|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 07:28:41 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | marf, fundamentalism has never been characterized by self-righteousness, it's characterized by adherence to sacred texts as well as vocal (sometimes militant) opposition to liberal interpretations of the same texts and also to secularism. |
No, fundamentalism is characterized by strict adherence to certain principles or ideas. In the case of Christian fundamentalism, that adherence is to certain interpretations of sacred texts.
The term "atheist fundamentalism" is a new term, coined by critics of certain vocal atheists, which obviously cannot involve adherence to anything "sacred" or otherwise supernatural in nature since it refers to atheists. And since the supposed "fundamentalism" of these atheists cannot refer to anything supernatural, it only makes sense to ask what else they might have in common with traditional fundamentalism which would inspire their critics to invent the new term. If we read the criticism of the New Atheists which comes from both other atheists and progressive religious allies to secularists, it becomes clear that the New Atheists are being criticized for so strictly adhering to their own Rationalism that they've become self-righteous and mean-spirited in their criticism of religion. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2009 : 07:30:41 [Permalink]
|
I too have had intense debates with friends where we constantly tell the other that they're dead wrong. I've even sometimes said, "That's total bullshit." We always walk away having enjoyed the debate.
Perhaps Dude it's just you who have never been able to disagree with someone without offending them.
marf:
| No, fundamentalism is characterized by strict adherence to certain principles or ideas. |
I think "strict adherence" here is a bad phrase for describing fundamentalism. The adherence is so strict in the case of fundamentalism that logic, reason, and listening to others goes right out the window.
| The term "atheist fundamentalism" is a new term, coined by critics of certain vocal atheists, which obviously cannot involve adherence to anything "sacred" or otherwise supernatural in nature since it refers to atheists. And since the supposed "fundamentalism" of these atheists cannot refer to anything supernatural, it only makes sense to ask what else they might have in common with traditional fundamentalism which would inspire their critics to invent the new term. |
And clearly, Creationists can't really think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, so when they say that it must be metaphorical. They are just saying the Earth is still young, and will be around for a long time to come.
Seriously, it's great that you try to give someone the benefit of the doubt, but I really don't think they deserve it here. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 10/23/2009 07:37:54 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 07:37:58 [Permalink]
|
It is unproductive for critics of New Atheism to use the term "atheist fundamentalist", not because it is inaccurate, but rather, because it is a label which does two things to hault meaningful discourse:
1.) It is so loaded with negative connotations for atheists that it results in explosions of anger.
2.) The term can be taken several different ways and thus needs to be explained to avoid confusion. Since it needs to be explained anyway, might as well just not use the term in the first place and use the explanation by itself.
Until Mooner brought it up, I wasn't aware of the term "faitheist." This term suffers from exactly the same problems, and also shouldn't be used if the goal is meaningful discourse.
Debate and disagreement within a movement is healthy. It is something we should be proud of. But only if we remain civil. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 07:56:11 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Nonsense. They just ignore religion. |
I think most people probably do ignore religion, but lots don't, and not all who take their beliefs seriously are only friends with others who share their views. For example, the last three semesters I've been a guest speaker at Penn State Abington campus as a representative of secular humanism. This is for an elective class which surveys different religions. The class was conceived and is taught by a pair of professors who are great friends and who both take religious belief very seriously. They struggle to keep the class offered every semester because they feel that exploration of different religious ideas is essential to a peaceful and pluralistic society. One of the profs is a hardcore skeptic/agnostic, and the other is a Christian theologian. And it is clear that these two men have a deep regard and affection for each other.
