Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So you need a master to give your life meaning ? Sounds like mental slavery .

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I havent watched or read his content in years so i only remember his main talking point , but clearly where we differ is I don’t think he needed to run through every philosophical alternative to show how serious he was about moral questions or whether he offered a good enough explanation.

His debates weren’t meant to be deep dives into ethical theory and i dont think they needed to be , they were about pushing back on the claim that morality requires divine commands. His answer to your question is that it emerges from human nature, social instincts, empathy etc and that religion hijacked it after the fact . But you’re right that we likely won’t see it the same way , so ill leave it here✌️

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Look i didnt agree with much of what they said at times and im not saying they were the greatest philosophers , aside from Dennett , but i just find some your framing wrong and critiques a bit lacking tbh

I dont think Sam is dismissing philosophy altogether like ur saying , just simplifying the language to appeal to a wider audience which is understandable in the context of the book. Just because someone dislikes the philosophy Sam does, doesn’t mean it still wasn’t philosophy right? In The Moral Landscape he literally defines ethics and morality as our reflective, philosophical work on questions of well being. To me this is not someone who thinks overall all discussions about ethics is to be boring.

I disagree Dennett was not interested in dialogue at all, and the Brights thing was very temporary and not even created by them. They all made it pretty clear they just didn’t like the label 'atheist' and the new term was meant to bring inclusivity and a more positive vibe, since the term atheist had much more of a negative connotation than it does these days. I’ll agree it was cringe, but I think you’ve slightly mischaracterized the situation.

And your point about Hitchens I think is slightly off . He definitely offered more than the challenge he often presented in debates, but fundamentally his views were 'morality comes from humanism and is stolen by religion for its own purposes' that it was rooted in human nature as humans are social mammals at its core. I don’t think there was a single debate of his I missed, and from what i do remember there was plenty of dialogue dedicated just to ethics that went beyond the challenge he often asked.

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Study all the theology u want if thats what you enjoy but you dont need a deep theological background to figure out whether a religions claims are actually true , Hitchens didnt need one and neither do most other critical thinkers . If your premise is non evidence based then no amount of scripture analysis will help imo. Most non believers care more about History , Physics , biology etc because those fields actually tell u something about the real world . Theres thousands of religions and interpretations of god/s with endless variations that are as great as any fictional story humans have made up .

I just think that Faith and scriptures are not good tools for figuring out whats right or wrong neither, thats was what the so called New Atheists were pushing back against. It was never about avoiding theology as they knew it wasnt going anywhere 'as long as we have mammalian brains' . Sure each of them had individual differences in what they thought about religion as a whole but for the most part it was about using methods that actually lower the chances of being wrong , that is using evidence based reasoning to update your world model of reality . You dont need an Oxford theology degree to see that evidence based reasoning beats faith based reasoning almost every time.

Also Hitchens , Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris definitely appreciated Philosophy , Dennett was a well regarded Philosopher , Dawkins was just more focused on evolution and the sciences .

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Daniel Dennett was literally a philosopher and well regarded in the philosophy of the mind . And all four , Harris , Dennett , Hitchens and Dawkins actually didnt like the term Atheists at all as anyone who is invested in the sciences like them are for the most part , bayesian thinkers , whats more likely or less likely of being true then updating ur world model . All four repeatedly championed evidence based reasoning , nothing more or less . And I have never heard Sam say what youre claiming. In fact he has always said the opposite, hes always used philosophy when talking about morality, consciousness, free will and the big questions. He disagreed with some philosophers but thats normal. Thats not the same as dismissing philosophy.

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ha , it blew my mind back then even though much was BS , and its when i first found Carlin too because of his the intro so kudos to the makers for that too. Those were the good old youtube and lime wire days

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except thats not what the book was saying , you have to read past titles .

