Monday, November 29, 2010

Testing the Eyesight of the New Atheists

There have been many worthy responses to the spate of New Atheist books which sold in the millions a few years back. (I have reviewed a few of these responses here, and here, and here.) But perhaps the most succinct response I've read recently was written by an atheist, the conservative social commentator, Anthony (A.M.) Daniels, aka Theodore Dalrymple. Below are a few excerpts from his regular City Journal (Fall, 2007) column, "Oh, to Be in England", entitled "What the New Atheists Don't See".

Few of us, especially as we grow older, are entirely comfortable with the idea that life is full of sound and fury but signifies nothing.

________________

...however many times philosophers say that it is up to us ourselves, and to no one else, to find the meaning of life, we continue to long for a transcendent purpose immanent in existence itself, independent of our own wills. To tell us that we should not feel this longing is a bit like telling someone in the first flush of love that the object of his affections is not worthy of them. The heart hath its reasons that reason knows not of.

________________

Reason can never be the absolute dictator of man’s mental or moral economy.

________________

For Dennett, to prove the biological origin of belief in God is to show its irrationality, to break its spell. But of course it is a necessary part of the argument that all possible human beliefs, including belief in evolution, must be explicable in precisely the same way; or else why single out religion for this treatment? Either we test ideas according to arguments in their favor, independent of their origins, thus making the argument from evolution irrelevant, or all possible beliefs come under the same suspicion of being only evolutionary adaptations—and thus biologically contingent rather than true or false. We find ourselves facing a version of the paradox of the Cretan liar: all beliefs, including this one, are the products of evolution, and all beliefs that are products of evolution cannot be known to be true.

________________

...how can reality have any moral quality without having an immanent or transcendent purpose?

________________

Harris tells us, for example, that “we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.” I am glad that I am old enough that I shall not see the future of reason as laid down by Harris; but I am puzzled by the status of the compulsion in the first sentence that I have quoted. Is Harris writing of a historical inevitability? Of a categorical imperative? Or is he merely making a legislative proposal? This is who-will-rid-me-of-this-troublesome-priest language, ambiguous no doubt, but not open to a generous interpretation.

It becomes even more sinister when considered in conjunction with the following sentences, quite possibly the most disgraceful that I have read in a book by a man posing as a rationalist: “The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”

________________

It is surely not news, except to someone so ignorant that he probably wouldn’t be interested in these books in the first place, that religious conflict has often been murderous and that religious people have committed hideous atrocities. But so have secularists and atheists, and though they have had less time to prove their mettle in this area, they have proved it amply. If religious belief is not synonymous with good behavior, neither is absence of belief, to put it mildly.

________________

The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy.

________________

Read the full article, here, in which Dalrymple takes each of the popular New Atheist authors to task. No doubt Dalrymple could build a case for his own atheism which might be worthy of consideration. But, as others have noted, the case built by the popular authors (including Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris) is at times poorly constructed, and at times completely fatuous. Were they merely catching a wave of unsophisticated public sentiment, and thus scoring big in book sales? Or were they really giving it their best shot?

6 comments:

Marty said...

I used your link and read about three quarters of the Dalrymple article. I smile when I see ‘New Atheists’ used. As though there is something new about the ideas put forth. The recent surge of atheist thought in the past decade can be directly related to the rhetoric we’ve been hearing from Muslim extremists and the righteous stance of the few who have claimed to speak for God in response to those threats. Every doctrine has to freshen up their product in order to make the continued sale. In response to the ‘New Atheist’ movement of the past few years the Christian corner has put forth a ‘Christianity without Religion’ and ‘Science can co-exist with Christ’ argument. All of these can be found in a wave of ‘theoLogical’ publications put forth in response.

Dalrymple makes statements that would suggest atheist’s somehow regret a religious human past and of course the argument (and I can’t believe high functioning lit types still use) that all sorts of people who weren’t Godly committed terrible acts upon fellow humans. Duh.There is a commonality between violent religious zealots and those that create their own rationalization for dirty deeds. Bad humans exist whether they believe in Christ or not.

‘Reason can never be the absolute dictator of man’s mental or moral economy.’ Really? That is a bold statement with little rationalization behind it. Absolute dictator means that none other has the authority over explanation. If not a reasonable explanation, then what? I may think God is telling me to step out into traffic, but ultimately reason keeps me on the curb. Finally, what is the difference between mental and moral? It’s as if Dalrymple make a distinction between the two. Herein lies the rub… There is no difference. Your soul is nowhere found but in that mass of cells and electricity that is your brain. Any other explanations require faith.
I don’t find Dalrymple’s statements at all original or simplistic. In fact, he does exactly what he rails against.

Love your blog. Keep it going.
Marty

Cliff Martin said...

Thank you for your comments, Marty.

I smile when I see ‘New Atheists’ used. As though there is something new about the ideas put forth. This is exactly what Dalrymple is saying in the 5th paragraph.

Bad humans exist whether they believe in Christ or not. Isn't this Dalrymple's point precisely? Yet, to listen to or read much of the New Atheist polemic, one would come away with the notion that religion is in back of every human evil.

