Kritika savremenog ateizma

[Gandalf]

I took the full text of the three most important New Atheist books—Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Sam Harris’s The End of Faith, and Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell and I ran the files through a widely used text analysis program that counts words that have been shown to indicate certainty, including “always,” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.” To provide a close standard of comparison, I also analyzed three recent books by other scientists who write about religion but are not considered New Atheists: Jesse Bering’s The Belief Instinct, Ara Norenzayan’s Big Gods, and my own book The Righteous Mind.To provide an additional standard of comparison, I also analyzed books by three right wing radio and television stars whose reasoning style is not generally regarded as scientific. I analyzed Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, Sean Hannity’s Deliver Us from Evil, and Anne Coulter’s Treason. As you can see in the graph, the New Atheists win the "certainty" competition. Of the 75,000 words in The End of Faith, 2.24% of them connote or are associated with certainty. (I also analyzed The Moral Landscape—it came out at 2.34%.) 

In the opening paragraph of his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, David Hume described the futility of arguing with people who are overly certain about their principles. He noted that “as reasoning is not the source, whence [such a] disputant derives his tenets; it is in vain to expect, that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.” If Hume is right, then what is the likely outcome of The Moral Landscape Challenge? What are the odds that anyone will change Harris’s mind with a reasoned essay of under 1000 words? I’ll put my money on Hume and issue my own challenge, The Righteous Mind challenge: If anyone can convince Harris to renounce his views, I’ll pay Harris the $10,000 that it would cost him to do so.

 

http://www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10

Edited February 12, 2014 by Gandalf

[Turnbull]

Scijentizmom protiv scijentizma! Word count-om protiv zloupotrebe statistike! Ako bi mi neko stavio pištolj na slepoočnicu i terao me da izaberem između Hajta i Herisa, pretpostavljam da bih izabrao Hajta. Ali pošto mi niko nije stavio pištolj na slepoočnicu, I say, a plague on both their houses. Konzervice u scijentističkom ruhu, one and all. Samo ću da se zavalim i uživam u fajtu.

 

[Agni]

Scijentizmom protiv scijentizma! Word count-om protiv zloupotrebe statistike! Ako bi mi neko stavio pištolj na slepoočnicu i terao me da izaberem između Hajta i Herisa, pretpostavljam da bih izabrao Hajta. Ali pošto mi niko nije stavio pištolj na slepoočnicu, I say, a plague on both their houses. Konzervice u scijentističkom ruhu, one and all. Samo ću da se zavalim i uživam u fajtu.

 

 

Sta fali Hajtu (nisam pre cuo za njega, sad citam neke clanke i ne izgleda mi kao konzervica -  u svakom slucaju  deklarise se kao liberal)? 

 

A i svidja mi se kad kaze:

 

 

 

 It's clear that Richard Dawkins (in The God Delusion) and Sam Harris (in Letter To A Christian Nation) have strong feelings about religion in general and religious fundamentalists in particular. Given the hate mail they receive, I don't blame them. The passions of Dawkins and Harris don't mean that they are wrong, or that they can't be trusted. One can certainly do good scholarship on slavery while hating slavery. 

But the presence of passions should alert us that the authors, being human, are likely to have great difficulty searching for and then fairly evaluating evidence that opposes their intuitive feelings about religion. We can turn to Dawkins and Harris to make the case for the prosecution, which they do brilliantly, but if we readers are to judge religion we will have to find a defense attorney. Or at least we'll have to let the accused speak. 

 

edit: dobro, ovo sa brojanjem reci mu i nije neki argument.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Radagast

[Turnbull]

Ma prevrtao se taj  više od prosečnog SNS-ovog kadra (izgleda i dobrim delom, u zavisnosti od toga za koga radi). Imali smo već raspravu na tu temu, čak si i ti učestvovao :)

 

Hedžis objasnio, da ne kačim philosophical heavy-weights koji su ga dismentlovali argument po argument. 

 

His transformation from a liberal to a conservative, he writes, took place on 9/11 when “the attacks turned me into a team player, with a powerful and unexpected urge to display my team’s flag and then do things to support the team, such as giving blood, donating money, and yes, supporting the leader.” In short, Haidt became a lover of conservatism and nationalism when he became afraid. He embraced an irrational, not to mention illegal, pre-emptive war against a country, Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11. And if there was ever a case for reason to conquer fear and the emotionalism of the crowd, the Iraq War was it. But Haidt, rather than acknowledge that fear had turned him into a member of an unthinking, frightened herd, holds this experience up as a form of enlightenment.

