Kritika savremenog ateizma

[Turnbull]

Ali ja ovde uopšte nisam ni kritikovao liberalizam, nego jednu strategiju njegove odbrane. Da li su Harisovi ispadi samo ispadi - pa on ih svakako ne vidi kao takve, već kao logične posledice svoje overall pozicije. U tom smislu mislim da treba biti pravičan ako hoćeš i prema njemu samom, i ne relativizovati, niti umanjivati njihov značaj, nego ih prihvatiti baš onako kako on želi da ih prihvatimo.Teško je naći nesličnije autore od Hjuma i Harisa (iz razloga koji su ti svakako poznati - tamo gde Hjum smatra da se "treba" ne može izvesti iz "jeste"; tu Haris bulazni o science of morality). Haris bi Hjuma prezreo (i zapravo ga i prezire) onako kako prezire sve "relativiste", skeptike, filozofe uopšte, i uostalom sve ono što se nije ni potrudio da razume.Veze između Pejna, Orvela i Hičensa su već jasnije i jače, pre svega zato što je sam Hičens prvu dvojicu video kao svoje prethodnike - ali teško je ne videti da između ove ekipe i naivnih scijentista Dokinsa i Harisa, nema baš puno sličnosti.Ovo što si rekao u drugom postu je spot on, ali to je zapravo moja teza od početka, da Novi ateizam kanališe predrasude sitnih i malo manje sitnih buržujčića i da je to tajna njegove popularnosti i uspeha. Nauka će sve objasniti, religija je bajka za malu decu, ovo je najbolji od svih svetova (ko hoće bolje, ne razume ljudsku prirodu, rek'o bi fellow traveler Pinker), okolo su "napola varvari, napola deca" koje valja prosvetliti (pa makar i ognjem i mačem), itd. Ukratko - rečnik opštih mesta poznog kapitalizma. Nešto što average Joe-a (ali ne plumbera, nego programera, ili finanical analysta) čini samozadovoljnim i sigurnim da je na pravom putu, da ne treba ništa da menja, te da je bolji od svog komšije Joe Plumber-a, jerbo nije religiozan, a bobami razume i statistiku.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Syme

[Indy]

Slazem se, uglavnom, s tim da ja mislim da je to svestan napor kod Harrisa da predstavi svoje islamofobicne/islamohejterske politike kao konzistentne sa njegovim celokupnim pogledom na svet (ako to ne bi radio, onda bi prakticno morao da prizna da je mugged liberal, kao sto mislim i da jeste).Kao sto sam pre mnogo strana rekao, daleko od toga da si ti mnogo u krivu, a i gde se ne slazem, vidim to kao potezanje valjanih pitanja (ali, kako uvek biva sa tim nedostacima ili gaps, u njih se naseljavaju raznorazni karakteri, neki od kojih u najmanju ruku problematicni kao Harris. Ima barem 5-6 godina kako sam na starom forumu napisao da me od Dawkinsa vise nerviraju samo njegovi kriticari).Interesantno je da Harris, koga smo ovde napenalili kao najgoreg tzv. novog ateistu (zasta je sam kriv) u stvari jedini od cele ekipe ima jasan osecaj da u svetu u kome bi samo postojao ateizam (onakav netrpeljiv i simplisticki kakav je recimo na stranicama The God Delusion, uz sav due respect za mnoge dobre stvari koje postoje u vezi prof. Dawkinsa) - "nesto" nedostaje.Tj. verujem da to svaki iole promucurniji "novi" ateista kapira, ali Harris je mozda jedini koji se usudio o tome da javno govori... sto izmedju ostalog nama kaze da je od svih (pa cak i pok. Hitchensa) on mozda ponajvise 1 loose cannon. (Mada, konkretno, taj neki njegov ateisticki zen je - ovo je samo moja licna preferenca - nesto najvrednije sto on ima da ponudi: da je srece da batali sve drugo, a posebno politiku).

Edited April 20, 2013 by Indy

[Turnbull]

Da, zanimljivo je to za ateistički zen. Slažem se da bi bilo bolje da se više bavi time, nego ovim što mu očigledno slabije ide od ruke. Meni bi svakako bilo zanimljivije.

