Wow, P.Z. Myers really doesn’t like the new atheism
A few days ago, P.Z. Myers published his assessment of new atheism: “The train wreck that was the New Atheism.” It’s nothing short of an evisceration, including a scathing takedown of the four horsemen. (Myers saves his choicest criticisms for Sam Harris.)
To all that, I say yea and amen. Though I should think Myers owes us some exercises in penitential satisfaction before his restoration is complete given that new atheism’s many critics were raising similar concerns a decade ago.
But in this article, I want to highlight and respond to one key passage in Myers’ article:
“Mainly what happened is that the credibility of science was stolen to bolster rationalizing prior bigotries. People were drawn into the Church of the New Atheism by Islamophobia, but rather than being enlightened about the unity of humanity, they instead learned that bastardized evolutionary theories could be weaponized to justify all kinds of abuses, because that’s what the self-appointed “leaders” were doing.”
I agree with Myers that the new atheists “stole” (or as I would prefer to say, “appropriated”) the credibility of science to bolster their ideology. My only concern is that Myers and countless others like him continue to do the same thing when they promote the nonsense idea that natural science supports naturalism, atheism, and/or secularism.
The post Wow, P.Z. Myers really doesn’t like the new atheism appeared first on Randal Rauser.
newest »
I agree with what PZ said about hero worship and hell Hitchens was against that too. And I believe he was actually concerned about it happening to him as well. In fact in the Thinking Atheist podcast one caller talked about how he emailed Hitchens calling him his hero and Hitchens emailed him back telling him not to hero worship. Also I hate the term "New Atheism". Yeah the four horseman share some key things in common mainly a form of antitheism, but they also disagree with each other on a decent number of things and are not a monolith. One example would actually be Hitchens thinking the "love your enemies" line from Jesus is harmful. While Harris actually thinks it's reasonable to have love and compassion for all human beings including one's enemies and sees this line from Jesus as being consistent with his own idea that free will is an illusion. Sorry about going on another tangent. I can't help myself.
The only legit thing PZ said about Sam was about him having Charles Murray on his podcast. I have a feeling that wasn't a wise choice seeing as how Charles Murray's book wasn't peer reviewed and doesn't seem to be particularity legit. Although Sam insists that there are scientists that he has spoken with that have come to the same conclusions as Murray,but won't come public about it for fear of their reputations being smeared. Still, this seems like something that could fuel the alt right. So I understand PZ's concern over that one. Overall though his interpretation of Sam being some right wing ideologue is garbage. That being said I do think Sam needs to be more critical of some of his friends in the IDW. Particularity Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin. Honestly I could go about how PZ's thoughts on Harris are flat out wrong, but I feel I have been typing too long as it is. I didn't touch on the Islam thing and how PZ is wrong about that, but I may come back and type more about it later.