"The New Atheism" (2008), lecture by John Gray (part 1 of 4)

[SheBlindedMeWScience]

I think a better title would be "Strawmaning atheism"

[thewideninggyre]

Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Mao, Popes throughout history, what do they all have in common? They were all ruthless mass murderers and they all had immense power that went unchecked. Religion or lack of religion does not cause great atrocities, it is POWER. It is so obvious, yet most people have an ideological agenda to push, so they point to an opposing ideology as the problem when it is all about POWER.

[totoaklan]

@thewideninggyre nietzche would agree.

[walkingphilosopher]

@SelfPromoting I agree. In fact, I am wondering why even if Dawkins like to point out 9/11 as a proof to the danger of religion, he would never bash Islam as much as he did to Christianity. Always, he would rather take cheap shots aganist Christianity by bringing up the crusades. Perhaps we should not wonder anymore, because maybe he is just smart enough to know what's safe for him.

[themikealike]

Atheism is the rejection or denial of "God", when in fact it ackowledges the presence of the thought of "God" just by admitting it or claiming that "God" does not exist. I have a hard time "believing" atheists, while I appreciate their influence as it allows or fosters the understanding and questioing of religion, leading to knowing what people are doing opposed to what they would like "me" to think.

[unusintersepes]

@themikealike Seriously? That's like saying that by being an aunicornist (sorry for inventing a word and butchering the English language, I couldn't think of how to properly articulate that idea) that you are acknowledging the presence of the thought of unicorns. That argument in no way supports the existence of unicorns and, for the same reason, your argument (or observation, as it were) in no way support's God's existence.

By the way, I also appreciate that you appreciate skepticism. :)

[themikealike]

@unusintersepes did you just call me a fag, in so many words or less?

[unusintersepes]

@themikealike

Lol, not at all; at least, that wasn't my intention, and I apologize if it came across as condescending or offensive. I was just trying to point out the flawed logic in the point that I think you were trying to make with my main motivation being solely to help you better understand exactly how your argument (or innocent, albeit ignorant, statement; sorry, but I'm honestly still confused as to what you were trying to communicate :/) was fallacious by using a relevant metaphor.

[themikealike]

@unusintersepes I was joking..............duh

[unusintersepes]

@themikealike In other words, no; but if I did then I apologize, my comment was made with the purest of intentions.

Sorry about the misunderstanding, if there is one!

[themikealike]

@unusintersepes whats existence? whose to say after this realm that nothing exists-something beyond our comprehension could be anything. How does nothing exist though or do you know its nothing? Its indentical in its opposite-relying on its parrallel to force its opposition. I made a stupid joke before, do you get it :"a stupid joke" like ha ha ha, made you think

[themikealike]

@unusintersepes why bother acknowledging something which does not exist or argue its consideration by denying it? The effort seems involved in its subject. I prefer to look at the bible. Adam & Eve have 3 sons, where did the rest of "us" come from? Eve would have had to had sex with one of her own to produce more population. Chrstians do not like me after I state this and come up with another story.....which isnt in the bible.

[unusintersepes]

@themikealike I would disagree and say that it's worth acknowledging something that's (most likely) nonexistent if your intention is to enlighten someone who has never heard opposition to their (rather weak) arguments. If a majority of Earth's population truly believed the incredibly improbable and certainly unethical proposition that killing your neighbors who disagree with your theology gets you a free trip to fairyland, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue against that.

[themikealike]

@unusintersepes I agree with saving "Christians" although its not my responsibility, my comments original intent was not to dissaude individuals from posing arguements, I just added mines. Likewise I feel the desturction of the Earth is a prophetic action designed by the bible as well as Satanism, it is a part of their belief system and teachings as they hold a thought in training it will come. Hence eco-destruction seems to align itself with wars waged by religious leaders from that religion.

[unusintersepes]

@themikealike

And yes, you most definitely did get me. Please disregard my other comments where I'm taking your joke seriously.

