Reflecting on (atheist) Bryan Appleyard’s dissection of new atheism, physicist Rob Sheldon dissents, observing:
This is very fine description of the “cult” of neo-atheism. What it fails to do is understand it.
The oversight is thinking that neo-atheism is merely a “triumphalist” version of Modernism. After all, it elevates scientism, Darwinism, and atheism all at the same time, which superficially look identical to Modernism.
But neo-atheism dispenses with rationality. And Modernism was all about rationality. If one couldn’t rationally prove one’s atheism, there was something wrong-as Anthony Flew demonstrated when he abandoned his atheism. But for the neo-atheist, rationality has nothing to do with it. What then takes it place? What replaces Reason as the Queen of the Sciences? What justifies and makes one eligible for neo-atheist salvation?
As one columnist said of Peter Gleick – “Saving the World, One Fraud at a Time” – the neo-atheist minds not at all raking the muck. Call the opponent a Nazi, never read the book you pan, skew the Amazon polls, sabotage their web site. There is no ethical rule so high that it can’t be broken in the name of saving the world.
What do we call this behavior? The author called it a “cult”, drawing attention to its religious zeal and anti-rationalist dogma. But as we all know, it is awfully hard to define a “cult”. Or as my preacher father used to say, “a fanatic is someone who loves Jesus more than you do.”
The oversight is thinking that neo-atheism is merely a “triumphalist” version of Modernism. After all, it elevates scientism, Darwinism, and atheism all at the same time, which superficially look identical to Modernism.
What is it they love so much? What drives their cultish religion? We’ve dispensed with Reason, and we’ve dispensed with Ethics. What is left?
Peter Woods argued that it is Post-Modernism. In “A Bee in the Mouth” he argues that what validates the text in today’s discourse is anger. Passion. Demagoguery.
I would phrase it a little differently. In the traditional division of philosophy into Epistemology, Metaphysics, and Ethics, the main emphases were Reason, Being, and Righteousness, or Truth, Reality, and Sin. By eliminating Truth and Sin, we are left with Reality.
Today’s debate is driven by a need to promote a certain vision of reality, a certain metaphysical being. One cannot “be real” or “be authentic” unless one is passionate about their life. One cannot let facts, science, ethics, people or civilizations interfere with the “saving of the planet”.
In that sense, a cult is identified by its alternate reality, and the measures it takes to defend it. This is why PZ can “never read” a critique of Darwin. This is why blogosphere riots are instigated by Darwinbots. This is why Hitchens is a polished blasphemer. Because it is not the truth but the perception of reality that is the battleground: “You can all have your own god, as long as you all see him as I do.” Censorship comes to be about perception, not about truth. If there be a defense against post-modern neo-atheism, it must be metaphysical.
So, contrary to Stephen Hawking and his multiverse, it’s back to philosophy for us, if we want to understand reality.
See also: My Generation
Follow UD News at Twitter!