Battle of the new atheists

[mr friendly guy]

Someone posted this on SB.com and I thought it would be better analysed here

Lengthy display of the golden mean fallacy

Its quite lengthy and filled with descriptions of people and places which seems a filler for his arguments, so I will just reply to a few bits.

Battle of the New Atheism
<snip intro>

The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil.

Ah, argument from incredulity. Why am I not surprise?:roll:

Here he introduces Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.
<snip>
A few months ago, I set out to talk with them. I wanted to find out what it would mean to enlist in the war against faith.
Oxford University is the capital of reason, its Jerusalem. The walls glint gold in the late afternoon, as waves or particles of light scatter off the ancient bricks. Logic Lane, a tiny road under a low, right-angled bridge, cuts sharply across to the place where Robert Boyle formulated his law on gases and Robert Hooke first used a microscope to see a living cell. A few steps away is the memorial to Percy Bysshe Shelley. Here he lies, sculpted naked in stone, behind the walls of the university that expelled him almost 200 years ago -- for atheism.

It is not a good sign when that next paragraph has nothing about his main points and serves as just a filler. If I was analysing this for high school English, I would suggest he is using imagery and everything except logic.

<snip long winded introduction about Richard Dawkins.>

Also note how he adds the part about how Dawkins first book The Selfish Gene was written well into last century. You wouldn't be trying to subtly imply Dawkin's arguments are out of date without actually showing whats wrong with them, would you.

Dawkins' style of debate is as maddening as it is reasonable. A few months earlier, in front of an audience of graduate students from around the world, Dawkins took on a famous geneticist and a renowned neurosurgeon on the question of whether God was real. The geneticist and the neurosurgeon advanced their best theistic arguments: Human consciousness is too remarkable to have evolved; our moral sense defies the selfish imperatives of nature; the laws of science themselves display an order divine; the existence of God can never be disproved by purely empirical means.

The first and third arguments are unsupported claims, the second argument has ripped apart before, IIRC Dawkins did it in "The Root of all Evil", namely the obvious evolutionary advantages of "you scratch my back, and I will scratch yours", and the fourth is logical fallacious argument in reversing the burden of proof.

Dawkins rejected all these claims,

Given how ridiculous they are, its not surprising or unreasonable.

but the last one -- that science could never disprove God -- provoked him to sarcasm. "There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove," he said. "You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."
Science, after all, is an empirical endeavor that traffics in probabilities. The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly small. He is confident that no Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Why should the notion of some deity that we inherited from the Bronze Age get more respectful treatment?

This is just a summary of Dawkin's counterarguments.

Dawkins has been talking this way for years, and his best comebacks are decades old.

Hah hah hah. Translation - Dawkin's arguments sux because they are old. Give that man a cigar. On second thought maybe some one should explain to him that when we criticise an idea as showing its age we also explain why its wrong.

For instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a variant of the tiny orbiting teapot used by Bertrand Russell for similar rhetorical duty back in 1952. Dawkins is perfectly aware that atheism is an ancient doctrine and that little of what he has to say is likely to change the terms of this stereotyped debate.

I am sure this guy will eventually get around to explaining what is wrong with Dawkin's arguments. Oh wait, maybe because moron boy can't say whats wrong, so he just ignores it.

<snip summary about Dawkins commenting on the number of atheists and also how Dawkins is supportive of politics which helps atheists>

I think we're in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people had the courage to come out. I think that's the case with atheists. They are more numerous than anybody realizes."

<snip further info on Dawkin's views

When atheists finally begin to gain some power, what then? Here is where Dawkins' analogy breaks down. Gay politics is strictly civil rights: Live and let live. But the atheist movement, by his lights, has no choice but to aggressively spread the good news. Evangelism is a moral imperative.

Strawman. Wanting education and convincing through arguments is not the same as what the evangelists are doing. How many atheists threaten non-atheists with consequences or ostracise non-atheists for being what they are? But apparently in moron boy's world, attacking an idea is the same as attacking the person.

Dawkins does not merely disagree with religious myths. He disagrees with tolerating them, with cooperating in their colonization of the brains of innocent tykes.

Come on, can't you smell the golden mean?

"How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?"

Not only has he failed to point out what is wrong with Dawkin's position, the very fact that Dawkins openly doesn't disagree with people believing whatever they like contradicts moron boy's earlier assessment that Dawkins disagrees with tolerating them. But I see he is going to argue semantics.

<snip about memes>

It is exactly this trip down Logic Lane, this conscientious deduction of conclusions from premises, that makes Dawkins' proclamations a torment to his moderate allies.

