11.02.09
Ruse on New Atheists
Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute
There’s a schism alright, and I seem to find myself on the unfashionable side of it
The New Atheists have a strange way of producing counterproductive reactions to their ‘cult’ and the statements here by Ruse, who is in fact an atheist, should bring the point home.
We commented many times on this a year or so ago, when Dawkins’ The God Delusion came out.
Part of the problem is the manifest ignorance of religion on the part of the New Atheists, making their atheism a duck out of water. No matter that Buddhism and Jainism are atheist religions: these are to be condemned too, for what reason we are never told. Our cult of New Atheists is against theism, but also against all religion, even if this is not theistic.
This kind of confusion pervades the whole cult, and the result is something that is repeatedly denounced in frustration, even by atheists.
James said,
November 2, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I think the issue goes much deeper than science vs. religion (defining these terms in relation to mainstream debate). I have a feeling that human psychological potential (the essence of “true religion”) is inherently dangerous and subversive to the powers that be (this includes the historical religions!) and much of the esteemed values of society. Big Science and Madison Avenue have much more in common with the historical religions than most people realize. They have simply taken up the role of suppressing this potential to keep people in line.
reece sullivan said,
November 2, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Concerning what Big Science and historical religions have in common, I tend to think, possibly on from a different angle than where you’re coming from, that they both crave and want something stable, permanent, and concrete . . . even though science is theoretically open to change, dissolution of theories, and so forth. This idea is briefly expounded upon by David Bohm in his book, “Wholeness & The Implicate Order,” where he says that science is like anything else: in flux and flow, and subject to change. He means it not in the sense that theories can be revised, updated, or discarded type of change, but what seems to be more an eastern thought type way.
Also, concerning science and Madison Avenue, I recently read “Our Daily Meds,” which, though scientists would rightly object to calling industry-bought research “science,” moves the subject of “science” and industry (as a couple) to a level that I naively hadn’t realized was possible.
reece sullivan said,
November 2, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Correction: . . . . “where he says ‘knowledge’ is like anything else: in flux and flow . . . “