. We are who we are, and as much as we like to define others in simple terms (while reveling in our own depth of personality), people are a mixture of conscious and sub-conscious beliefs and behaviors that we don't understand anywhere near as much as we'd like to think we do. A person who becomes an atheist is still, on many levels, the person he was when he was a theist, and vice-versa.

You know... I'm just trying to get a bead on what it is specifically about the way lesbians look. Is it stylistic choice, stance, attitude, hormone levels, skeletal structure... or is it just that the people I'd suspect to be lesbian are from a higher-percentage pool for lesbians? Fucking artists, man! AND MECHANICS. Seriously, have you ever met a straight woman-mechanic who wasn't from a goddamn Archie comic or motherfucking FMA? I THOUGHT NOT! Bet all them astronauts are men too. Maybe all lesbians are men. Yes, this is likely. Irrelevant video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkU7uYAeOvU

It's been infuriating the hell out of me. You go up and ask the girl if she's lesbian when you suspect it, and you get a yes significantly more often than not. Possibly, it's just because it's a college town. BUT DAMN IF THERE ISN'T SOMETHING ABOUT THEM. It's like fucking gay men... *there's just something about most of them*. But with gay men it's obvious shit. As I said: infuriating.

My best bet so far is hormones introduced as one is being born... but it's hypothesis. Damn but I want to test the hell out of this. Maybe someone already did, but fuck that: where's the sense of adventure and discovery if you just accept everyone's research without testing it yourself? SOunds like a faith-based system to me

---

Speaking as a writer, I submit to you that it's more fun to be clear and eloquent.

Speaking as a voracious reader, I submit that it's possible to be both and NOT purple your language.

Oh please... as if purpling a language could ever be a bad thing!

---

That sounds suspiciously like the argument that everything that god does is good/moral/right by definition, even if it's something we'd otherwise categorize as wicked.

Hey now: anything I do is golden. There is no higher authority than me, sp I feel quite comfortable speaking on this.

Ask me when I'm not grossly overdosing, and I won't be able to cheese out a line like that.

---

This is why I said "subjective" vs "objective". Subjective progress is when you think we've moved forward in an ethical manner towards a more beneficial goal. Objective merely quantifies that we did indeed progress past a point.

Summer... summah! plz sumemer! Staph! STAHP PLZ!

Intersubjective : science :: unknowable ball of timey wimey sfuff : objective

Anyway, subjective progress can be had in regressing. Doesn't matter though, does it? Because it's the bastardized egotistically narcissistic inbred hooker of the three types of perspectives one has if they are not a faithless solipsist.

Yeah, I wouldn't trust it either... have you any idea where it's been? I do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuR0jvVkpHs

Yeah, you don't want none of that shit, now do you? That's what I thought, people: NEVER LET A SUBJECTIVE THOUGHT INTO YOUR HOUSE WITHOUT ASKING A NEIGHBOR'S OPINION OF IT.

---

Not all sciences make material changes. Psychology and sociology deal with human behavior, condition and the environment that the human creates.

How is the study of a biological machine (and how they interact in groups) *not* material? 0.o

---

To expect all atheists to be intellectual heavyweights is akin to expecting cats to come falling out of the sky, pissing liquid gold.

Exactly: well within reason... looks like it might be raining cats any moment. That liquid gold bombing is just cruel of them.

I don't know much at all. I'm not proud of it. Those who take pride in ignorance are the pits. But, I understand enough to result at a highly logical agnostic atheist position. However, I'm sure I've done fallacious arguments in my time, who hasn't?

Hey now... not knowing everything is a damn healthy attitude. I take pride in recognizing that everything I know can easily be wrong, and in my not fanatically holding onto it in the face of good evidence (to me).

Basically, it works like this: Rhythm speaks, Lilly obeys. She might be a bit reluctant, but damn if she's not trying @_@

[frz]

Not all sciences make material changes. Psychology and sociology deal with human behavior, condition and the environment that the human creates.

How is the study of a biological machine (and how they interact in groups) *not* material? 0.o

---

yeah, you're right. The OP is just preaching, "what's the meaning of life?" Right? Back to square one.