Definite props to your Poe, you effin' owned me brah!!! But seriously, Poe's law never fails!

I concede defeat, good sir, you have won the internet!

[meritocratic1337]

To summarize the lecture: "I am an atheist, but I don't understand science, so I'll insult atheists who do understand it by using big words, and I'll just read easy-to-understand philosophy and call myself more justified."

[DaveAllenDaveAllen]

@meritocratic1337 Really? Having read most of the works in question I would say that Gray has as good a grasp of science in general as Hitchens, Harris or Dennet. Straw Dogs in particular deals with biologists such as Lovelock, or E O Wilson, sympathetically and aptly. Where does he say anything that leads you to conclude that he doesn't understand science?

[TurboDally]

There is nothing "new" about the "new atheist movment" apart from the fact that they've become vocal rather than hiding in the closet.

[walkingphilosopher]

Finally, now I know that I am not alone in my disgust to the new atheist movement!!! :D

[fourthirteen]

This guy knows what atheism is then dishonestly says that there are different types of it. He also smugly makes irrelevant claims about about what the "new" atheists know or don't know and makes no effort to back them up. He is no more than a smug ignorant who believes talking a lot is actually saying something. He ought to try adding something relevant to the conversation.

[ammonman]

Also, the "New Atheists" may be abrasive and annoying, but it's their abrasiveness that is new, not their actual philosophy. A disbelief in a god is a disbelief in a god, and it has been that way since the dawn of time. The arguments employed and personalities involved may be new, but the Atheism is not.

[ammonman]

Liberalism and skepticism originated in western, Christian societies, but not necessarily because of them. It probably happened more as a result of social, technological, and economic progress. I don't think the link between western tolerance and western religion is causal, and Mr. Gray doesn't provide any evidence or assertions to justify this causal link, he just assumes that it is so.

[MegaYippie]

I've heard most of western tradition originates from the Muslim society of Spain like a thousand years ago, that the Muslims brought it with them from Alexandria, that Alexandria got it from Greece and that Greece got it from having a relatively wealthy class of citizens that could take their time to develop some culture to actually reflect on human actions. That's what I've heard anyway.

Saying it comes from Christianity seems wrong, since Christianity took an Age to destroy these values...

[WodenUberAlles]

@MegaYippie Christianity is more of a Pagan Heresy than having it's origins in either Judaism or Islam. Christianity in it's process took on so much of the pagan ideologies of European cultures on it's insiduous assimilation that it is unrecognisable from it's Judeic roots. Much of the Christ myth is taken from the Dionysian or Mithraic tradition and then culturally we still have the Northern European heathen ideals of community and tolerance pushing through in Northern Europe.

[underfire987]

@WodenUberAlles first all faiths are nothing but lies. but the older faiths of older peoples, Pagan, Native americans. had many things that are spiritualy true, though their are some lies even in them. so you can talk arroagant about other faiths but know that their isnt a god. their is life after death but not at all what your faiths say of it. every living thing has a spirit ( soul). and humanitys arrogance has blinded mankind too the point that they no longer feel their hearts.

[WodenUberAlles]

@underfire987 I would say that indigenous beliefs have more of a truth to them than an imposed monotheist hodge podge of various other beliefs. Original belief was formulated by a people's interaction with the natural world around them, which became what we now know as religion. Christianity and Islam as totalitarian and evangelical faiths (seek to convert and dominate others to their belief system (mechanicist materialists also have similar methods)) are more about systems of thought control...

[WodenUberAlles]

@underfire987 #2 (contd from prev) ...thought control for the masses which probably evolved as a necessary system for highly populated areas. I do pretty much agree with everything you said in your post however- although I wouldn't neceassrily agree that an indigenous faith has much lying in it. It simply may not be true for other folk.

[underfire987]

@WodenUberAlles different truths for different people, thanks for being postivie in your response.