| Find me some statistics on how many fundamentalist baptists are married to fundamentalist jews or muslims. Annecdotally, I don't know any, and I'd wager you don't either. |
We weren't talking about fundamentalists. Tom Flynn of the Center for Inquiry is a hard core atheist and he's married to a practicing Lutheran. Actually, I know a lot of old atheist guys who are married to practicing religious women. One guy in my humanist group came to us because his wife is a religious Jew and wants him to go to Temple, but when he goes he always starts laughing whenever they refer to supernatural stuff. I told them about the humanistic Jewish community in the area, and they checked it out. It was a nice enough compromise for them both to be able to be open about and express their different worldviews while also doing something to express their love for each other. It isn't that people in such friendships and marriages just don't think about their beliefs (although in some cases they might have to agree to avoid talking about religion with each other.) It is that they prioritize other aspects of their relationship over their personal beliefs about the meaning of life and hereafter and any desire they might have to convert the other person. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/23/2009 07:57:55 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 08:37:54 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote: | I think "strict adherence" here is a bad phrase for describing fundamentalism. The adherence is so strict in the case of fundamentalism that logic, reason, and listening to others goes right out the window. |
I don't think that logic and reason go out of the window for religious fundamentalists because they are fundamentalists. Logic and reason go out the window at some point in the thinking of anyone who holds supernatural beliefs, fundamentalist or not.
| And clearly, Creationists can't really think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, so when they say that it must be metaphorical. They are just saying the Earth is still young, and will be around for a long time to come. |
Huh? How does this correlate with what I've said? Atheism is defined as lacking belief in the supernatural. Creationism is not defined by its adherence to scientific facts and discoveries.
| Seriously, it's great that you try to give someone the benefit of the doubt, but I really don't think they deserve it here. |
I am not just giving people the benefit of the doubt. Paul Kurtz and Greg Epstein - two very visible atheists in the movement who have used the term "atheist fundamentalists" to describe New Atheism - are both incredibly sophisticated and knowledgeable in their understanding of the history of doubt and modern humanism. They have clearly criticized New Atheism for its mean-spirited tone and its prioritizing of negative attacks on all faith rather than emphasizing positive, secular values which are shared by both atheists and progressive believers. Where do they accuse New Atheism of throwing out logic and reason?
Paul Kurtz explains his use of the term "atheist fundamentalist" more in this interview on Point of Inquiry. He says they are "purists" and want to begin with the premise "God does not exist" says that is their "first principle." He speaks extensively about the importance of establishing meaning in life, and affirming the value of life in-of-itself, and ethics based on good will and empathy. It seems pretty clear that his frustration with New Atheism is that it is too narrow in scope and too bitter in tone. He never accuses them of being irrational or illogical.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/paul_kurtz_a_kinder_gentler_secularism/
From Greg Epstein: http://www.thenewhumanism.org/authors/greg-epstein/articles/why-the-new-humanism
It is also important to note that the New Humanism and the New Atheism absolutely share the same views on questions such as whether God exists (almost certainly not), or how best to understand the nature of the world around us (science and empiricism).
...
Another goal of the conference was to show that Humanism can relate to non-Humanists in an inclusive manner. The New Humanism does not spend all its energy blasting belief in God in all its forms and certainly avoids ad hominem attacks on those who identify themselves as religious. In other words, we know that not everyone who disagrees with us is an idiot. We don't kid ourselves about the deleterious effects of some religion, and we don't have to agree with any form of theism, but we don't consider religion to be child abuse. (Some religious people may indeed abuse their children by excessive indoctrination, but in those cases the crime of which they are guilty is…child abuse, not religion.) |
The second paragraph here is delicately but obviously a criticism of New Atheism, but you'll notice that the criticism is not of their logic and reason, but rather their overly zealous attacks on religion in any form. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/23/2009 08:47:16 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 08:55:00 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | I think you are experiencing a form or self delusion or denial. You offend other skeptics routinely, |
No, I offend you routinely. But that isn't hard. Everyone offends you routinely whether we want to or not. Talking to you about anything is like walking on eggshells.
| to think you have never offended a religious person by informing them you think they are completely mistaken is so absurd that there isn't really any further comment I can make on the subject without getting some red text from a mod. |
You are right - "never" is too strong a word. I have rarely offended people through the mere statement of my religious skepticism, and on the rare occasion when someone has exhibited offense from my point of view, I have sought to further the discussion and get across the point that they shouldn't be any more offended by my atheism as I am by their beliefs.
