Sunday, March 23, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

It looks like Man crucified

by Mick Hume

Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mick_hume/article3593483.ece

At Easter I, a longstanding atheist, find myself feeling affinity with religious folk

As a godless, atheistic Marxist, I have never been less worried about religion. What does worry me is the rise of a New Atheism that, never mind God, appears to have lost faith in humanity.

Only someone with the brain of an Easter egg could seriously believe that the influence of religion over our lives is on the rise today. When I was growing up, Good Friday seemed the most miserable day of the year, when Britain closed down and left us non-believers with nothing to do or drink. Now for most it is just another day off to go shopping or socialising or sit in traffic.

Yet led by Richard Dawkins's bestselling The God Delusion, a New Atheism has boomed in intellectual circles. Why now? After all, those banging on about "the rise of religious fundamentalism" seem unaware that many Christians lack the courage of their own convictions. From the Vatican's new deadly sin of environmental pollution to the Church of England's call for a "carbon-free Lent", insecure Church leaders are falling back on fashionable secular notions.

The New Atheism is a response not to any rise of religion but to the decline of political belief. In his book God Is Not Great, the former Marxist Christopher Hitchens admits that his "own secular faith has been shaken and discarded". Lacking any agreed ten commandments of liberal values today, they know not what they believe in. But they at least know it's not God. Railing against the spectre of religious fundamentalism gives the New Atheists a sort of phantom philosophy to hold on to.

By all means, hammer superstition and prejudice. But there is little that is rational about this zealous anti-religious crusade. In some ways the new zealots seem worse than the old. Their attack is not only on God, but on the idea of humanity as what Descartes called "little gods on earth". Their arguments tend to diminish the scope of human achievement, emphasising our smallness in the Universe, that we are prisoners of our biology, and that we are all going to Hell in a plastic carrier bag with no prospect of salvation.

Strike me down if I don't sometimes think I have more in common with religious folk. Some at least still start from a belief in their version of the Good Society and people's capacity to strive for it. (Take the Catholic Delia Smith in her heretical cookery show: "It's about understanding that the human race is so fantastic and so wonderful and so brilliant, but with the Creator it can be so much better.") By contrast, the New Atheist elite tend to twist Karl Marx's description of religion as "the opium of the people" into an attack on the masses whom they fear as an ignorant mob.

More than a century after Nietzsche declared God is dead, it is Man as a little god on earth who is being crucified. "It is finished," Jesus said on the cross, according to John's gospel. He then "gave up the ghost". Must we give up the ghost of humanism?

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 94 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #148419 by Animavore on March 23, 2008 at 3:54 am

Em...
Wha'...
Em..
Sorry, I don't get ye?

Other Comments by Animavore

2. Comment #148420 by Mark Barratt on March 23, 2008 at 4:00 am

Yet again, as someone who has read most of the "New Atheist" books, I'm left with the impression that there must be different editions that I haven't read, which are by atheists who've lost faith in humanity and have no idea what their own opinions are.

I must try to track these down, any ideas where I should look?

Other Comments by Mark Barratt

3. Comment #148421 by PlagioClase on March 23, 2008 at 4:07 am

If there is anyone feeling depressed, defeated or like life is not worth living you may find this clip about Nic Vujicic inspiring.

I did. I just discovered it tonight.

Other Comments by PlagioClase

4. Comment #148423 by irate_atheist on March 23, 2008 at 4:08 am

Halfwit.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

5. Comment #148425 by Steve Zara on March 23, 2008 at 4:17 am

If there is anyone feeling depressed, defeated or like life is not worth living you may find this clip about Nic Vujicic inspiring.

I stopped after a few seconds, as I found it depressing that someone born so disabled could believe it all part of some divine plan. It is a rather unpleasant psychological crutch. I guess if it helps it is understandable, but it has a nasty smell of Stockholm Syndrome to me - where prisoners develop a strange loyalty to those holding them captive.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

6. Comment #148426 by Dr Nev on March 23, 2008 at 4:21 am

What a stupid article!

Anyway I better get back to my easter eggs...

Other Comments by Dr Nev

7. Comment #148432 by Animavore on March 23, 2008 at 4:27 am

I gave up on it too. I mean fair play to him to be able to live his life like that but to claim it's his faith in Jesus made him like that? C'mon man, you did it, you're the innovator. Why give the credit to a 2000 year old hippy?

Other Comments by Animavore

8. Comment #148433 by phil rimmer on March 23, 2008 at 4:27 am

The guy wants salvation....

