At Pharyngula:
I noticed the “troubling turn” about 8 years ago, as more and more atheists began to rally around two themes: the Glorious Leaders who were fonts of inarguable Reason & Logic, and a definition of atheism that exempted them from all social responsibility or ethical obligation. The other big difference was that unlike Eiynah, I resisted criticizing with the excuses of #NotAllAtheists and they’ll outgrow the regressive social tendencies if we just keep trying. I was wrong. And it is quite depressing.More.
He offers a presumably share-able image:
Also, he provides a link to a longer piece at Nice Mangos:
BUT…there’s still something about it that feels a little regressive and cult-like. The blind faith, dogmatism, tribalism, homophobia, sexism, sexual abuse and harassment, transphobia – and often, what boils down to a refusal to question leaders. All these things, that make so many movement atheists smug because they regularly assume and *loudly* declare that they’re above it all, are present within their own circles too.
Actually, others have noticed that as well.
One problem is that, to remain honest, atheists must sometimes part company with serious progressives. Most serious progressives are actually nihilists. For all they know, there could be a God as long as he is not in their way.
They do not care what is true, as long as their heels are on some Bret Weinstein’s face.
That is what Sam Harris has been discovering… the hard way. If the atheist stands for facts, in and of themselves, he becomes the enemy no matter what else he thinks. He is implying that progressives are accountable to something other than successful seizure of power.
To hang with progressives for long is to become like them.
Readers?
See also: A Progressive Auto-da-fé (Barry Arrington)
At Quillette: Who will the Evergreen mob (targeted biology teacher recently) target next?
and
PZ Myers on Royal Society “rethink evolution” meet
Good post. Love the accompanying photo. I don’t take a/mat zealots seriously anymore. Most are just haters and trolls.
These are problems with the “atheist movement”, which I personally care very little about.
But note carefully that PZ Myers is for an atheist movement that also is for “social responsibility [and] ethical obligation”.
Despite the general belief here that atheism is essentially nihilistic, most non-believers believe, and act, as PZ does in respect to a concern for social responsibility [and] ethical obligation, and would consider the arguments about nihilism common here as bogus philosophizing that is completely out of touch with the lives of actual atheists.
as to PZ:
And jdk @ 2
So PZ and jdk bemoan the fact that rank and file atheists apparently are living consistently within atheism and forsake social responsibility or ethical obligation.
PZ and jdk apparently believe that an immaterial objective morality that is binding to all persons can be derived from a belief system, i.e. atheistic materialism, which holds immaterial objective morality to be illusory.
That is a direct contradiction in beliefs.
It is NOT the rank and file atheists who are out of sync with what atheistic materialism actually entails, it is atheists such a PZ and jdk who are out of sync. (In fact, I hold that many atheists initially turn to atheism precisely because they want to escape moral norms.)
re 3: I anticipated this objection when I wrote most atheists would “consider the arguments about nihilism common here as bogus philosophizing that is completely out of touch with the lives of actual atheists.”
As for Jordan Peterson as a source, see https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/05/25/jordan-peterson-gets-burned-hard/ and https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/05/20/why-is-jordan-peterson-so-unreasonably-popular/.
Peterson is an example of what PZ is talking about, but his quotes mean nothing. You can assemble all the quotes you want, but if you don’t survey the whole range of thoughts within a field, you are just cherry-picking to confirm your biases.
“”I” anticipated…”
And exactly how is it possible for material particles to anticipate anything?
I know you like to try to escape into Eastern Mysticism when pressed on the sheer inability of materialism to account for subjective conscious experience, but you are, in defending PZ’s position on morality, defending atheistic materialism now.
So how do material particles ‘anticipate’ anything?
I am not a materialist.
And this is the umpteenth time you’ve posted the link to your video about Einstein.
“I am not a materialist.”
Then do not defend PZ’s materialism. Defend your own worldview.