[Indy]

Nauka će sve objasniti, religija je bajka za malu decu, ovo je najbolji od svih svetova (ko hoće bolje, ne razume ljudsku prirodu, rek'o bi fellow traveler Pinker)

Moram da branim Pinkera, celu knjigu (800 strana) je napisao o popravljanju tog sveta... prema tome, tesko ce biti da misli da je najbolji i da se ljudi ne mogu "popraviti". Istina je da ne vidi mnogo mesta za religiju u tom poslu, a sto se mene tice, i nije u krivu... njen track record je tu u najboljem slucaju pozitivna nula.

[Indy]

Guglajuci na ovu temu, nadjoh jedan clanak sa levih pozicija koji mi se cini bas dobar i adekvatan. Pre nego sto ga pejstujem ovde, samo da kazem da bi tzv. novi ateisti, umesto sto uglavnom odbacuju (

) ovakve kritike, trebali da ih prime na grudi i odgovore na njih... te da mozda malo i evoluiraju svoje pozicije, a to im ne bi skodilo. (Primedbe se svode na to da "novi ateizam" implicitno, namerno ili ne, podrzava postojece strukture moci. Sto je validni kriticizam i sto bi se moglo popraviti, kada bi to hteli "novi ateisti".)================== Atheism Is Not Enough: A Socialist Dare to Religion and Science By Paula CerniIn the Beginning Were Our PracticesA new offensive is under way in the cosmic war between faith and reason. Four formidable horsemen – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens – are leading the charge. [1] Religion, these and other New Atheists claim, is irrational, and those of us who care for the truth must not let its falsehoods go unchecked.But although truth is a worthy cause, the New Atheists’ strategy rests on a misguided approach to religion. Religion involves practices as well as beliefs. The New Atheists begin from the beliefs and take them to inform the practices. They therefore aim their fire at the mightiest of all false beliefs, the belief in God Almighty.The scientific, materialist approach should begin from the practices. Practices inform beliefs, since beliefs that matter are always practical. But practices are never false – they occur and in that sense they are true; they are real and in that sense they are rational. They are taken up by living agents in historical settings. In that sense, religious and scientific practices are much alike: they are made by real people in response to their circumstances.Instead of illuminating this wider, richer, practical life of religion, the New Atheists’ focus on beliefs tends to narrow the issue down to a problem of dim minds. What seems to follow is that religion is for stupid or deranged people. For example, on learning that Hurricane Katrina strengthened the faith of 80% of survivors, Harris laments ‘the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved’ [2] without exploring why normal people would turn to God when utterly abandoned by society. Similarly, Dawkins’ discussion of the South Pacific cargo cults mocks their irrationality but lacks even an ounce of social critique.On inspection, then, the New Atheists are unlikely to win a decisive victory. They engage their enemy chiefly as a set of superstitions to be fought with evidence and logic; but religion is much more than a creature of the mind – it is the palpitating organ of a breathing, living species of society, the heart of a brute, the belly of a monster. To understand the function of this social organ we need to closely study its host’s anatomy, habitat, and historical evolution. Perhaps then we will discover how to wrestle it into extinction.How Modern Religion Earns Its AfterlifeThe advent of modernity – the age of science and industry, of reason organized, developed, and applied on a grand and systematic scale – appeared to deal a mortal blow to religion. But religion adapted to the age by continually shredding off dead flesh – mercilessly slashing practices and sacrificing beliefs – and growing a secular second skin. Who now cares for, or even remembers, the dogmas that forced the Massachusetts Puritan Anne Hutchinson into exile? Americans might still revere religion, but not deeply enough to punish heresy with banishment. They have wisely learned to observe the secular rule of religious freedom.Today, secularization continues to fit religion to fast-changing social mores, shaping it, for example, into bland therapy, vacuous eating and clothing obsessions, or pressure group politics – the same patterns followed by society at large. What was once holy – lifelong marriage – becomes profane, and what was once persecuted – homosexual unions – is eventually blessed. Though fundamentalists of all faiths try to resist, the pressure to evolve is irresistible.Yet modernity has not bred a fully secularized society. On the contrary, it has hatched one religious revival after another, from the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to the recent rise of New Age religions and the current metamorphoses of Islam. Paradoxically, then, hand in hand with its secularizing effects, modernity