One of yours I think, Plagio.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

9. Comment #148438 by Richard Morgan on March 23, 2008 at 4:41 am

Excuse me for interrupting this thread.

MUSIC UPDATE

For PZMyers : "EXPELLED : another hole in the sock."

The Myspace dedicated player :

1. We saw the comet.
In "Climbing Mount Improbable", Richard Dawkins mentioned taking his baby daughter out one night to see a comet. He explained that she was probably too young to know what was going on, but since she would live to see it again (and he would not) he wanted her to be able to say, later in her life, that she'd seen it twice. I was very touched by this idea, and so composed this piece of music for Richard and his daughter.

2. Paula Kirby : TNT Truth, not Tales.
Well, it all started with Paula KIRBY, didn't it, this "Fleabytes" business!
3. MPhil : Emfill Rox!
An amazing young philosophical mind. (I asked my son Anthony to compose this piece, being a little unwell myself at the time.)
4. Past Fleas.
RD asked this question :

What would music inspired by the fleas sound like?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2303,Add-another-flea-to-the-list,RichardDawkinsnet

Something to make them seem ridiculous, pathetic, desperate?

This composition is my answer.

5. Cartomancer : Gunshots and a Wobbly.

I'm chronically tone-deaf to the point where I didn't know what all the fuss was about when Jemini were the UK entry to the Eurovision Song Contest. My beloved teases me mercilessly about it. I tried to come up with some praise beyond "That sounds nice", or "I liked the wobbly bit with all those notes in it" but my abilities fail me utterly when it comes to describing my appreciation of music..

But Cartomancer is one of our most remarkable contributors, and deserved an, er, shall we say, appropriate musical portrait, with recognisable sounds.

6. Steve Zara : Simply SteveZ.
Enough said. Steve has a fine mind, and is totally lovable.

Standalone player (right column)

NEW! (23/03/2008) 1. EXPELLED, another hole in the sock.
For PZ Myers

2. Sock on the Stair Reel : Bullshit!

BULLSHIT? This composition has already been banned by 18 radio stations in the USA and by most of my family.

3. Past Fleas.
4. Fleabytes : a thredley.
This is a medley of themes which expresses my impression of this everlasting thread.
5. Fingerprints, past time. (from The Lava Lizard's Tale.) (Voice : Richard Dawkins)
6. Broken Rings (from The Salamander's Tale) (Voice : Lalla Ward)
7. DIACANU.
(Mike told me himself that he felt that this portrait was pretty accurate. If you don't believe, read his comments!)
8. Bryan English : Bryan of OZ.
One of Australia's finest rock musicians.
9. Hitchindebate.
I composed a spontaneous impression of Christopher Hitches in debate with, well, just about anybody really.
10. The Quote Miner's lament.
11. Weeflea's always right.
Guess who this is?
12. Call me "Richard".
And guess who this is?

Standalone player (left column)
Sound track : Fingerprints, past time. (without the voice)

http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

10. Comment #148440 by Koreman on March 23, 2008 at 4:53 am

"Their arguments tend to diminish the scope of human achievement, emphasizing our smallness in the Universe, that we are prisoners of our biology, and that we are all going to Hell in a plastic carrier bag with no prospect of salvation."

It seems the author is not talking about atheism but about 'post humans'. People who believe they are going to be godlike in the next four decades with highly advanced technology, augmented intelligence, implants, uploaded brains, eternal life and so on. Amongst those people there are a few who match the description.

Other Comments by Koreman

11. Comment #148443 by Apathy personified on March 23, 2008 at 5:09 am

Right.......
Good work, who ever wrote this, you haven't TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT, what so ever.
Also, a Marxist telling people they have given up on humanity and are like religious zealots, need i say more...

Other Comments by Apathy personified

12. Comment #148450 by oriole on March 23, 2008 at 5:32 am

I posted this comment at the Timesonline website:

Hume is another of these tiresome "I'm an atheist but" critics skewered masterfully by Dawkins in the introduction to the new paperbook edition of "The God Delusion". You can hear Dawkins's reply to better arguments along these lines at youtube.com/watch?v=NBaAJcv7Vxg.

It's a mystery to me why a content-free rant such as this would be published in this forum. He fails to supply a single example or even argument to support any of his flailing wild punches, such as "they know not what they believe in", "the masses whom they fear as an ignorant mob", "Must we give up the ghost of humanism?", and my personal favorite triumph of incoherency, "Their arguments tend to diminish the scope of human achievement, emphasising our smallness in the Universe, that we are prisoners of our biology, and that WE ARE ALL GOING TO HELL in a plastic carrier bag with no prospect of salvation." (my caps).