[ayethereztherub]

The funny thing about modern theism/atheism is that only the tertiary considerations, which consider the tenor and ideological structure of the debate itself, seem to be the only area of any distinguished interest. Why do atheists find it so threatening that modern philosophy and physics tends to support a God hypothesis--if one so chooses? And why do the phony evangelicals have to knock on my door? I'm so freaking tired of them both...

[Markusthe3rd]

As has been stated, and which you just don't get, there can be no empirical testament to or against God. WHAT exactly would qualify, in the mind of the hardcore sceptic, as 'evidence' for God? Nothing. There is no conceivable discovery that could be made which would 'prove God'. The idea that there is 'no evidence' is unfalsifiable, based simply on a chosen perception. Read the Parable of the Gardener by John Wisdom to greater understand the impossibility of 'proof' in matters of Gods existence.

[Markusthe3rd]

Oops, no I didn't, because there will there never be anybody who holds an atheistic worldview in a way that is detached from the inevitable ideological implications of a Godless universe. People are people, not computers that co-exist with information in a completely detached and objective way.

[pirbird14]

DawahFilms has a point, although he doesn't know how to exploit it properly.

Your dismissal of the god hypothesis is insufficient for the task at hand. Having dismissed the available evidence for the currently existing god hypotheses, it is necessary to turn to the notion itself; and, these is where theism meets its

Waterloo. When theists fail to define god in a coherent fashion, they reveal the term to be an empty category. Only after they define their terms can we look for evidence.

[DawahFilms]

You speak with an authority you don't have. You claim I should go "back to school" when you have no expertise in the subject (schooling).

I suggests you quit while your ahead before your hypocrisy embarrasses you further. Thank you.

[DawahFilms]

I'm just "a puppy"? Then what does that make you? You seem to speak with an authoritarian tone (enough to talk down to me) so I suppose YOU know what you're talking about? Let's have it.

And your assumptions about where I've been in life, what courses I've taken, etc. is also rather funny.

Please continue to humor me.

[DawahFilms]

Actually I do. Nice way to assume things before they actually happen. I suppose this is your rendition of the scientific method?

Yes. I'm a senior level Philosophy major/Pre Graduate. I'm pretty well equipped to be talking about what makes a person a philosopher or not at this point.

Please don't tell me to go back to school. It's clear I'm the only one educated about this subject compared to you.

[DawahFilms]

Saying there "isn't any available" is saying "There isn't any". It's saying that what YOU see accounts for what everyone else sees.

I know the Latin. No need to look it up.

Quote Sagan all you want. He was a scientist, not a philosopher.

[DawahFilms]

Yes, I did. I brought up Stalin as an Anti-Theist. You are making the strawman that I am stating that something about his Atheism.

Fail.

[ImperatorAquila]

The answer is pretty simple. If God existed, he wouldn't be God.

[DawahFilms]

Actually the difference is that the old Atheists were intellectually credible enough to talk about this subject, weren't nearly as dogmatic in their scientific leanings (and if they were they corrected themselves), and they were not as openly bigoted and wanting to surpress religious belief.

[DawahFilms]

No, what I'm saying is that you cannot make the knowledge claim that something "isn't" by way of ignorance. This is an ad ignorantium fallacy.

"I don't see it, therefore it doesn't exist" is not evidence or an argument.

[DawahFilms]

Being an Orthodox Seminarian has nothing to do with his later beliefs. There are Atheists that used to be Anglicans. There are Atheists that grew up Catholic. So what?

He was a professed Atheist. He PERSECUTED the Orthodox Church.

And I never said anything about his Atheism being the motivator. He was clearly an ANTI-THEIST, much like the New Atheists of today. Hence, why I made the statement.

[DawahFilms]

"The evidence for Theism isn't there"

You can't know that. All you can say is that you haven't seen it or that you are not aware of it.

[LordClydeofOMAR]

(cont.) To continue believing that the only reason people don't kill each other is because they'll be raped by demons forever is counterproductive because it completely undermines the concept of practical morality, accountability to your fellow man, and is completely ineffective in stopping those who commit crimes and behave badly. All it does is scare away intellectual curiosity in the timid, and should therefore be discouraged.