performs a veritable resurrection of religious belief and practice.Such revivals tell us that religion in its contemporary form is not an evolutionary relic of our primal psyche, as some New Atheists maintain, but a product of present conditions. Time and again, modern religion earns a new lease of life, the wages of a hellish social system that sins against its own values – that preaches wealth but produces poverty, teaches tolerance but inflicts war, promises education but fosters ignorance, praises democracy but violates all human rights. If man’s extremity is God’s opportunity, our society offers religion plenty of extreme horrors on which to feed.Fear and Trembling in the Kingdom of MammonReligion, Stendhal said, is founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few. However, this fear is not the existential terror of death Michel Onfray shrugs off with hedonistic nonchalance in his Atheist Manifesto. [3] It might be hard for successful philosophers to sympathize, but most people’s anxieties in today’s society are very down-to-earth. Theirs is not a fear of death, but a fear for their own lives and the lives of loved ones, a fear enhanced, as Lenin argued, by the blind force of capitalism: ‘a blind force because it cannot be foreseen by the masses of the people – a force which at every step in the life of a proletarian and a petty proprietor threatens to bring and does bring him “sudden”, “unexpected”, “accidental” bankruptcy, ruination, transformation into a pauper or into a prostitute, or leads to hungry death – there is the root of modern religion’. [4]The most vulnerable populations, as social scientists Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart have shown, are the most religious. [5] Plagued by endemic social ills and insecurities, they hope and pray for supernatural relief. Religion in this form is the placebo of the people. Additionally, in its organized form, it is a potent folk remedy, applied most vigorously where capitalism hurts the most – in developing nations where rural traditions give way to the man-eat-man conditions of the urban jungle; and in the USA, where poor public services, lack of employment and housing rights, and a migrant economy generate a dire need for community self-help. In these societies, even the smallest religious organizations provide close fellowship; flowers and counselling for the bereaved; or free breakfasts; while the largest, the professional charities and the megachurches, supply a range of services well beyond anything underfunded governments can offer.By contrast, in many European countries, capitalism is softened by protective legislation and state provision of social services, which, while still very deficient, remain the best in the world. Universal, high-quality, publicly-funded healthcare, for example, is a far more effective help to the sick than Christian charity and prayers could ever be. Consequently Europe, which is closest to this ideal, is the most secular continent on earth. [6]Contemporary religion, then, is an organ for soothing the aches of social injury. It is, as Marx said, the ‘heart of a heartless world’, a heart that seeks the real light of human love, support, joy, purpose, and universality, but can only find its pale reflection in spectral entities, or in the warm but artificial glow of the congregation. It is, as Marx also said, ‘the fantastic realization of the human being because the human being has attained no true reality’. [7]Thou Shalt Sanctify the SystemOf course, religion also assists the clever few who exploit it. It helps social climbers reach influential friends, it provides cover for corrupt pastors and perverted priests, and it underwrites the elites’ most inhumane policies – from female subjection to global war.Even without conscious manipulation, however, religion easily reopens the very social wounds it seeks to heal. It cannot be otherwise, because religion is an organic part of our diseased way of life. The more deep-seated it is, the more infected it becomes. And so, for example, America’s religion is tainted by the nation’s extreme individualism. The same uncontrollable forces of social change that push faith communities together also pull them apart, driving members from one city, church or belief to another, so that, in the end, they are left with no guidance except their own personal consciences, and with Jefferson they must conclude: ‘I am of a sect by myself’. Thus faith reproduces today’s self-centred culture.Similarly, while faith is supposed to unite, American believers faithfully divide themselves along economic, cultural, and racial lines, into churches for the rich and churches for the poor, churches for Korean speakers and churches for Spanish speakers, black churches and white churches; etc. Thus congregation reinforces segregation.Finally, while contemporary American religion is an admission that the market cannot