Dude, are you personally offended whenever someone tells you they believe in God or angels or ghosts or homeopathy? If not, there is no reason for religious people to be offended by mere statements affirming atheism, and when they are, it is only because they haven't encountered atheism enough for it to seem normal or because they are too self-righteous in their own beliefs. And both are their problems, not atheists' problems. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/23/2009 08:56:00 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 09:10:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | marf, fundamentalism has never been characterized by self-righteousness, it's characterized by adherence to sacred texts as well as vocal (sometimes militant) opposition to liberal interpretations of the same texts and also to secularism. |
No, fundamentalism is characterized by strict adherence to certain principles or ideas. In the case of Christian fundamentalism, that adherence is to certain interpretations of sacred texts. |
Then you need a new dictionary.| The term "atheist fundamentalism" is a new term, coined by critics of certain vocal atheists, which obviously cannot involve adherence to anything "sacred" or otherwise supernatural in nature since it refers to atheists. |
Yes, you really do need a new dictionary. "Sacred" doesn't imply "supernatural."| And since the supposed "fundamentalism" of these atheists cannot refer to anything supernatural, it only makes sense to ask what else they might have in common with traditional fundamentalism which would inspire their critics to invent the new term. If we read the criticism of the New Atheists which comes from both other atheists and progressive religious allies to secularists, it becomes clear that the New Atheists are being criticized for so strictly adhering to their own Rationalism that they've become self-righteous and mean-spirited in their criticism of religion. |
What's clear is that even granting your redefinition of the term (which I don't), it would still be obviously intended as an insult, given that dogmatism is antithetical to the skeptical thought cherished by those the term was applied to.
You also wrote:| Atheism is defined as lacking belief in the supernatural. |
By whom? I've know plenty of atheists who believe in ghosts and witchcraft. You very much badly need a better dictionary.| Where do they [Paul Kurtz and Greg Epstein] accuse New Atheism of throwing out logic and reason? |
When they claim, as you quote, that the "New Atheists" think that everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, for starters.| Paul Kurtz explains his use of the term "atheist fundamentalist" more in this interview on Point of Inquiry. He says they are "purists" and want to begin with the premise "God does not exist" says that is their "first principle." |
Well, he's flat-out wrong, there. It's a conclusion, not axiomatic.| He speaks extensively about the importance of establishing meaning in life, and affirming the value of life in-of-itself, and ethics based on good will and empathy. |
All of which is irrelevant to atheism.| It seems pretty clear that his frustration with New Atheism is that it is too narrow in scope and too bitter in tone. |
But atheism is narrow in scope. It's not a worldview. Ethics and purpose do not follow from the premise that no god exists, so what you're saying is that Kurtz is also guilty of criticizing the "New Atheists" for not following along with a non-sequitor. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 14:44:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave quote: | Then you need a new dictionary. |
Here's what dictionary.com produces:fun#8901;da#8901;men#8901;tal#8901;ism#8194;#8194;[fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives. |
I've bolded the third since obviously the first two specifically refer to the original fundamentalism which came out of Protestantism. The third is the only which could apply to "atheist fundamentalism."
| Yes, you really do need a new dictionary. "Sacred" doesn't imply "supernatural." |
So "sacred" doesn't have to be connected to supernatural belief but "fundamentalism" does? Technically you are right, sacred doesn't have to mean referring to something religious in nature. However, when I look that word up on dictionary.com the first three definitions all do connect it with religious belief, and that is the common association. Either way, my point still stands.
| What's clear is that even granting your redefinition of the term (which I don't), it would still be obviously intended as an insult, given that dogmatism is antithetical to the skeptical thought cherished by those the term was applied to. |
I never denied that the critics of New Atheism were using the term "atheist fundamentalist" in a disparaging way, nor did I deny that the term is meant to accuse at least some Atheists of being fanatic or dogmatic about promoting their naturalistic worldview.
| By whom? I've know plenty of atheists who believe in ghosts and witchcraft. You very much badly need a better dictionary. |
I'll give you that - atheism is defined as lacking belief in a God or supreme supernatural being. My point still stands because it is absurd to think that the people who are calling some atheists "atheist fundamentalists" mean to accuse those atheists of abandoning their naturalistic worldview. The New Atheists are not criticized for believing in ghosts or witchcraft. They are criticized - quite clearly - for being overzealous in their criticism of all forms of religion. They are accused of having messed up priorities when it comes to the overall secular humanist agenda.