I like how he says Dawkin's proclamations are bad for his allies, without actually saying that his proclamations are false. Its just more of the golden mean arguments. And btw, I would have thought his arguments against religion are based on induction rather than deduction.

While frontline warriors against creationism are busy reassuring parents and legislators that teaching Darwin's theory does not undermine the possibility of religious devotion, Dawkins is openly agreeing with the most stubborn fundamentalists that evolution must lead to atheism.

It more likely suggests against God, hence making atheism a more attractive possibility.

I tell Dawkins what he already knows: He is making life harder for his friends.

I like how he criticises Dawkins from a strategic POV in terms of convincing the masses rather than from an intellectual POV, ie whether his arguments stands or falls. But I guess its a bit difficult for him.

<snip introduction to Slade>

Like Dawkins, Slade rejects those who might once have been his allies: agnostics and liberal believers, the type of people who may go to church but who are skeptical of doctrine. "Moderates give a power base to extremists," Slade says. "A lot of Catholics use condoms, a lot of Catholics are divorced, and a lot don't have a particular opinion about whether you are homosexual. But when the Pope stands up and says, 'This is what Catholics believe,' he still gets credit for speaking for more than a billion people."
Now that people are more worried about the fatwas of Muslim clerics, Slade says, this concern could spread, become more general, and wake people up to damage caused by the Pope.

Just a summary of Slade's views

For the New Atheists, the problem is not any specific doctrine, but religion in general. Or, as Dawkins writes in The God Delusion, "As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers."
The New Atheist insight is that one might start anywhere -- with an intellectual argument, with a visceral rejection of Islamic or Christian fundamentalism, with political disgust -- and then, by relentless and logical steps, renounce every supernatural crutch.

This is of course bad because....

I return from Oxford enthusiastic for argument. I immediately begin trying out Dawkins' appeal in polite company. At dinner parties or over drinks, I ask people to declare themselves. "Who here is an atheist?" I ask.
Usually, the first response is silence, accompanied by glances all around in the hope that somebody else will speak first. Then, after a moment, somebody does, almost always a man, almost always with a defiant smile and a tone of enthusiasm. He says happily, "I am!"
But it is the next comment that is telling. Somebody turns to him and says: "You would be."
"Why?"
"Because you enjoy pissing people off."
"Well, that's true."

In summary dumb people get pissed off by smarter people. No shit sherlock. And of course atheists really are that way just to irritate people. Amazing as it sounds, this argument is actually quite an achievement for the author. He actually adds the ad hominem to his reportoire.

<snip part about how people believe this and that in parts of the US>

They tell me they reject atheism not out of piety but out of politeness. As one said, "Atheism is like telling somebody, 'The very thing you hinge your life on, I totally dismiss.'" This is the type of statement she would never want to make.

Translation - people don't want to be atheists for stupid reasons. Look how that supports my argument. Hear me roar.

<snip>
As I test out the New Atheist arguments, I realize that the problem with logic is that it doesn't quicken the blood sufficiently -- even my own.

That's because you are a retard. But I see lets reuse the arguing for incredulity. Hey moron boy, you argument doesn't do much for me, therefore your position is false. Oh look, I win.

Editor's note - notice like a lot of fundies which he of course profess not to be one, he assumes a position is supposed to be believed or disbelieved as opposed to be shown to be true or false. Thats why he thinks an argument is weak because he doesn't believe in it.


He next starts attacking Sam Harris, which I will start doing point to point rebuttal the next day.

[Darth Wong]

At least the idiot actually admits that he doesn't employ logic in his thinking. I love how every single one of his arguments against Dawkins is consistent with this declaration, employing something other than logic to attack him.

[Wyrm]

Dawkins has been talking this way for years, and his best comebacks are decades old.

Hah hah hah. Translation - Dawkin's arguments sux because they are old. Give that man a cigar. On second thought maybe some one should explain to him that when we criticise an idea as showing its age we also explain why its wrong.

Of course, if age of an argument is a measure of wrongness, then we should throw out the arguments for God over any of Dawkin's counterarguments, because all of the arguments for the existence of God -- all of them -- are much older than Dawkin's counterarguments.

For instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a variant of the tiny orbiting teapot used by Bertrand Russell for similar rhetorical duty back in 1952. Dawkins is perfectly aware that atheism is an ancient doctrine and that little of what he has to say is likely to change the terms of this stereotyped debate.

Case in point. Dawkin's Flying Spaghetti Monster counterargument is just a redressed version of Russell's Orbiting Teapot, but it's still younger than any of the arguments for God.