provide for human needs, it also performs the sickest acts of market worship. Aping capitalism, religious firms often poach each other’s business, build their own emporiums of entertainment and merchandise, and preach what they practice by selling the ‘gospel of prosperity’. Yet these organizations and their members are no hypocrites. On the contrary, they are sincere believers in a two-faced economic system. So ardent is their belief, and so powerful this system, that they assume God himself sponsors it. Thus American religion serves Mammon, the true lord of this earth. [8]Losing Our Religion, Winning Our ScienceBut the New Atheists say very little about this. They conceive of science and religion as competing worldviews, forgetting, for the most part, that both are also historical human practices. They raise the banner of pure reason without examining in any detail how reason has evolved under conditions that were, and still are, far from pure and rational. They miss the historical and material ground on which, contrary to what Stephen Jay Gould argued, science and religion have overlapped all along. [9]Science was born out of modes of human action and knowledge that were profoundly religious; religion, in that sense, was the prehistory of science. Only at a certain stage of historical maturity, in our own modern age, did science begin its independent life, handling the world in a radically new way – by systematically discovering its inner laws of development. According to this approach, atoms, bacteria, elephants, and galaxies obey not divine commands but their own nature – a nature we human beings learn to adapt to our needs.But this modern age of ours holds its paradoxes for science as much as for religion. Just as it revives moribund religion, so it denies science its full birthright. Most disgracefully, the prevailing social system dehumanizes science by recruiting it into its most evil campaigns. Yet in their eagerness to condemn the irrationality of religion, the New Atheists absolve the corruption of science.Science cannot win the battle on behalf of reason while chained to an irrational social order. It will only prevail when, instead of being used to build weapons that annihilate entire cities, it is used to wipe out entirely preventable diseases that kill millions every year; when, instead of helping develop sophisticated technologies of social control and surveillance, it frees us all to lead our lives to the best of our abilities; when, instead of serving the interests of the powerful, it fully supports the wellbeing of the people. Until then, the most advanced and knowledgeable society in human history will continue to spread unnecessary misery and ignorance – the social muck on which popular religion flowers.In the End, a Socialist ChallengeRuled by elites just as greedy and power-grabbing as their capitalist counterparts, so-called socialist societies have often been backward and brutal. Yet there is another socialist tradition, one that upholds in secular terms humanist ideals that have frequently taken a religious form. Solidarity, justice, dignity – these are some of the values those of us who adhere to this tradition passionately share with many believers. Our common challenge is that of their secular realization.Socialists in this tradition understand that, although gods do not exist, religions do, and will continue to exist for as long as society is less than fully human. We therefore expect further contests between religion and social progress, and wish them to take place on the most civilized and democratic grounds possible. Consequently, we defend the complete freedom of belief and expression for all faiths, as we do for all opinions, including those critical of and offensive towards religion.Humanist socialists also believe in a democratic framework for religious practice, so that the authorities neither privilege nor infringe on it. Hence, on the one hand, public funding of churches and religious schools, as well as special tax exemptions for religious activities, should be eliminated; while laws should be made according to the will of the people and not according to the self-appointed interpreters of God’s will. On the other hand, the state must not unfairly interfere with the private conduct of religious life. For example, parents should be free to indoctrinate their children in a particular faith, just as in morals or politics. Such teaching does not constitute, as Dawkins suggests, a form of child abuse.To science, this socialism sets the challenge of winning the argument the only way it can truly be won – in practice. For, in practice, the fight is not purely mental, but historical, because the whole future of our species is at stake. The mission, as Marx put it, is no longer to refute, but to destroy – to destroy the monstrous conditions of present society and let our rational humanity thrive in glorious peace.