| When they claim, as you quote, that the "New Atheists" think that everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, for starters. |
Oh please. That's hyperbole to underline the mean-spirited and arrogant attitude found in "New Atheism."
| Well, he's flat-out wrong, there. It's a conclusion, not axiomatic. |
You're saying that New Atheism promotes atheism as a conclusion, not axiomatic? I don't know that there is a universal consensus on that within the proponents of what has been dubbed by the media "New Atheism", but certainly some imply with much of their language that atheism is the default position since no evidence for God is rational and convincing. I don't think Kurtz is flat-out wrong on this point. I think he's talking about a shift in priorities within the secular movement where some emphasize atheism over any other humanist values.
| All of which is irrelevant to atheism. |
LOL - yeah, that's the point! Atheism isn't sufficient. It isn't enough. Kurtz didn't found all his organizations to promote atheism. He founded them to promote the fully fleshed-out philosophy of modern humanism which includes human-centered ethics, living a meaningful and personally fullfilling life, personal liberty, social responsibility, as well as skepticism. Kurtz is dismayed that only one sliver of that much grander mission (religious skepticism) has been handed center stage, and that it is being promoted in a manner which is divisive and often juvenile.
| But atheism is narrow in scope. It's not a worldview. Ethics and purpose do not follow from the premise that no god exists, so what you're saying is that Kurtz is also guilty of criticizing the "New Atheists" for not following along with a non-sequitor. |
| But atheism is narrow in scope. It's not a worldview. Ethics and purpose do not follow from the premise that no god exists, so what you're saying is that Kurtz is also guilty of criticizing the "New Atheists" for not following along with a non-sequitor. |
I agree with you that atheism is narrow in scope and not a worldview. Nonetheless, it has become a mini-movement in-of-itself within the larger secular humanist movement, and what's more, it has been profoundly influencing the workings of other branches of that movement, including the skeptics and humanists which Kurtz has always been a leader with. And the influence is happening not because atheism is intellectually superior, but rather, it gets more attention. It was the media who invented the term "New Atheism." (There is nothing new about religious criticism, even harsh and aggressive religious criticism.) The rift is largely one within the larger secular movement over tone and tactics. Because whether we like it or not, outside of this movement, nobody gives a shit about the differences between "Atheists" and "Humanists" and "Skeptics" and so on. To outsiders we are all one big group, so what one organized branch of the movement does really does impact the image of all of us. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 15:07:16 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote: You're right, "logic and reason" was the wrong phrase. I was going for dogmatic.
...
But now that Dave has pointed out your rather odd conflation of "sacred" with "supernatural" (which I completely missed), I really have no clue as to what you were saying. |
All I was trying to say was that if critics of "New Atheism" accuse some atheists of being "atheist fundamentalists", they are inventing a new term, so we have to stop for a moment and figure out what they mean by context. Obviously since it is atheist fundamentalism, then it isn't referring to the aspects of traditional fundamentalism which are religious in nature. So then we have to turn to the other defining characteristics of fundamentalism and see if they match the criticism being hurled at the new atheists.
"Dogmatic" is a word which can have religious connotations, but which can also just mean being extremely rigid and arrogant or self-righteous about one's views. So that fits pretty well, and indeed the critics of "New Atheism" have occasionally used the word "dogmatic" to describe some atheists. And I would agree that some atheists are extremely rigid and arrogant, and certainly mean-spirited in their criticisms of all religious faith, so "dogmatic" fits and I won't argue with it.
Again, it seems to me that the term "atheist fundamentalist" is causing so much of an uproar not because of what is literally meant by it, but because of the connotation. The easiest way to piss off an anti-religious atheist is to equate them to the worst kind of religious zealot.