[LordClydeofOMAR]

Wow, could this guy have more missed the point? The whole point of the "new atheism" is that this idea that a supernatural sociopath created us just to extort a certain kind of behavior from us by means of a threat of endless torture for his own amusement does more harm than good. That's not to say that there aren't some good features of christianity. Nobody is saying that, not even Richard Dawkins. The point is that we don't need a boogeyman to scare us into behaving. (cont.)

[DawahFilms]

New Atheism is anti-Theistic and hypocritical. That's what it is.

New Atheists claim that all religions are dangerous because they fuel the fire for fanatics, yet they forget that their own Anti-Theism is simply a more moderate form of the more fanatical version we saw last century in the likes of people like Stalin.

The New Atheists remind me of the pigs in Animal Farm.

[Justinfhtube]

I thought atheism was a lack of belief in deity, now there's this new atheism? What's the difference between old atheism and new atheism?

[vicar2]

In the sense they don't believe in a deity they are both the same. I think the shift Gray is referring to is just the fact that the value system it now purports to represent is different. Before it was Marxism now its Liberalism. Arguably it is also more dogmatic now- and has a proselytizing tone.

[PhilosophiaWisdom]

meaning religion is still a cage despite the critique of the new trap--John Gray is a double-edged sword so christian apologists beware

[PhilosophiaWisdom]

christians who use john gray are being dishonest because the man is a skeptic and is rather nihilistic when it comes to his criticism which could be the most honest intellectual stance but for christians to try to co-opt him is a failure to really listen to what prof Gray is saying. This is NOT christian apology.

His critique of the new atheism is similar to the analogy-it is like a fox who escaped a cage only to become ensnared in a trap

[JemyM]

To even begin to understand "atheism" one must either begin to study ideologes that have components that usually have a large number of atheists in or one must study theism itself and ask why people reject it. Beginning to define the rejectors is fruitless. Atheists can be found within Social liberals, Libertarians, Humanists, Socialists, Secular Conservatives, New Age spiritualists, Feminists, Satanists, Secular Christians, Scientists, Sceptics, Critics, ex-Christians, ex-Muslims etc.

[JemyM]

He blinds himself when he try to define "atheism" beyond "disbelief in God".

He wish to define atheism as a unified group rather than seeing what groups are generally atheists. Atheism is not an ideology, atheism might be caused by some ideologies, it's a rejection of a concept and a rejection of that concept alone. It carry no own goals except rejection, it carry no future plans, no nothing. It simply carry the rejection of a concept and this can be for extremely different reasons.

[mhaneline]

He did say, right up front, within the first minute, that there are many kinds of atheism and he is only commenting on a specific ideology.

Also, you should probably wait to critique until you watch all four parts.

[JemyM]

I know he's trying to define an "ideology" out of a response, and this is why his entire line of reason becomes garbled mess in which every protest against religion, for whatever reason, is thrown together into a multi-headed demon with no coherent form.

[JemyM]

Watched the rest. It was as I had predicted. The entire lecture boils down to grouping all sorts of reasons for protesting against religious concepts just to give them all a label. He wishes to create an ideology out of the effects of education, belief in humanity as well as an incoherent mix of protests against religions.

He pay no attention to that religions themselves are different (and thus their response), nor do he bother about mentioning that the recent protests was initiated after 9/11.

[mhaneline]

He is spot on, watch again and you might absorb the contents sufficiently.

He is saying that, at the core of any religion, is belief. Without belief, there is no religion; thus, to not believe is to be atheist. True, he could have used less words, but it is a lecture. Lectures are, more often than not, designed to explore as many facets of a given topic as possible in a given timeframe.

Cheers.

[JemyM]

I live in Sweden where 85% of the population are atheists and believe me, atheists believe in a lot of odd stuff, just not "God". Atheists aren't the same as skeptics or critics.

Religion is a social structure which includes holding certain beliefs valuable and holy, often with some kind of foundation which is promoted and kept alive through rituals.

