somebody explain whats actually wrong with nu media savvy militant atheism espoused by dawkins et al

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775

what's the difference between that and the kind of atheism dawkins puts forward?

Maybe I'm just confused as to what's trying to be accomplished here. Maybe Dawkins and his flock are actually pursuing an escalation, maybe he's hoping he catches a bullet from a psycho one day and sets off another great religious war-down to posthumously vindicate himself

but they don't need to be engaged with. they're harmless in every conceivable way. they're not going to force yr kid to salute the bible or bow toward mecca. those people i have no problem with -- and it's arguably in alienating them that the hardcore dawkins types make their biggest mistake.

but anyway, i don't have any problem with the militant atheists. they're a predictable and healthy response to the militant theists. "moderate" "sensible" liberals like to deride the militant atheists because it makes them feel more comfortable with their place in culture-war politics. it reassures them that they're not "extremists" just because they don't like jerry falwell, because look, they think richard dawkins is intolerant too!

i don't feel any great compulsion to read any of these books, but i enjoy watching them slug it out on the best-seller lists with bill o'reilly and rick warren.

And hell, you even have one side that completely rejects debate and engagement out of hand as signs of mealy-mouthed weakness(whereas the other side can at least claim their stance coming from that tradition).

Part of it is that the louder figureheads of both sides command enough media attention to attack anyone coming out with actual sensible, normal positions(e.g. God & science tend to address completely different things) as facile capitulators and appeasers of the other side.

FUCKS sake ethan, let go

i articulated my response to that article badly. our views are actually far more alike than you seem to be able to accept. for a start, i loathe libertarianism, for seconds, i agree that dawkins is essentially correct about most of what he addresses, and thirdly i read that article when in a fragile state; my initial response was an unthinking knee-jerk. i retracted it even before you had a chance to call me a 'muslim-hater', which for someone who doesn't know me in the slightest is a fucking disgrace.

hurting's 'might as well be atheistic' version of christianity is nonetheless that of a far more interesting, tolerable faith than the hardcore dinosaur idiocy we see far too much of in these not-so enlightened times. and don't take me up on 'hardcore dinosaur idiocy'; it's not meant to be an argument, it's meant to be an outburst.

neither religious types nor scientists agree with this, that's the whole problem.

"The only part of theology that could possibly demand my attention is the part that purports to demonstrate that God does exist. This part of theology I have, indeed, studied with considerable attention. And found it utterly wanting.

As for McGrath's book, I read it with genuine curiosity to discover whether he had any argument to offer in favor of his theistic belief. The nearest I could find was his statement that you cannot disprove it. Well, that may be true, but it isn't very impressive, is it?"

the last paragraph pretty much nails Dawkins as a senile demagogue. this is why scientists have a problem with him. and I think "nu-media savvy" seems to be a term that applies mostly to shit that sucks compared to the non-new-media savvy versions - but I'm a meme rockist

maybe some of them are religious? or find dawkins to be anti-intellectual?

this would be true if he were any good at it

I think that the bit about the dangers of fundie policy makers(dudes like Senator Inhofe or at least half of the current U.S. Admin) is obscured by the noise of Dawkins coming out and going all Plan 9 on folks who would otherwise be allies, if you will.

I just think that the warnings/alarums raised against the theocratic authoritarian types would be better served without the antigonizing of those who'd already work against such types.

but they serve a sort of basic "give me a fucking break" function.

that seems true. I hate Dawkins because he's one of those people who reveals his miniscule personality in his prose style, but the other dudes lumped in with New Atheism seem all right. although "New Atheism" as a moniker/movement seems smurfy to me. maybe just because I'm in grad school and there's so much of that "New ______" in self-identifying as a hot school of thought.

the Wired article I read about it really didn't have much of an argument against New Atheism, Dawkins included, just instinctive discomfort with its boorishness. which I'm sympathetic to.

It's been 23 years and it's basically a given now. But really the problem with the Selfish Gene is the same problem with the God Delusion, Dawkins is just naturally a prick and regardless of the merit of his ideas it bears repeating that nobody likes fucking pricks

I don't know how productive Dawkins' antics are, in terms of "converting" anyone, but it is somewhat comforting for me, as an agnostic who's pretty darn sure there's no god, to have someone out there who isn't afraid to offend others with his reasonable beliefs.

xpost.

One major problem for Dawkins is that religion moved on a long time ago from the middle ages theistic proofs of God's that he's obsessed with battling.

Even from about William James onwards at the beginning of the 20th Century, the interest has been in (states of) consciousness and the sense of self. Even back in the late 50s, people like Aldous Huxley were able to say "It's possible to be a mystic and at the same time an agnostic" - which Dawkins would probably find completely nonsensical.

His other problem is that he's not a professional or sophisticated philospher and in areas such as ethics he's really out of his depth.

that's pretty much the reason gypsy mothra gave for defending Dawkins,et. al., right? that's a good reason, I think.

I mean essentially I agree with the more holistic worldview you describe - where all of these elements exist and develop together - but Dawkins' argument attempts to separate religion out of this matrix and blame it for society's ills, which is what I have a problem with. Its like when atheists get all excited about blaming religion as the source of all wars throughout history or some such bullshit, its just myopic and simplistic and innacurate.

Formerly known as "religion".

10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism

for me, it's pretty simple: atheists getting "militant" on everybody's ass is spectacularly unhelpful. what dawkins and others are doing - and they really don't seem to realise the irony - is repositioning "atheism" as not just a lack of belief but as a belief system in itself: ie "i identify myself as a devout non-believer, and will angrily spout the following atheist dogma".

jesus christ bloody hell for god's sake ... er, look, fellow atheists. it's not difficult. we're meant to be the tolerant ones, remember?

"god": a theoretical concept invented by humans in a (pretty flawed) attempt to etc etc.

"the internet": an etc etc etc.

maybe you'd like it better in RUSSIA where THEY DON'T HAVE GOD

happy new year you theocrazies

i thought agnostics were the tolerant ones. the perceived dogmatism of atheists is what keeps some of us agnostic.

http://salon.com/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/print.html

"Q: Now, one thing I find curious is your own position in this debate. Your book "The Creationists" is generally acknowledged to be the history of creationism. You've also been very upfront about your own lack of religious belief. Yet, as far as I can tell, you seem to be held in high regard both by creationists and by scientists, which -- I have to say -- is a neat trick. How have you managed this?

A: Unlike many people, I haven't gone out of my way to attack or ridicule critics of evolution. I know some of the people I've written about. They're good people. I know it's not because they're stupid that they are creationists. I'm talking about all my family, too, who are still creationists. So that easy explanation that so many anti-creationists use -- that they're just illiterate hillbillies -- doesn't have any appeal to me, although I'm quite happy to admit that there are some really stupid creationists. "

The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God (Hardcover)
by Carl Sagan

http://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Scientific-Experience-Personal-Search/dp/1594201072/sr=8-1/qid=1167767176/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-9541001-0413728?ie=UTF8&s=books