[Turnbull]

Pa da, a recept za popravljanje mu je basically - more of the same, tržište je keva, itd, sve u tome stilu.Da je istorija prosvetiteljstva istorija borbe, a ne samo Hobsovog Levijatana, trgovine, i lepe književnosti. to je nešto što mu nikako ne pada na pamet.Levica je naravno bauk, država je naravno dobra (doklen štiti imovinu poštenog sveta, hapsi crnce kriminalce, i ne meša se u preraspodelu bogatstva), i eh te klete ideologije... zašto ne bismo mogli bez njih (kako li samo to zamišlja, da mi je znati?).Možda za tu knjigu i ponajviše važi ovo što sam pripisao Novim ateistima - na pravom si putu, građanine, ćuti, radi, uživaj, ostalo prepusti Levijatanu,

[Indy]

Pa da, a recept za popravljanje mu je basically - more of the same, tržište je keva, itd, sve u tome stilu.Da je istorija prosvetiteljstva istorija borbe, a ne samo Hobsovog Levijatana, trgovine, i lepe književnosti. to je nešto što mu nikako ne pada na pamet.Levica je naravno bauk, država je naravno dobra (doklen štiti imovinu poštenog sveta, hapsi crnce kriminalce, i ne meša se u preraspodelu bogatstva), i eh te klete ideologije... zašto ne bismo mogli bez njih (kako li samo to zamišlja, da mi je znati?).Možda za tu knjigu i ponajviše važi ovo što sam pripisao Novim ateistima - na pravom si putu, građanine, ćuti, radi, uživaj, ostalo prepusti Levijatanu,

Nije bas tako, recept kod Pinkera je ono sto on zove civilizirajuci proces. Trzisna razmena je donela puno dobrog (to ne znaci da se ja slazem sa free market fundamentalizmom, zapazi... niti mislim da je Pinker na tim pozicijama, koliko mi je poznato).Generalno, Pinkerova pozicija je mnogo sofisticiranija i nijansiranija nego sto je ti predstavljas. Zainteresovanima ipak preporucujem da procitaju knjigu, a ne tvoj (ili moj) sazetak. Edited April 20, 2013 by Indy

[Turnbull]

Guglajuci na ovu temu, nadjoh jedan clanak sa levih pozicija koji mi se cini bas dobar i adekvatan. Pre nego sto ga pejstujem ovde, samo da kazem da bi tzv. novi ateisti, umesto sto uglavnom odbacuju (

) ovakve kritike, trebali da ih prime na grudi i odgovore na njih... te da mozda malo i evoluiraju svoje pozicije, a to im ne bi skodilo. (Primedbe se svode na to da "novi ateizam" implicitno, namerno ili ne, podrzava postojece strukture moci. Sto je validni kriticizam i sto bi se moglo popraviti, kada bi to hteli "novi ateisti".).

Da, dobar je tekst, a dobra ti je i teza.

[Turnbull]

Nije bas tako, recept kod Pinkera je ono sto on zove civilizirajuci proces. Trzisna razmena je donela puno dobrog (to ne znaci da se ja slazem sa free market fundamentalizmom, zapazi... niti mislim da je Pinker na tim pozicijama, koliko mi je poznato).Generalno, Pinkerova pozicija je mnogo sofisticiranija i nijansiranija nego sto je ti predstavljas. Zainteresovanima ipak preporucujem da procitaju knjigu, a ne tvoj (ili moj) sazetak.

Slažem se. A i da ne širimo sad raspravu i na njega. Jedva i sa Harisom izlazimo na kraj. :) Edited April 20, 2013 by Syme

[Indy]

Syme, ja tvoje (kao sto rekoh, vecinom mislim opravdane) kritike, kao i gore okaceni clanak, pa ako hoces i tvoj osvrt na Pinkera (koga sam razlicito doziveo, nikako kao nekakvu apoteozu status quo-a, kao sto mi se cini da mu ti imputiras), dakle celu tu stvar bih rezimirao sa:* postoji problem u komunikaciji kod "dokinsovaca", naime angloamericka Ivy League ekipa, koja uglavnom stoji iza tzv. novog ateizma nema sklonost da uopste saslusa disonantna misljenja. Da li je u pitanju njihova (kako ti kazes) ljubav za sistem - moguce, ili su jednostavno suvise comfortable i razmazeni da bi se bavili nekakvim nijansama (pogledati kao ilustraciju onaj video koji sam linkovao iznad, gde na dobronamernu, polusaljivu kritiku Neil DeGrasse Tysona, Dawkins prakticno odgovara sa "fuck off", na finjaka; meni su takve stvari u vezi Dawkinsa davno prestale da budu simpaticne) - kako bilo, usvojiti opravdanu kritiku bi im bio plus, ne bi im pala kruna s glave. Naravno, ne mislim da ce se to desiti.Pomenuo sam drugde u odgovoru betty: ne treba smetnuti s uma jednu stvar: izdavacke kuce. Naime, tzv. novi ateizam nije samo necije misljenje o ovom svetu, mnogo vise od toga - to je veliki biznis. Ovih nekoliko prominentnih autora su prodali knjige u milionskim tirazima. Od toga ne zive samo oni (a ne od profesorskih plata), vec od toga zivi veci broj porodica u celoj toj izdavackoj industriji. Kao sto ni U2 nisu volsebno izgubili talent da naprave dobru pesmu zato sto su postali muzicki dinosaur, vec jednostavno ne smeju da promene nista, jer od njih materijalno zavise stotine porodica. Tako je slucaj i sa ovima, nece ni oni promeniti "plocu".

