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

[unfad1ng]

humans are to stupid

[g0tfrohwned]

35 minutes of my life wasted on this... I didn't learn anything from it and I don't think he actually has a point.

[d3st88]

@g0tfrohwned

Plus he talks in a rather boring and distracting manner. Not to mention he does not back up his claim with credible sources.

[Tuber77]

@d3st88 No more boring then listening to dawkins go on and on about how religion is bad.

[MegaYippie]

This guy made me laugh, then I realized he most likely spoke to an audience who didn't find it laughable but actually believes this to be true...

As he said I would, I disagree (he probably knew because the notion is so silly, that he knew he was lying about it). Atheism isn't about making 'mankind' the new center of worship... Atheism is to say 'there's no gods' - nothing more.

TBC

[MegaYippie]

Of course, this is not a basis of values - those are innate to each of 'us'...

There's another thing he seems to have trouble with... groups of things. A human and another human can be grouped together, using sound logic (otherwise known as addition), and become two humans. Using the word 'mankind' thus refers to - wait for it - all humans!

Saying that mankind is advancing is thus not (!=) appraising mankind to decider of 'destiny' .

TBC

[MegaYippie]

Advancing, in this case, of course means "adding to/improving our current standard of living". So what's being added? Does religion advance? No, it does not, it changes its values fundamentally as generation change. Is it morals advancing? Yes it is, we look to the past when we decide what's good today - we no longer keep slaves or treat women as second class citizens. Is science advancing? Yes. Do I need to explain this over the Internet?

TBC

[MegaYippie]

Thus the sentence "mankind is advancing" is refers to such things as science and morals, it does not refer to religion. Calling Atheism "canal positivists" is just silly.

There's one point in this 'lecture' that's actually interesting. The point about Atheism and religion, though the speaker seems to get the word 'religion', the faith in dogma, mixed up with 'values', what is important to a person, quite a bit - or perhaps that's me and my horrible English understanding.

TBC

[MegaYippie]

Of course atheists have religious views on certain matters - the scientific atheists, for instance, thinks that knowing something is neat and most of us (see how grouping works now) have quite strong believes regarding the possibility of finding stuff out - we believe we exist and that the things we can interact with does too.

My way of defining this belief is addition, I believe that the concept of additions is valid and applicable to the world around us. 1+1=2 can mean people or apples.

TBC

[MegaYippie]

However I must say that defining addition as a religion is quite hard for me as I've never, at all, heard, a non-nihilist, argument against it. But I'll give the speaker that one - addition is my scientific atheistic religion.

Now values on the other hand is quite a bit harder so I'll be concise. I value being alive - so do most atheists I've ever listened or spoken to. As such I like the values of humanists and I'm against those religions that value not living eternally more than life.

TBC

[MegaYippie]

I also think the world will become more secular as time pass - or rather I hope it will, so that morally retarded (for instance, those that thinks scripture holy) people won't stop the rest of us from living.

This, however, is not a deterministic point of view - I work quite a bit to correct these silly points people try to make online and in person. I want religion gone so I'll work for it - of course those that agree with me work against religion as well. We might fail - but we'll try anyway!

[joaosardinha]

@MegaYippie ««Yes it is, we look to the past when we decide what's good today - we no longer keep slaves or treat women as second class citizens»»

It's true, for modern western democracies at least, yet, despite all the so called moral advances, the 20th century saw the largest bloodsheds, wars, genocides, abuses and totalitarian regimes, most of them supported by the advances of science. Unfortunately, "who we are" has not changed as much as science, and religion recognizes this.

[Schizopantheist]

@MegaYip.- I think i see what you saying but there are hidden assumptions and perhaps flaws in your argument....

If techno-science leads us to denude the planet of resources will this realy be an advance? If we come to be ruled (herded?) by AIs will this really be an advance? If there is a nuclear or bio-weapon apocalypse will this really be an advance?

Slavery still exists today. Many common goods in the west are produced or extracted by slaves (even child slaves)... etc

[Schizopantheist]

@Schizopantheist There is a teleology buried in what you are saying that is by no means justified by evidence (it is essentially a faith).