Have you even bothered to read any of the books you critique, Mr. Hume?

Other Comments by oriole

13. Comment #148452 by Divineosaur on March 23, 2008 at 5:52 am

Ummmm, did he (Hume) say something and I missed it? I just want to know how to address the nothing in my brain that this little article left behind.

Other Comments by Divineosaur

14. Comment #148453 by lievemebe on March 23, 2008 at 5:53 am

The author should try the intellectual satisfaction and material benefits of science. It's a heady double dose.

Other Comments by lievemebe

15. Comment #148455 by HitbLade on March 23, 2008 at 6:08 am

Shit, it's easter now? damn it, I'm in Thailand to the end of April. No easter eggz for me :(

Other Comments by HitbLade

16. Comment #148458 by baley on March 23, 2008 at 6:10 am

Idiotic comment, where he is living to claim that religious right is not powerful?

Halfwit he is!

Other Comments by baley

17. Comment #148480 by Rational_G on March 23, 2008 at 7:11 am

My Easter Theme Song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9zqf6KVMOM

Other Comments by Rational_G

18. Comment #148481 by steve8282 on March 23, 2008 at 7:15 am

So a marxist is slowly turning to christianity?

What is Dr. D take on De-evolution?

Other Comments by steve8282

19. Comment #148485 by Circumspect on March 23, 2008 at 7:37 am

Sounds like a maladjusted atheist who had a few drinks before writing this... getting all sentimental for the good old days and religion. And that part about the decline in political belief -- I guess he means the decline in his political belief. This sort of writing makes even the Dinesh D'Souzas of the world sound rational.

Other Comments by Circumspect

20. Comment #148488 by pulsar1z on March 23, 2008 at 7:42 am

If there is anyone feeling depressed, defeated or like life is not worth living you may find this clip about Nic Vujicic inspiring.

I did. I just discovered it tonight.

I did find this clip awe inspiring but when watching it I kept thinking how the power of a positive attitude and the motivation to make your life the best it can be, did not come from God, it came from within. Nick Vujicic is the inspiration not God.

Other Comments by pulsar1z

21. Comment #148490 by Corylus on March 23, 2008 at 7:51 am

As a godless, atheistic Marxist.

Whenever, I see someone make such a determined, up-front effort to establish their credentials, I know to be on the look-out for the unsubstantiated (and often idiotic) statement to follow.

...Arh, here it is! (Didn't take him long).

Only someone with the brain of an Easter egg could seriously believe that the influence of religion over our lives is on the rise today.

We recently had an archbishop talking about accommodating sharia.

Prat.

Other Comments by Corylus

22. Comment #148491 by Bonzai on March 23, 2008 at 7:53 am

Koreman

It seems the author is not talking about atheism but about 'post humans'. People who believe they are going to be godlike in the next four decades with highly advanced technology, augmented intelligence, implants, uploaded brains, eternal life and so on. Amongst those people there are a few who match the description.

Exactly my though.

Other Comments by Bonzai

23. Comment #148493 by Dinah on March 23, 2008 at 7:55 am

'Only someone with the brain of an Easter egg could seriously believe that the influence of religion over our lives is on the rise today'

Only someone with the brain of an Easter bunny could have failed to notice the rise and rise of Islamic fundamentalism over the last few decades.

Other Comments by Dinah

24. Comment #148495 by jshuey on March 23, 2008 at 8:02 am

The fact that in 2008 Hume still admits to being a Marxist in spite of that philosophy's utter failure and total rejection says an awful lot about his ability to judge anything rationally.

Sounds like a maladjusted atheist who had a few drinks before writing this...

No...sounds more like an aging halfwit who has been locked up in an old folks' home for the last couple of decades.

Other Comments by jshuey

25. Comment #148497 by Pattern Seeker on March 23, 2008 at 8:04 am

Yet again with this 'New Atheists' bullshit...No thanks.

Jesus Bunny says 'Happy Beaster!'

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

26. Comment #148498 by Steve Zara on March 23, 2008 at 8:07 am

Comment #148440 by Koreman
and
Comment #148491 by Bonzai

I find this odd. I did not pick up that sense in any way. The only section which seems to mention "post humans" is this:

Their attack is not only on God, but on the idea of humanity as what Descartes called "little gods on earth". Their arguments tend to diminish the scope of human achievement, emphasising our smallness in the Universe, that we are prisoners of our biology, and that we are all going to Hell in a plastic carrier bag with no prospect of salvation.