Sadly, it does not further calm, civil discourse to inflame the opponent's emotions. Of course that's exactly the main criticism of New Atheism - that in their approach to religious criticism they inflame the emotions of religious people. So perhaps the use of the term "atheist fundamentalist" is really just a really subtle and sophisticated way of making a point about hypocrisy among atheists? ;-) |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 15:35:33 [Permalink]
|
While looking for a transcript on a somewhat related subject, I came across this announcement for an upcoming debate:
Atheism is the new fundamentalism
| Does God exist? Has atheism replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age? Are today's atheists as blinkered and dogmatic as they claim religious believers to be? |
Speakers for the motion:
Richard Harries Former Bishop of Oxford.
Charles Moore Former editor of the Daily Telegraph and The Spectator.
Speakers against the motion:
Richard Dawkins Professor Emeritus at Oxford University and best-selling author of 'The God Delusion'.
A C Grayling Professor of Philosophy at the University of London. |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 17:35:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
"Dogmatic" is a word which can have religious connotations, but which can also just mean being extremely rigid and arrogant or self-righteous about one's views. So that fits pretty well, and indeed the critics of "New Atheism" have occasionally used the word "dogmatic" to describe some atheists. And I would agree that some atheists are extremely rigid and arrogant, and certainly mean-spirited in their criticisms of all religious faith, so "dogmatic" fits and I won't argue with it. |
I will. "Dogmatic" people are characterized by few of the traits you suggest, for one thing. For another, most of the "Four Horsemen" of the "New Atheists" are characterized by, if anything, a willingness to be shown that they are wrong. Show them that God exists, and they'll quit being atheists. Show them that there is something unique and intrinsic to religion which conveys a benefit to humanity, and they'll stop making blanket criticisms of faith. Dawkins thinks that "there is no God" rates a 6.7 on a 7-point "truth" scale, yet he's routinely accused of the holding most-extreme atheistic position in which there couldn't possibly be a God, ever. And this is dogmatism to you?Again, it seems to me that the term "atheist fundamentalist" is causing so much of an uproar not because of what is literally meant by it, but because of the connotation. The easiest way to piss off an anti-religious atheist is to equate them to the worst kind of religious zealot.
Sadly, it does not further calm, civil discourse to inflame the opponent's emotions. Of course that's exactly the main criticism of New Atheism - that in their approach to religious criticism they inflame the emotions of religious people. So perhaps the use of the term "atheist fundamentalist" is really just a really subtle and sophisticated way of making a point about hypocrisy among atheists? ;-) |
Yes, it makes a point about the hypocrisy of the "everyone should be nice to one another" atheists. They're trying so hard to appease the religious that they sling vile slanders at atheists with whom they don't agree on the quantity or quality of religious failures. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 18:18:15 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
They're trying so hard to appease the religious that they sling vile slanders at atheists with whom they don't agree on the quantity or quality of religious failures. |
Well, there is a they like Chris Mooney is. But I really doubt that Kurtz is one of those. He may be a hypocrite for using the "fundamentalist atheist" attack while purporting to be for a gentler approach to atheism along the humanistic lines that he favors, because them is fight'n words if you happen to approve of the more aggressive approach. But I wouldn't lump him in with the accomadationists... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 19:30:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dude wrote: | I think you are experiencing a form or self delusion or denial. You offend other skeptics routinely, |
No, I offend you routinely. But that isn't hard. Everyone offends you routinely whether we want to or not. Talking to you about anything is like walking on eggshells.
| to think you have never offended a religious person by informing them you think they are completely mistaken is so absurd that there isn't really any further comment I can make on the subject without getting some red text from a mod. |
You are right - "never" is too strong a word. I have rarely offended people through the mere statement of my religious skepticism, and on the rare occasion when someone has exhibited offense from my point of view, I have sought to further the discussion and get across the point that they shouldn't be any more offended by my atheism as I am by their beliefs.
Dude, are you personally offended whenever someone tells you they believe in God or angels or ghosts or homeopathy? If not, there is no reason for religious people to be offended by mere statements affirming atheism, and when they are, it is only because they haven't encountered atheism enough for it to seem normal or because they are too self-righteous in their own beliefs. And both are their problems, not atheists' problems.
|
Dodge a little more, you are almost out of the way of your own illogic there.