Atheism is simply considering the concept of God/Gods to be unreasonable for one reason or another.

[JemyM]

Active atheism is a response to something. The so called "New Atheism" is a response to 9/11 and the more aggressive forms of Christianity around the US. If one begin by trying to define the response as an ideology itself, rather than looking at what a mixed bunch of people have reasons to respond to, one will make very odd conclusions.

[ImperatorAquila]

Are you sure it's a reply to 9/11? Right, there was an aggressive surge of Christianity, also & especially in politics, and the atheists' tone has also harshened. That's why "New Atheism" seems so ideological, although it's not an ideology. But isn't the so-called "New Atheism" older? Gray at least (if I understand correctly) anchors its origin earlier, in the secular mass movements of the 20th cent., which sort of functioned as the nutrient media for further specific atheist development.

[JemyM]

It's much thanks to Internet people can actually organise their protests, which allows people to copy eachothers arguments, which might look like an ideology.

The rise of radical Christianity (Christian Right, ID etc), especially with Bush as president, probably sparked protests earlier on, but I would say that the recent worldwide protests came as a response to 9/11. Sam Harris book "End of Faith" begun to link religion IN GENERAL to suicide martyrdom, a rhetoric I hear quite often these days.

[ImperatorAquila]

But it's only rhetoric, which ignores the historical origin of modern-day suicide attacks in secular conflicts: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Japan, Sri Lanka etc.. Today this method seems to be exclusively possessed by radical Islam, so I don't know how Harris can link it to religion in general, which would also mean that it's an inherent (and therefore historically stable) character of religion. Violence and war used to be for a long time (and in many places still are), but suicide martyrdom?

[ImperatorAquila]

In fairness, one might of course say that the Japanese Kamikaze fighters committed their suicide attacks for Japan and the Tenno, who was also their god.

[JemyM]

Note that I personally consider that rhetoric to be false. One have too look at each religion/ideology separately, what's true in one religion is not necessary true in another.

[mhaneline]

New Atheism, traditional atheism, or any other label of atheism you want to create, has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Again, at the root of religion is belief. Atheism, at it's root, is simply without belief as it relates to religion. Any amount of disection of this statement is purely semantics.

[JemyM]

Atheism is by definition the rejection of a concept (God). Any other definition is per definition false. Atheism is not NECCESSARY anti-religious. There are atheist religions. There are even atheist Christians, people who do not actually believe in the God, but relate to it's philosophy, metaphors, symbolism etc. Look it up!

[mhaneline]

You can label any ideology (i.e. atheist christians, lol), but when all the rhetoric and semantics are boiled away, faith in a spiritual end drives religion. You'll need to find someone else to debate semantics with, because I dislike reading the same statement worded differently.

[JemyM]

If you stop making up your own definitions and check those labels in a dictionary (atheist, religion, spiritual, faith etc) you will discover their meaning. Right now you are just making a mess.

[mhaneline]

I highly recommend you read my previous comments again. Take care.

[Markusthe3rd]

So you're suggesting that there can be no political movement, and no world events, that could ever possibly shape an atheist 'movement'? Atheism exists in a vacuum, is a straightforward denial of belief, and has nothing to do with the world, ever? Then why does this denial take so many different forms, from apparent disinterest in God to the destruction of the very idea, to the 'spiritual atheism' of Augustus Comte?

[Markusthe3rd]

Broadly there are two strands of Atheism; negative and positive; the absence of belief and the belief in absence. The latter involves dogma, emotional convictions, inspires political ideologies, and basically possesses religious qualities . If you don't understand the difference between the two that's fine, but it is emphatically NOT a case of 'semantics'.

[Markusthe3rd]

In fact the suggestion that 'kinds of atheism' are a case of semantics and that all atheism is equally credible in its footing (so long as you don't believe in God, for whatever reason, welcome to the intellectual 'club') is a New Atheist trait, as Professor Gray would doubtless point out.