I can defend whomever I want. Because I am strongly agnostic about metaphysics, and believe that our nature comes more from our biological nature than it does from our philosophy (which is an abstract overlay over beliefs which are much more deep-seated), I can support anyone who beliefs in social responsibility and moral obligation. I don’t think philosophical beliefs are nearly as important as one’s practical beliefs about how we should act.
So let me get this straight. You are not a materialist because you, apparently, find it wanting in regards to being true, (or else you obviously would be a materialist), but then you see nothing inconsistent with defending materialism as if it were true? 🙂
Consistency is not your strong suit is it ?!? 🙂
JDK
Pray, tell us how they propose to soundly bridge the IS-OUGHT gap on evolutionary materialistic scientism based presuppositions?
Or, is this little more than shock at the working out of the dynamics that were so loudly championed in recent years?
Remember, post Hume, we for cause know that there is but one level where the required bridging can be done: the world-root.
KF
Actually, I didn’t say that atheists were nihilists. Most probably aren’t. They think that the statement “There is no God” represents a fact.
A problem develops when they are asked to identify reasons why the evolved human brain can identify a fact, as opposed to a mere evolved belief that enabled our species to survive on the open savannah. Hence Darwinian philosopher Dennett’s insistence that consciousness is an illusion.
Thomas Nagel, also an atheist but not apparently a Darwinian, disagrees. See Mind and Cosmos.
The progressive, whatever else he believes, believes in running Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying off campus for not following a probably fact-lite and possibly fact-free political program.
Serious atheists like Sam Harris will likely end up having to choose and it won’t be pretty.
to both ba and kf: because I think your belief in the power and importance of metaphysical philosophy is excessive and misguided.
There are many issues involving social responsibility and moral obligation for which I agree with a whole range of people, from theists to Buddhists to materialists.
As I’ve often explained, we make up stories–religious and metaphysical–to support beliefs that are really deeply embedded in our biological, psychological, and cultural nature. They’re interesting to think about, and can help express large, abstract ideas, but they are artifacts and effects, not causes, of our beliefs.
So I pay no attention to your comments like “And exactly how is it possible for material particles to anticipate anything?” or “Pray, tell us how they propose to soundly bridge the IS-OUGHT gap on evolutionary materialistic scientism based presuppositions?”.
This is “bogus philosophizing”, an external manifestation of your highly dogmatic commitment to a particular cultural expression of theism.
Some atheists categorically deny the existence of the Christian God, for example, whereas others, like myself, see no good reason for believing in such so we act on assumption that one does not exist, even though we cannot say for certain that it doesn’t.
Atheists are also as prone human fallibilities as any other large population. We should not be any more surprised to learn that some atheists behave inappropriately than we are to find that some believers do the same.
In the interests of clarity, it should also be noted that atheism and materialism are not the same thing. Although many atheists are materialists, it is quite possible to believe in a material world that was created by God just as it also possible to be an atheist who believes there are immaterial components of the universe.
jdk: This is “bogus philosophizing”, an external manifestation of your highly dogmatic commitment to a particular cultural expression of theism.
Fair enough. But don’t be surprised when more thoughtful people ignore you.
Mike,
What does that say for those here who have not ignored him?
I understand, Mike, that some (most?) may ignore me as I ignore at least some (most?) of what some others write.
Although I would hope all of us would exercise some judgment sorting out the wheat from the chaff, and in trying to understand perspectives different than our own.
bornagain77 @ 3
You consistently ignore the possibility that a consensus morality can be achieved through inter-subjective agreement.
You have also not answered the question which is raised by the insistence on an objective morality, to whit, are you saying that you would not know what is right or wrong unless someone else tells you?
This is a sophomoric argument and I would hope Peterson knows it.
Let’s use a Biblical example. Suppose Peterson covets his neighbor’s ox and decides to take it. The neighbor tells all his neighbors what Peterson has done and they get together and decide that if Peterson has taken one ox he could take everyone else’s if he was so minded. So they all confront Peterson, demand that he hand back his neighbor’s ox and then get out of town and don’t come back.
So how did “pure naked self-interest” turn out for him?