I'm not talking about just sayiing you are "skeptical" of their religion. But hey, you know that, that's why you are dodging so hard with that post.
Next time you are having a conversation with a true(tm) believer, ask them if they are offended when an atheist says they are 100% in error for claiming their holy book is the only source of morality, or if it offends them when some atheist says that their deity is a figment of their imagination with absolutely no evidence to support it's existence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 23:03:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Here's what dictionary.com produces:fun#8901;da#8901;men#8901;tal#8901;ism#8194;#8194;[fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives. |
I've bolded the third since obviously the first two specifically refer to the original fundamentalism which came out of Protestantism. The third is the only which could apply to "atheist fundamentalism." |
Thus proving my point about you needing a decent dictionary. Look at those definitions. The first two have a laser-like focus on Protestant fundamentalism, while the third is as broad as possible. Are the characteristics that Protestant fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism and even Catholic fundamentalism share only "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles?" No, they go well beyond that. Obviously not so deeply as the first two definitions, but the idea that since Kurtz can't mean them he must mean the third defintion from a resource as clearly as shallow as dictionary.com is ludicrous.| Yes, you really do need a new dictionary. "Sacred" doesn't imply "supernatural." |
So "sacred" doesn't have to be connected to supernatural belief but "fundamentalism" does? |
Of course not! Since when does "opposed to secularism" necessarily mean "supernatural belief?" We've had this discussion more than once, marf. Buddhists and those ultra-liberal religious people you speak of who call themselves "Christians" even though they appear to have little, if any, God-belief are all clearly sectarian without having much of any supernatural beliefs.| Technically you are right, sacred doesn't have to mean referring to something religious in nature. However, when I look that word up on dictionary.com the first three definitions all do connect it with religious belief, and that is the common association. Either way, my point still stands. |
And so does mine. Kurtz needn't have done anything so ridiculous as to imply that the "atheist fundamentalists" were believers in anything supernatural to make the term much more insulting than your original suggestion that he meant "self-righteous."| I never denied that the critics of New Atheism were using the term "atheist fundamentalist" in a disparaging way, nor did I deny that the term is meant to accuse at least some Atheists of being fanatic or dogmatic about promoting their naturalistic worldview. |
Of course you did. You said that the defining characteristic of fundamentalism was self-righteousness, which is much less of a personality flaw for a critical thinker than fanaticism or dogmatism.| I'll give you that - atheism is defined as lacking belief in a God or supreme supernatural being. My point still stands because it is absurd to think that the people who are calling some atheists "atheist fundamentalists" mean to accuse those atheists of abandoning their naturalistic worldview. |
Nobody thinks that "atheist fundamentalist" is intended to suggest that the "New Atheists" are abandoning naturalism, forcryinoutloud. Your point is irrelevant.| The New Atheists are not criticized for believing in ghosts or witchcraft. |
Of course not, but you've so lost your own point that you're arguing against nonsense.| They are criticized - quite clearly - for being overzealous in their criticism of all forms of religion. They are accused of having messed up priorities when it comes to the overall secular humanist agenda. |
Well, so what? If someone isn't as liberal as I am, does that mean that I can call them a "fundamentalist right-winger" and have it be an apt criticism (that's what you're defending, after all: that the criticism is correct, even if it's couched in language that's inappropriate for further civil discussion)? How many of the "New Atheists" profess to be Kurtzian-style secular humanists, anyway? Do any of the "Four Horsemen" belong to any humanist organization(s)?| When they claim, as you quote, that the "New Atheists" think that everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, for starters. |
Oh please. That's hyperbole to underline the mean-spirited and arrogant attitude found in "New Atheism." |
It's actually meant to assure people that the "New Atheists" are an out-group (that considers non-New Atheists to be sub-human - "idiots") and thus an enemy, highlighting Kurtz' hypocrisy again.| You're saying that New Atheism promotes atheism as a conclusion, not axiomatic? I don't know that there is a universal consensus on that within the proponents of what has been dubbed by the media "New Atheism", but certainly some imply with much of their language that atheism is the default position since no evidence for God is rational and convincing. |