‘Reason can never be the absolute dictator of man’s mental or moral economy.’ In context, I did not find this statement so bold; perhaps I assumed a more modest claim. I took him to mean that, try as we might, our humanness will never allow us to function in Spock-like dispassion, in the all-too-illusive "way of life based entirely on reason." Did you infer a different meaning?

Tom said...

I didn't really see much substance in Dalrymple's article and his criticisms were not very strong, except in the case of Sam Harris. (I had a similar reaction to Sam Harris' Ted talk as Dalrymple presented here. Sam Harris tends to promote a what I see as a "moral elite" that gets to decide good and bad. That is a dangerous stance and cultural empty. For a culture to learn morality it should be a democratic process.)

Dalrymple advocates a moderate stance, but fails to give a clue as to what that is and why we might want it. In the end, he comes across as agnostic, not atheist. (For example, "I think Dennett’s use of the language of evaluation and purpose is evidence of a deep-seated metaphysical belief (however caused) that Providence exists in the universe...".)

Regarding his critique of Dennett, he fails to realize the power and operations of evolution, which Dennett understands, and then uses the pathetic argument that it also takes faith to believe in evolution (i.e., "Dennett’s metaphysical faith in evolution").

It is not unreasonable for a book to stick to its thesis that "Religion is bad" or "Religion is irrational" without having to make accommodation for the "good things" religion has brought us or how it affects people. Yet, Dalrymple demonizes such a stance: "To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy." No. These books have been systematic in looking at how religion has evolved and how it permeates culture. This is why they have been such powerful books and why they are threatening to religion because they really get at the low-level mechanisms of how they operate. In seeking to understand religion, which is a very human construct, it helps illuminate what it means to be human -- how cultures evolve, how beliefs are shaped and practiced, how we view each other.

Cliff Martin said...

Hi Tom,



It is interesting how two people can approach the same essay and see such very different things. 

Did you miss one of Dalrymple’s central points? When you say that in the end he comes across as agnostic, not atheist, citing his sentence about Dennett, I understood that as how frequently he sees the New Atheists betraying their own latent theism. The idea of God is not one that is so easily shaken, Dalrymple is saying. He keeps showing up in our thinking.

 Now of course, you are free to disagree with that particular thesis. But many of Dalrymple arguments are offered in support of it. That may come across as insufficiently atheistic for you. For me, it sounds like an atheist writing candidly.

And I took his comment about "Dennett’s metaphysical faith in evolution" not at all they way you did. It is not the fact of evolution Dalrymple has in mind (which requires not faith at all), but Dennett’s metaphysical faith in evolution ... his undying belief that evolution can and will explain all things. That’s how I understood the phrase.



I do agree with your last paragraph. Although by the time Dalrymple moves to his comments on culture, I think he has, to some degree, left behind his polemic stance, and is merely asking us to consider how something so bad as religion (which the ardent new atheists seem desperate to eradicate) could leave us with such wonderful monuments, such rich culture.



But when you note, as you do in your opening sentence, that you did not find the article strong or substantial, does it occur to you that when I read the new atheist literature I come away saying the exact same thing? Another non-believing friend complained of Dalrymple’s use of the straw man (a complaint that might not be entirely unfounded). But from where I sit, Dawkins, et. al. build most of their arguments entirely upon straw men. It feels like we talk right past each other a lot, assuming we understand the other when our very arguments suggest again and again that we do not.

Rich G. said...

Tom:

"Regarding his critique of Dennett, he fails to realize the power and operations of evolution, which Dennett understands, and then uses the pathetic argument that it also takes faith to believe in evolution (i.e., "Dennett’s metaphysical faith in evolution")."

I had the impression that Dennett, Dawkins, et al, have been using language that implies that they believe that there is some sort of overall direction or wisdom behind this thing called "Evolution".

I may "believe in" a roll of the dice, in that I can see the results of it, or I may "believe in" it assuming there is some sort of revealed direction that is superior to any other possible result. The initial language may be the same, but the follow-up context reveals which option is implied. From the excerpts from the "New Atheists" (from both pro- and con- sources), it is clear to me that they keep slipping into a metaphysical view that "evolution is good" instead of simply "evolution has been occurring".

Tom said...

And I took his comment about "Dennett’s metaphysical faith in evolution" not at all they way you did. It is not the fact of evolution Dalrymple has in mind (which requires not faith at all), but Dennett’s metaphysical faith in evolution ... his undying belief that evolution can and will explain all things. That’s how I understood the phrase.



Heh, heh. It looks like we talk right past each other even when we are in agreement! I fall into Dennett's camp. I have the undying belief that evolution can and will explain all things.

Rich said I had the impression that Dennett, Dawkins, et al, have been using language that implies that they believe that there is some sort of overall direction or wisdom behind this thing called "Evolution".

No. Dennett and especially Dawkins as an evolutionary zoologist describe how beautiful and complex things arise through evolution, but they are careful to not describe evolution as a directed force. In fact, Dawkins' paramount argument is that evolution is so sloppy that there is no intelligent force or designer behind it. This is what Dalrymple (and according to him, what most humanity) seems to be perpetually longing for.