I dont deny 'advances' but i think they should be viewed dialectically; ie- an advance can entail, at the same time, a step back (or something negative).

You assume that things will continue to get better and i think it is good to believe this- but it is nevertheless only a faith (and by whose standards are all things getting better?).

Asteroid= game over.

[ibtrippen]

"Rediculous caricatures of previous civilizations"? The Greeks and Chinese? What about Carl Sagan spending so much of his time on "Cosmos" praising the ingenuity, bravery, and wisdom of the Greeks?

Granted, Sagan himself didn't live to see the 21st century, but it is silly to deny that today's atheism was greatly affected by the things he hammered on publicly while he was alive.

[wonderist]

Wow. The so-called 'new atheism' has completely gone over Gray's head. The atheism he is arguing against is a figment of his own imagination and doesn't resemble anything Harris, Dawkins, or Dennett have said. Ironically, he is the one caricaturizing his opponents, all the while he accuses them of caricaturizing theirs. No wonder nobody is taking his 'critique' seriously.

[rudieruddock]

Would you like to elaborate on that at all?

[wonderist]

Google the following: unapologetic wonderist

[rudieruddock]

What should I be looking at? It all seems fairly standard.

Do you believe other religions can or should be wiped out? Do you believe that universal atheism would make the world a better place? Do you think atheists have transcended the boundaries of other religions, particularly Western evangelical Christianity?

If so! I do most vehemently disagree with you, sir!

[wonderist]

"... religions can or should be wiped out?"

No. I think people should embrace evidence-based reasoning over faith, freely and voluntarily, because it makes sense to them. That's why we argue about it, rather than threaten violence or oppression.

"... universal atheism would make the world a better place? "

Generally speaking, yes. Not perfect, but better than today. Like removing lead-based paint from children's toys. It doesn't solve all the world's problems, but it does improve the world.

[wonderist]

"Do you think atheists have transcended the boundaries of other religions, particularly Western evangelical Christianity?"

No idea what you mean.

[rudieruddock]

When I ask if you think religions should be wiped out, I do not necessarily mean through violence. It might be through what atheists might perceive as a lack of indoctrination at youth. I am sceptical, if such a task were to be taken on, only a fool would believe that violence or suppression would not be used eventually.

I do not think universal atheism would make the world a better place and just using an analogy won't convince me, where is your rational argument?

[rudieruddock]

(more below)! made a mistake!

[wonderist]

My rational argument: There is nothing moral a theist can do that an atheist cannot also do, and without the burden of carrying potentially dangerous, faith-based beliefs.

Eliminate theism through ethical means, and you've eliminated *one* source of dangerous faith-based beliefs.

These comments are not suited to carrying on debate. If you want to counter my argument without 500 char limit, come to rationalresponders com.

[23discordians]

The privileged voice of humanity? Surely 'the brights' do not think this of themselves.

[rudieruddock]

When I ask have you transcended the boundaries, I mean, do you accept that religion permeates our culture and must necessarily have a profound unconscious effect on us. The new atheism seems to take most after evangelical western christianity. (Dawkins himself accepts that "protestant atheist" and "catholic atheist" are not entirely absurd terms) It is folly to believe we can ever entirely escape our culture's influence and a belief in reason will not wash them away. bisous!

[rudieruddock]

Oops, sorry that was for wonderist!

[wonderist]

This has nothing to do with whether religion's claims are actually true.

Being an atheist, I am indeed able to resist much of the cultural influence of religion, simply because I don't believe in it. I don't fear hell, I don't strive to get to heaven, I don't worry about what 'god' thinks, etc.

And I never said anything about entirely escaping cultural influence. Atheism is about not believing the claims of theism. Aside from that, I evaluate culture based on its practical effects.

[okitubetoo]

Right on! Bravo, Monsieur le professeur. You shall come into more and more well-merited applause. Yours sincerely, Okitubetoo (a.k.a. Nail Chiodo)