Rationality is simply the employment of reason to construct an argument or case. You can make a rational case for handing over Jews to the Nazis in WWII in the grounds of self-preservation but you can also make a rational case for aiding them in spite of personal risk on the grounds of your social and moral obligations to your fellow human beings.
That depends on how you arrive at a definition of right and wrong.
A perfectly good question, as is the question of how that view arose.
And how did Christianity arrive at that view if not through reason, tossing a coin?
Men, perhaps, but not women or slaves or other races. In spite of this alleged notion of equality it has taken – and will continue to take – humanity a long, long time to get to the point where all human beings, regardless of color, race, creed or sexual orientation are treated as equals. And I need hardly point out that some of the resistance to such changes has come from nominally Christian elements of society.
“You consistently ignore the possibility that a consensus morality can be achieved through inter-subjective agreement.”
Discounting it as useless is not ignoring it. You’re making the very error you’re accusing BA of.
A consensus morality is about as useful as any other consensus. There was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was the centre of our universe.
It was wrong.
The problem with a consensus morality formed by flawed people ought to be obvious but just to make it plain:
It is guaranteed to be wrong.
Was about to make same point as @18 but will just add that Nazism is an example of such a system
jdk(2):
“most non-believers believe”
Huh?
Non-believers in God. You knew that.
As to the gobbledygook mess Seversky offered at 17:
Hitler, Stalin and Mao would have agreed wholeheartedly with you.
Apparently you, the atheistic materialist, are dead sure about what you think is right or wrong even though atheistic materialism is completely amoral. i.e. there are no right or wrong atoms, they just are what they are! If anyone should ever question their moral certainty it is the atheistic materialist. But alas, they are apparently oblivious to the fact they are without any moral foundation
So if the neighbor could get away with stealing an ox would that then make it morally OK in your book of made up materialistic morals?
Atheistic Materialism denies free will, and, as a result, forsakes rationality and reason altogether.
Moreover, on a ‘survival of the fittest’, Darwinian, view of reality there is nothing more ‘rational’ than self-preservation. It is practically the defining mantra of Darwinism. Altruism simply finds no place in Darwinian presuppositions.
Again, there is no right and wrong within atheistic materialism.
Atheistic materialism is completely amoral and lacks the standing to even ask the question(s) about morality.
then you ask
The morality of Christianity is derived from the perfect, sinless, life of Jesus Christ and is testified to by His victory over death:
you then state
Atheistic materialism has brought nothing but unmitigated horror wherever it has achieved dominance in government. Only Christianity has proven itself capable of providing a solid moral foundation for democratic societies in which equality has been, with sustained concerted effort towards that goal, ‘reasonably’ achieved.
Here’s a new one! 🙂
Seversky @ 17:
Clearly a Christian would expect it followed naturally from principles handed down by a God with a complete field of view?
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3:28
You have need of more study on this subject, apparently.
The notion is pretty clear to me. The Bible also refers to humanity as sinful, hard-headed, and rebellious. Fits hand in glove with the recalcitrance towards equity you bemoan.
Of course, we only need watch AK pour out his scorn on KF’s insistence of holding abortion against a higher standard as a live demonstration of this moral failure in action.
He justifies it by standing on the moral relativity of atheism, and the apparent notion that actions don’t follow beliefs in any way. Is this your argument, too? Should we base our beliefs strictly on immediate gratification, then?
If not, you should probably get with him about blowing up the bridge you’re both standing on.
And atheistic communism’s debut resulted in over 100 million slain, a significantly greater death toll than both World Wars. The ad hominem is unprofitable to you even if it wasn’t trivially fallacious.
jdk(21):
“Non-believers in God.”
There’s no such thing.
Those are also believers.
They believe there’s no God.
They believe…
JDK,
a long time ago now, I realised that if one asks the why of warrant in succession for a claim, say A, an interesting chain occurs: A as B, B as C, C as . . . (Long before I ever heard the term, Agrippa Trilemma.)