You're mistaking a null hypothesis for what Kurtz calls a "first principle." The fact that the "New Atheists" are willing to entertain evidence in favor of the God hypothesis at all means that they don't consider the absence of God to be an axiom. To be dogmatic, one must ignore the evidence, not ask for and evaluate it.| I don't think Kurtz is flat-out wrong on this point. I think he's talking about a shift in priorities within the secular movement where some emphasize atheism over any other humanist values. |
And I think a lot of secularists never shared Kurtz' humanist values per se to begin with, so perhaps the "shift" is something that could have only occurred in Kurtz' idealistic dream-world, anyway. That would make Kurtz' derogatory comments about the "New Atheists" nothing more than him childishly lashing out because his personal vision wasn't being fulfilled, and not any sort of rational (if misguided) "critique."| All of which is irrelevant to atheism. |
LOL - yeah, that's the point! Atheism isn't sufficient. It isn't enough. Kurtz didn't found all his organizations to promote atheism. He founded them to promote the fully fleshed-out philosophy of modern humanism which includes human-centered ethics, living a meaningful and personally fullfilling life, personal liberty, social responsibility, as well as skepticism. Kurtz is dismayed that only one sliver of that much grander mission (religious skepticism) has been handed center stage, and that it is being promoted in a manner which is divisive and often juvenile. |
As I said. Is Richard Dawkins or any other "New Atheist" claiming that CfI or any other Kurtz-founded organization should do nothing but promote atheism? Seems like he's just pissed (and thus irrational) that "his" thunder has been stolen, even though he had specifically disclaimed the atheism-above-all stance, anyway. Good grief, one of Dawkins' major projects, the "Out" campaign, doesn't even say that one should be an atheist, only that it is okay to be an atheist.| I agree with you that atheism is narrow in scope and not a worldview. Nonetheless, it has become a mini-movement in-of-itself within the larger secular humanist movement, and what's more, it has been profoundly influencing the workings of other branches of that movement, including the skeptics and humanists which Kurtz has always been a leader with. And the influence is happening not because atheism is intellectually superior, but rather, it gets more attention. |
Well, what can I say but "tough luck?" Atheism (and even the popular conception of agnosticism) is more intellectually honest than any form of faith, and thus morally superior, and so it's a very good thing that it's getting more attention. On the down side, the sort of attention it's getting is from people like Paul Kurtz and Bill Donohue who, for different reasons, describe the atheist "movement" in the worst possible terms. Kurtz, after all, is only a smidgen of hyperbole away from comparing Dawkins with Hitler.| It was the media who invented the term "New Atheism." (There is nothing new about religious criticism, even harsh and aggressive religious criticism.) The rift is largely one within the larger secular movement over tone and tactics. Because whether we like it or not, outside of this movement, nobody gives a shit about the differences between "Atheists" and "Humanists" and "Skeptics" and so on. To outsiders we are all one big group, so what one organized branch of the movement does really does impact the image of all of us. |
And the image that Kurtz is presenting is that some atheists really are horrible, dogmatic "fundamentalists," and the media (and the general public's high distrust of atheists) can fill in the blanks about how we're going to burn down the churches and eat people's babies. By raging against the "New Atheists" (and you'll note that I try to put that in quotes every time I use the term), Kurtz is facilitating the religious fear-mongering about atheism of all stripes, and not protecting his beloved secular humanists from any backlash which might follow atheist successes.
What's funnier is that you've neatly summed up Harris' hypothesis about why pandering to moderate and liberal theists enables the fundamentalists. It's because for those who aren't "in the know" regarding the different outlooks and styles of faith, nobody gives a damn about the differences between "liberal" and "fundamentalists" and "moderate" theists. They're all just one big group of people of faith, and so for secular humanists or even atheists to say that one sort is acceptable raises all of them up. So if Kurtz' goal was atheism with a bunch of humanist principles piled on top, his attempts to be nice to the less-extreme religious folks will have backfired. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Kurtz ousted from CFI