He seems to me to be quite clearly saying that atheists are attempting to diminish human achievement, not boost them to some superhuman level.

Of course, he is wrong. Finding out our place in the unverse is one of the greatest achievements of humanity, and far from diminishing us, it shows what we can do with science and reason.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #148502 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 23, 2008 at 8:12 am

Why now?

I've always wondered why this baffles people. Religion and science are on many issues clashing now like they haven't before. Stem Cell research, therapeutic cloning etc and lets not forget the catalyst of 9-11. It something that has always been there but has only been allowed to flourish thanks to the publication of books by the four horsemen and others.
It's hardly a conundrum.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

28. Comment #148504 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 23, 2008 at 8:18 am

Lacking any agreed ten commandments of liberal values today, they know not what they believe in. But they at least know it's not God. Railing against the spectre of religious fundamentalism gives the New Atheists a sort of phantom philosophy to hold on to.

If we forget how he interprets this it seems to be not an unimportant point. Do humans not need a rallying point on which to gather and create communities?

I think it should be our shared humanity, concern and sympathy for others, freedom etc. Is this not a valid point? Is not this 'community' based on our shared interests in science, anthropology, history etc and atheism.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

29. Comment #148506 by Verylee on March 23, 2008 at 8:18 am

Their arguments tend to diminish the scope of human achievement, emphasising our smallness in the Universe, that we are prisoners of our biology, and that we are all going to Hell in a plastic carrier bag with no prospect of salvation

Having a "crisis of faith" perhaps with the doctrine and dogma of atheism?

Other Comments by Verylee

30. Comment #148508 by Bonzai on March 23, 2008 at 8:20 am

The only section which seems to mention "post humans" is this:

And the title of the piece.

Other Comments by Bonzai

31. Comment #148509 by Steve Zara on March 23, 2008 at 8:23 am

And the title of the piece.

I may be being really dense (and that does happen!), but the title of the piece is

"It looks like Man crucified".

I can't find "posthuman" in there anywhere.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

32. Comment #148511 by padster1976 on March 23, 2008 at 8:25 am

When I read this bit...

"Only someone with the brain of an Easter egg could seriously believe that the influence of religion over our lives is on the rise today"

I thought of the BBC news this morning when they were reporting on the commons vote on 'human/ animal hybrids' and their use.

Not only is that a shallow attempt to manipulate public opinion with the unsubtle use of emotive language, the BBC interviewed not the scientist but the catholic archbishop!

So what's his scientific background then?

So why have that on our screens when religion is not on the rise?

Our pious Blair? Or even the opus dei Ruth Kelly. Presumably, she's going to vote AFTER the self flagellation.

Other Comments by padster1976

33. Comment #148516 by fides_et_ratio on March 23, 2008 at 8:39 am

In all fairness, this seems a rather confused, poorly constructed article which is going nowhere with little idea how to get there. On the plus side though, it is short and it's not about PZ Myers being expelled from a film.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

34. Comment #148529 by beelzebub on March 23, 2008 at 9:03 am

I was somewhat saddened by this transparent 'yearning for God' piece - until I went and read the comments on the Times article
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mick_hume/article3593483.ece). It seems lots of reasonable folk have seen straight through Mick Humes' confusion - perhaps he should read them, then have a re-think?

Other Comments by beelzebub

35. Comment #148531 by Peacebeuponme on March 23, 2008 at 9:06 am

Does that even come close to anybody's impression of Richard's and the others' views?

What Dinah said.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

36. Comment #148542 by D'Arcy on March 23, 2008 at 9:20 am

The fact that in 2008 Hume still admits to being a Marxist in spite of that philosophy's utter failure and total rejection says an awful lot about his ability to judge anything rationally.

Presumably jshuey is referring to the Soviet Union and similar countries where state capitalism was the dominant system. Despite these countries' "marxist" window dressing, they had nothing to do with socialism, communism or the ideas of Karl Marx. Don't believe me? Try reading some Marx for yourself. Wage Labour and Capital is probably the best place to start.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

37. Comment #148544 by Jack Rawlinson on March 23, 2008 at 9:20 am

The unfortunately-surnamed Mr. Hume seems to think his personal experience of the place of religion extends across the entire globe. He also seems to be entirely unconcerned about the shocking and undeniable rise of "faith schools" in Britain, and the effect that will have on future generations.

Wow. A blinkered, narrow-minded Marxist. What will they think of next?