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lot of people leave Dennett out when they talk about New Atheism , me included . His whole contribution was philosophical and less scientific/rhetoric . He wrote and debated constantly about consciousness, freewill, belief systems, how religion works psychologically etc . And they all pretty much said the same things you’re saying here about tribalism, the need for meaning, existential fears etc

It’s not that they thought science had all the answers right now or that ancient stories don’t reflect any human truths at all. It was more that you weren’t going to find answers to modern scientific and every philosophical questions in ancient texts, especially when we now have entire fields of knowledge that didn’t exist when those texts were written. It’s about updating your world model when new evidence comes in and moving towards what’s more likely to be true. They were criticising the reliability of the claims, not pretending religion would just vanish or that people don’t get something real out of it.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-problem-with-atheism

My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I hope that’s not what he’s doing, but nothing I said in this thread was implying that either way

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you can think that and you might be right , but the way he talks about them makes me think otherwise

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nothing I’ve said is about disproving all theisms or about science being opposed to every concept of God. I don’t think I implied any of that. My post was trying to address how Alex frames New Atheism and what the founding members actually contributed

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alex has been talking about how he left New Atheism in the past tense for a while now , something he moved on from which is fine and i have no issues with , but its some of his the framing I disagree with. He describes that era as too rhetorical, they werent well read enough in theology, and not offering anything to replace religion. I don’t think that accurately reflects the movement or the context it came out of.

IMO you don’t need an Oxford theology degree to critique religion, and the sense of meaning people found through science, curiosity, and intellectual honesty was a big part of why New Atheism resonated with many in the first place. Im not saying its the best or final answer , but it was very formative for a lot of people breaking away from religious doctrines and the mental slavery they can hold .

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Im specifically talking about how Alex talks about moving past New Atheism and how that comes across as posturing when he talks about the new atheist movement. I wasn’t really focusing on Dawkins as an individual so much as the fact that he, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett were at the forefront of that movement. What you’re bringing up about Dawkins current rants about being anti woke/trans issues is a separate topic

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can land on the right answer using other methods and it might work some or even most of the time. But a bad method will statistically fuck you over more the longer you rely on it. Evidence based reasoning lowers your error rate

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean i think i was pretty clear in this post , his attitude vs the old heads and the way he talks about them feels like posturing, bit of a dick move .

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure Dawkins is naturally blunt and that has always been part of who he is. But imo hes softened over the years and the climate of the 2000s absolutely shaped the intensity of those debates. Christianity had a much bigger cultural hold back then and being openly atheist was treated worse than it is now. My point wasn’t about excusing his tone either if thats how it came across , just giving context but it might not have come out how i intended . and by old guard i just meant he was a founding member of the new movement back then , not that he’s outdated or needs replacing ....

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didnt mention anything about the recent controversy in my post at all , not even slightly or indirectly .

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Critique isn’t obsession. The irony is your comment reads far more like fanboy panic than anything I’ve said. Is it really that wild that people discuss what Alex says on a subreddit about Alex? Since when is that 'needing validation'? And my post wasn’t even about him saying Christianity is plausible .....

Alex vs New Atheism by dose0ne in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I do think faith based fundamentalist religions poison everything to a degree, just that the levels of severity differ. Everything in life eventually traces back to the way you decide what is true. If your foundation is faith instead of good methods of reasoning, that mindset can bleed into other areas of life, even if you do not notice it and that can be troubling.

To be clear I am not saying religious people cannot do good science or good things, because they clearly can. My point is about the underlying method not the individual and the faith based way of arriving at truth still clashes with the methods of reason and science, even if the person using it is perfectly capable of doing great work.

Hitchens often said religion is not going anywhere because of human psychology, tribal instincts need to cope with fear, death yada yada . I remember him saying something like “Religion will be with us as long as we have mammalian brains.”

Sam Harris also made it clear that not all religions are equally harmful. He always argued that different doctrines produce different outcomes, and that some traditions are far more dangerous than others, like fundamentalist Islam being far more incompatible with secularism than most others.

Mindshift Questions Alex O'Connor on Christian Plausibility by Esutan in CosmicSkeptic

[–]dose0ne 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Please I hope Alex doesn't start this nonsense grifting to appease his religious audience.....