[Indy]

...da ne širimo sad raspravu i na njega.

Pa sta fali, ionako niko osim nas ne diskutuje. Btw. ja sam Pinkerov "civilizirajuci proces" nedavno na drugoj temi upravo iskoristio kao kontrapunkt neregulisanom carevanju "slobodnog trzista". EDIT. Levijatan je takodje veoma na meti free market fanatika. Tako da, something's gotta give. Edited April 20, 2013 by Indy

[Turnbull]

Pa sta fali, ionako niko osim nas ne diskutuje. Btw. ja sam Pinkerov "civilizirajuci proces" nedavno na drugoj temi upravo iskoristio kao kontrapunkt neregulisanom carevanju "slobodnog trzista". EDIT. Levijatan je takodje veoma na meti free market fanatika. Tako da, something's gotta give.

Jeste, jeste, ali rekoh ti kada je Levijatan po Pinkeru okej - dok štiti tržište, čim počne u njega da se meša, ode sve k vragu:

Intelligence and Economic Literacy. And now for a correlation that will annoy the left as much as the correlation with liberalism annoyed the right. The economist Bryan Caplan also looked at data from the General Social Survey and found that smarter people tend to think more like economists (even after statistically controlling for education, income, sex, political party, and political orientation).273 They are more sympathetic to immigration, free markets, and free trade, and less sympathetic to protectionism, make-work policies, and government intervention in business. Of course none of these positions is directly related to violence. But if one zooms out to the full continuum on which these positions lie, one could argue that the direction that is aligned with intelligence is also the direction that has historically pointed peaceward. To think like an economist is to accept the theory of gentle commerce from classical liberalism, which touts the positive-sum payoffs of exchange and its knock-on benefit of expansive networks of cooperation.274 That sets it in opposition to populist, nationalist, and communist mindsets that see the world’s wealth as zero-sum and infer that the enrichment of one group must come at the expense of another. The historical result of economic illiteracy has often been ethnic and class violence, as people conclude that the have-nots can improve their lot only by forcibly confiscating wealth fromthe haves and punishing them for their avarice.275 As we saw in chapter 7, ethnic riots and genocides have declined since World War II, especially in the West, and a greater intuitive appreciation of economics may have played a part (lately there ain’t been much work on account of the economy). At the level of international relations, trade has been superseding beggar-thy-neighbor protectionism over the past half-century and, together with democracy and an international community, has contributed to a Kantian Peace.27

Tko nije uz Hajeka, taj je komunjara, a uz to je i glup. Pametni ljudi misle kao ekonomisti, i to prepoznatljive fele.

[Indy]

U sirokim crtama je to sto je citirano tacno; ti na to gledas suvise usko i gotovo dnevnopoliticki. Sorry.

[Gandalf]

Blage veze nema to sto je Pinker napisao. Cuj mu price, slobodna trgovina - tu pokazuje da ne poznaje ekonomsku istoriju, vec se cela stvar svodi na ideolosku konstrukciju. Znacajna je razlika izmedju tvrdnje da trgovina ima pozitivan uticaj, i da slobodna trgovina ima pozitivan uticaj. Potonje je tvrdnja bez ikakve empirijske podloge (a i teorijski je bangava, kada se malkice zagrebe).

Edited April 20, 2013 by Gandalf

[Indy]

Ja uopste ne vidim gde to pise u ovom citiranom pasazu.