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

38. Comment #148551 by Madmaili on March 23, 2008 at 9:30 am

I wish people were a bit more specific with their attacks , I mean give me a quote a page number anything...............

Other Comments by Madmaili

39. Comment #148556 by Janus on March 23, 2008 at 9:35 am

What the HELL is this guy talking about?

Other Comments by Janus

40. Comment #148575 by JanChan on March 23, 2008 at 10:25 am

Is this why Hitchens no longer calls himself a Marxist?

Other Comments by JanChan

41. Comment #148594 by AmericanGodless on March 23, 2008 at 11:19 am

I think I get it. Mick Hume is, as I understand it, a Marxist journalist, but probably not a scientist. That means that his atheism is most likely founded in a political agenda, not in a concern for the truth. He sees the "new atheism" as a rejection of what he calls "humanism" ("Must we give up the ghost of humanism?"). But apparently, "humanism" for him means an ability to transcend the reality of our biology.

Back in the 1960's, the Nobel prizewinning biologist Francois Jacob (EDIT -- no, Jaques Monod wrote the book -- Jacob shared the Nobel Prize) wrote a book called "Chance and Necessity" in which he presented the case for an atheist view of reality in the light of what had so recently been discovered about the biochemical mechanisms of living matter and the processes of mutation (chance) and natural selection (necessity). Along the way he described the alternatives as being varieties of "animist projection," the human religious desire to see a life-force in everything, especially in the universe as a whole. And, in this respect, he pointed out that Marxism is indeed a religion, substituting the promised "historical necessity" of an inevitable outcome to class struggle for the "salvation" promised by Christianity.

The "new" atheism, based as it is in science, is not kind to any "animist projection." It must be just as hard for a Marxist, committed to the truth of a political philosophy as ardently as Christians are to their Gospel, to see the popular expression of an atheism that does not promise salvation, just the freedom to face the world and the human condition as it really is, rather than as we might wish to fantasize it to be.

For those so-called "atheists" who want to worship humanity as "little gods on earth" who are destined to find some kind of "salvation" beyond our biology, an atheism based in science must seem very bleak indeed. But the "new atheism" is neverthless profoundly humanistic in its insistence that humanity face its future realistically.

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

42. Comment #148595 by Steve Zara on March 23, 2008 at 11:23 am

Comment #148594 by AmericanGodless

For those so-called "atheists" who want to worship humanity as "little gods on earth" who are destined to find some kind of "salvation" beyond our biology, an atheism based in science must seem very bleak indeed.

The article states the opposite:

In some ways the new zealots seem worse than the old. Their attack is not only on God, but on the idea of humanity as what Descartes called "little gods on earth"

The complaint is that atheists are attacking the idea of humanity as "little gods on earth", not supporting it.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #148599 by AmericanGodless on March 23, 2008 at 11:34 am

Steve -- Yes, that's what I said. Mick Hume is a self-defined (so-called) atheist who likes the idea of humans being "little gods on earth." Scientific atheists (the "new zealots" in Hume's words) leave no room for humans as little gods, and Hume is upset over that.

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

44. Comment #148614 by Spinoza on March 23, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Yet led by Richard Dawkins's bestselling The God Delusion, a New Atheism has boomed in intellectual circles.

No it hasn't.

The New Atheism is a wholly plebeian movement... to the chagrin of most intellectuals.

Other Comments by Spinoza

45. Comment #148619 by Steve Zara on March 23, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Comment #148599 by AmericanGodless

Sorry - I misunderstood which atheists you were talking about.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #148631 by AllanW on March 23, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Re comment #148314 Spinoza.

'The New Atheism is a wholly plebeian movement... to the chagrin of most intellectuals.'

I'm interested; can you expand on this, please? How do you arrive at the notion that it is a 'wholly plebeian movement'? Why are most intellectuals, in your opinion, saddened by this (if this is the case)?

I'm not seeking a fight here just an interesting exchange of points of view or data. I think there is by now the evidence of the beginnings of a movement that could be labelled 'New Atheism' and I'm fascinated by the potential. However I'm equally sceptical of its possible longevity, direction and development.

Other Comments by AllanW

47. Comment #148637 by Spinoza on March 23, 2008 at 1:31 pm

I didn't say intellectuals are saddened by it... I said the pop-culture "movement" "The New Atheism" causes them chagrin, which is to say, embarrassment/annoyance, not because atheism is untenable (it certainly is tenable), but because many of the vocal people involved are often quite stupid, or just assholes.