Thus, we face three options: infinite regress, ultimate circularity, finitely remote terminus. Infinite regress is absurdly impossible, warrant vanishes poof. Circularity at such a level is begging a question. So, we face a finite chain to a set of first plausibles, only a relatively few of which can be self-evident. Thus, worldviews are inevitable, the issue is, to have a responsible and reasonable faith-point. This brings to bear comparative difficulties analysis and grand inference to the best current explanation.
That process of comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power [neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork quilt] is an exercise in metaphysics. Which can be termed critical analysis of worldviews. In this context, ontology [the study of being], logic [including in principle, logic of structure and quantity, i.e. Mathematics], epistemology [knowledge], ethics [critical assessment of morality], wider axiology [e.g. aesthetics, study of beauty], political philosophy [study of governance and justice] and of course meta-study of domains of scholarship and praxis [education, science, law, religion etc] also naturally emerge.
So, philosophy is a mother-lode and controlling discipline.
Indeed, much of our framing of the intellectual disciplines comes from branches of Aristotle’s inquiry. Metaphysics, literally was studies in the volume following that on nature, phusis. Which last is the root of my home discipline, physics.
The importance of philosophy, then, is not to be dismissed. At least, if we intend to be responsible and reasonable.
(And yes, I am very aware that “Philosopher” is often a dismissive epithet. That points to some of the mess our civilisation is in. And of course, education is deeply shaped by philosophy, or else it will be shaped by ideology and will end in propagandistic agit prop and indoctrination. Resemblance to current trends is not coincidental.)
Coming back to your specific appeal to inter-subjective consensus implying cultural relativism as a way to address ethics without taking on the IS-OUGHT gap at world-root level, SM is right and so is ES58 when he points to the coerced consensus of Nazi Germany. Let me clip SM in 18:
I again point to the caution by Lewis Vaughn:
In the end, starting with our minds governed by duties to truth, rationality, fairness, prudence etc, we are forced to face moral government of our lives as more or less responsible, reasonable, significantly free agents. Indeed, without that, reasoning and knowing, etc fall to pieces. And so, the IS-OUGHT gap is central.
This means we face the challenge of bridging (which is only possible at world-root level, post Hume). Put up any candidate you like: ______ . After centuries of debates, we will readily see why on comparative difficulties assessment we will come back to there being just one serious candidate: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and trust, thus of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.
But we live in a day of those who find God irksome and wish to remove him from any reference in serious thought or action. The moral incoherence, chaos and irresponsibility of our day is readily explained on that attempt to saw our civilisation off from its life-giving root.
Perhaps, we should first reassess why we are so inclined, and where it will predictably end, once the most ruthless nihilists fully seize power?
That has happened before, indeed within living memory.
And, in part, that is why I will not cede the God-despisers a veto over the substance of ethical and general discussion.
KF
kf, you quote me as saying “You consistently ignore the possibility that a consensus morality can be achieved through inter-subjective agreement.”, but I didn’t say that: someone else in this thread did.
JDK, you are right, sorry, it is Seversky in 17. My error. Pardon. KF
Thanks.
Headlined: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/sev-jdk-the-value-of-philosophy-esp-metaphysics-and-addressing-the-intersubjective-consensus-challenge/
Seversky(17):
“Some atheists categorically deny the existence of the Christian God”
That’s what they strongly believe in. They are strong believers.
OLV@25 & OLV@30,
Exactly. That’s their belief, which is devoid of truth.
We humans like to believe in anything that fits our imagination, instead of believing in our gracious Creator who made us.
Let’s pray that God will open their eyes so they can see the true Light.
Seversky@13:
“We should not be any more surprised to learn that some atheists behave inappropriately than we are to find that some believers do the same.”
Read what OLV wrote in #25 and #31.
Atheists are believers too, hence your statement quoted above seems inaccurate. You may want to qualify the terms you use in your comments, so that they are better understood.
Please note that in the comment #32 the reference to post OLV@30 should be OLV@31 instead.