Dawkins does not merely disagree with religious myths. He disagrees with tolerating them, with cooperating in their colonization of the brains of innocent tykes.

Come on, can't you smell the golden mean?

Yes. I love the smell of Golden Mean roasted with napalm in the morning!

I return from Oxford enthusiastic for argument. I immediately begin trying out Dawkins' appeal in polite company. At dinner parties or over drinks, I ask people to declare themselves. "Who here is an atheist?" I ask.
Usually, the first response is silence, accompanied by glances all around in the hope that somebody else will speak first. Then, after a moment, somebody does, almost always a man, almost always with a defiant smile and a tone of enthusiasm. He says happily, "I am!"
But it is the next comment that is telling. Somebody turns to him and says: "You would be."
"Why?"
"Because you enjoy pissing people off."
"Well, that's true."

In summary dumb people get pissed off by smarter people. No shit sherlock. And of course atheists really are that way just to irritate people. Amazing as it sounds, this argument is actually quite an achievement for the author. He actually adds the ad hominem to his reportoire.

I also like the cute argumentum ad anecdotium fallacy. It's presented as if this athiest-for-irritation person (assuming he is an athiest just to piss people off) is representative of why people are athiests.

[Medic]

Just read that whole thing :puke: that is a long Golden Mean.

He understands perfectly well that there are practical constraints on controlling the spread of bad memes. If the solution to the spread of wrong ideas and contagious superstitions is a totalitarian commissariat that would silence believers, then the cure is worse than the disease.

Here is the atheist prayer: that our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith.

People see a contradiction in its tone of certainty. Contemptuous of the faith of others, its proponents never doubt their own belief. They are fundamentalists.

I doubt my lack-of-belief inasmuch as it can be scientifically proven false. Hardly dogmatic compared to the faith of others. I suppose that's strict adherence to science and utilitarianism [as opposed to what, faith-based rationale?] but as far as I've just moved the field-goal posts it's clear he's abusing the word fundamentalist. If those principles weren't open to revision, then it'd be dogmatic and 'fundamentalist.'

I got the vibe here he couldn't accept that some things in life are falsifiable but it's really just the document-long Golden Mean in retrospect.

The New Atheists never propose realistic solutions to the damage religion can cause. For instance, the Catholic Church opposes condom use, which makes it complicit in the spread of AIDS. But among the most powerful voices against this tragic mistake are liberals within the Church -- exactly those allies the New Atheists reject.

False dilemna. We don't have to agree with either to have our own enlightened views on sexuality.

I turn to the great Oxford professor of science and religion, John Hedley Brooke, who convinces me that, contrary to myth, Darwin did not become an atheist because of evolution.

I honestly don't know the veracity of this claim but it's a sad appeal-to-authority masquerading as a red-herring -- trying to stake claim to Darwin's personal belifs somehow constitutes kicking the legs out of atheism. He SAYS it's little more than celebrity gossip and mentions it anyway. He does this asshattery a lot, as if stopping just short of introducing indefensible positions innoculates the article from such tactics.

In Breaking the Spell, Dennett writes about the personal risk inherent in attacking faith. Harris veils his academic affiliation and hometown because he fears for his physical safety. But in truth, the cultural neighborhoods where they live and work bear little resemblance to Italy under Pope Urban VIII, or New England in the 17th century, or Saudi Arabia today. Dennett spends the academic year at Tufts University and summers with family and students in Maine. Dawkins occupies an endowed Oxford chair and walks his dog on the wide streets, alone. Harris sails forward this fall with his second well-publicized book. There have been no fatwas, no prison cells, no gallows or crosses.

That's because atheists are difficult to publicly and even privately identify. Unless you happen to recognize the face of these three like HELL you're gonna know. Anonymity is their defence. I'm NOT claiming that if they wore it on their shoulder and literally yelled it down the street that it WOULDN'T put them at risk but since that is the EXTREME possibility he discounts their caution out of hand. It's merely prudent. Shit, he's even exaggerating their fear for the purpose of further rationalizing his Golden Mean. Christ.

Since he is a fence sitter I'll quote

My line to the appeasers is

Yes, religious wierdoes are allowed to believe whatever they like. The problem is they want to make your kids/grandkids believe it too.

At which point the average apathist sees the bloody fucking point.

And adding to that, why yes, the moderate, liberalized masses of churchgoers DO enable the more vitriolic fundamentalists. Without that critical mass it's a mere cult and not a political force that's still stonewalling gay rights.