I don't include Dawkins or Myers or Hitchens, etc., themselves in this, and I often have to explain to fellow academics that the writers that have raised the public consciousness about religion/god-belief hold vastly more well-thought out positions on all counts than is apparent from the meat of their pop-books (some might say "pot-boilers"), or any particular interview/talk/debate they've given...

It is the "followers"... the "converts"... the people who look at the academics as icons, who cause the chagrin of academics...

It often looks, quite clearly, like the followers are ignoring the most important things their "leaders" are saying... not least of all on THIS website, and on PZ's, and among people I have met at "atheist" meet-ups on university campuses...

I find that more than a little annoying... and certainly I am not saying that stupid people shouldn't be atheists... but it's more that I'd prefer it if they thought before they spoke, or paid more attention to details... (this is just to say that I'd rather not have to differentiate myself from the damn "New Atheist movement" every time I mention to someone that I'm an atheist... Which is, it is true, a necessary act to avoid being caste (castigated) as a charlatan.

Other Comments by Spinoza

48. Comment #148640 by Verylee on March 23, 2008 at 1:46 pm

many of the vocal people involved are often quite stupid, or just assholes.

Dammit. And there was me thinking that being an atheist would make me a "Bright".

Other Comments by Verylee

49. Comment #148641 by AllanW on March 23, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Ah! Sorry, Spinoza, my bad. Please forget I asked the questions; I thought you were a regular person not the elitist intellectual snob you appear to be in your last comment.

Please, return to your ivory tower and forget I ever mentioned anything. Thanks.

Other Comments by AllanW

50. Comment #148721 by Spinoza on March 23, 2008 at 4:37 pm

50. Comment #148641 by AllanW on March 23, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Ah! Sorry, Spinoza, my bad. Please forget I asked the questions; I thought you were a regular person not the elitist intellectual snob you appear to be in your last comment.

Please, return to your ivory tower and forget I ever mentioned anything. Thanks.

Allan, it's just that sort of anti-elitist bullshit that gives intellectuals the shivers... What the FUCK are you talking about?

It's not SNOBBY or ELITIST to want people to THINK before they speak, or to be AWARE of what it is they disbelieve in or are speaking out against.

As the great elitist intellectual Homer Simpson once put it to a parrot he was having an argument with: "It's not enough to WANT a cracker, you have to EARN it."

That is all I am saying... the pop-culture phenomenon that is the "New Atheism"... the sales of pot-boiler, easy-reader books (note: Dan Dennett's great book "Breaking The Spell" has sold fewer copies than Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins... BY FAR...

Why? Because his book is LONGER, better thought out, and much more conciliatory and well reasoned.

Probably the former has the largest effect on sales... why would anyone want to buy a book written by a philosopher unless it's been dumbed down so they can understand it?

Oh, wait, hold on, if you ask philosophers, and maybe even Dan himself, he HAS dumbed it down in that book... and yet he has retained a level of intellectual rigour that the other books are far from matching (I am saying this after having read them all...)

No 'man on the street' (as we call you from up here in the ivory tower) is going to be AWARE of the difference between a well-reasoned book and a pot-boiler though... and that is what is so irksome.

Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins are FAR smarter than their recent books let on, their positions are infinitely more nuanced... and yet, the plebeian masses who have constructed a cult of personality around these figures (one has only to search briefly on youtube to find such nonsense) are ruining the integrity of a justified disbelief.

I think it symptomatic of the very problem I have pointed out that when the "movement" is criticised the person doing the criticism, regardless of the validity of their position or their position on the spectrum, is castigated or ostracized out of fear of exposing weakness, or of somehow "detracting" from the spirit of the movement.

But that IS a tactic taken right from the fundamentalist handbook.

Call me names, write off what I have to say, ignore the criticism, and soldier on indefatigably in the face of blatant problems...

What a great movement this has become.

I'm an atheist, and I always have been, but I am certainly no "New Atheist"... instead of parroting arguments constructed by your heroes and chasing Quixotic targets, maybe WE (yes, WE, I include myself), should be listening to at least SOME of the criticisms leveled at us... since it is at least possible that regardless of our veracity, some of the criticisms might ring true.

That is all I was saying... the "movement" smacks of a sort of Ayn Rand-esque following... (another extremely popular cult of personality that ended up totally RUINING a couple of GREAT fiction books, making it so that those who read and enjoyed them have to explain themselves to others, to distance themselves from the cult, and to risk becoming a pariah for no good reason other than the stupidity of the mass-zeitgeist phenomena.

Other Comments by Spinoza

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last