 

In a very revealing anecdote—which he titles “How I became a pluralist”—Haidt writes of his three months in the Indian city of Bhubaneswar. He has servants. He visits the homes of male colleagues and is waited on by their wives. He writes that “rather than automatically rejecting the men as sexist oppressors and pitying the women, children, and servants as helpless victims, I began to see a moral world in which families, not individuals, are the basic unit of society, and the members of each extended family (including its servants) are intensely interdependent.”

 

His embrace of rigid social hierarchy and oppression, which makes him sound like the apologists for racial segregation, is a window into the entire book. He does not speak Oriya, the local language, and so is dependent on an educated, wealthy elite. He, by the standards of India, is rich. He makes no effort to explore the lives of the underclass. He celebrates what he calls “a moral code that emphasizes duty, respect for one’s elders, service to the group, and negation of the self’s desires.” 

If there is karma—a concept Haidt mistakenly equates with Social Darwinism to argue that the poor, or “slackers” and “cheaters,” get what they deserve—Haidt will return in another life to the streets of Bhubaneswar as an “Untouchable.” He might think a bit differently about what constitutes the moral life if he has to survive in Bhubaneswar on the bottom rung rather than the top.

 

Edited February 12, 2014 by Syme

[Agni]

Ma prevrtao se taj  više od prosečnog SNS-ovog kadra (izgleda i dobrim delom, u zavisnosti od toga za koga radi). Imali smo već raspravu na tu temu, čak si i ti učestvovao :)

 

Hedžis objasnio, da ne kačim philosophical heavy-weights koji su ga dismentlovali argument po argument. 

 

Ne dopada mi se bas Hedzisova kritika, jer imam utisak da mu ucitava nastojanje da utvrdi sta bi trebalo da smatramo moralom (i da pri tome nastupa sa pozicije suprotne njegovom, Hedzisovom, misljenju da  "the moral life is achieved only by fostering a radical individualism with altruism") dok se Hajt u stvari vise bavi (rekao bih, na osnovu 2 i po procitana clanka, i delova kritikovane knjige, sto i nije mnogo) time kako dolazimo do moralnih sudova (iako mu se desi da mestimicno popuje ). Drugim recima, knjiga koja bi odgovarala Hedzisu ne bi imala podnaslov "Why good people are divided by politics and religion", nego nesto u fazonu 'why liberals and atheists are good and conservatives and religous bunch are bad". Samo sto bi onda mogao da se pozdravi sa ambicijom da napise rad iz psihologije (makar i "popularne"). 

[Turnbull]

Mislim da Hedžis samo ima nisku toleranciju na bulšit. Hajt prilično prepredeno lavira između opisivanja i opravdavanja stavova koje smatra konzervativnim. Kad ga Hedžis prozove za neki, ovaj uzmakne pa kaže - ma ne, ja samo opisujem! Cvrc. Ovo je naravno, problem cele knjige u kojoj se konstantno brka deskripcija sa normativnošću.

 

Ja ne bih nikad napisao ovakvu kritiku, but sometimes you just need to cut through the bullshit.

[Gandalf]

Ma prevrtao se taj  više od prosečnog SNS-ovog kadra (izgleda i dobrim delom, u zavisnosti od toga za koga radi). Imali smo već raspravu na tu temu, čak si i ti učestvovao :)

 

Hedžis objasnio, da ne kačim philosophical heavy-weights koji su ga dismentlovali argument po argument.

necitao knjigu, ali mi je upravo deo kritike koji se odnosi na Bhubaneswar jako zasmetao.

 

porodica i zajednica kao baza, uz gusenje individualnosti, je za mnoge zajednice jedini nacin prezivljavanja. da li je to dobro ili lose, i koliko su vrednosti i shvatanja ljudi prihvatljiva bilo kome, nebitno - ta shvatanja im omogucavanju da prezive. reklo bi se da Hedzis prosto isprazno moralise, i pise o necemu o cemu malo zna.

 

 

edit:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/conservative-acquaintance-annoyingly-not-racist,35236/

 

Acknowledging that the man’s right-wing views are more nuanced than one might expect, 36-year-old liberal Diana Hardwick confided to reporters Tuesday that her conservative acquaintance Brady Daniels is, quite frustratingly, not racist. “We got to talking about immigration, and I really wanted him to undermine his argument for stricter border controls by saying something disparaging of Latinos, but apparently his opinions are based entirely on national security issues instead of race—which is super irritating,”

 

Hardwick said of Daniels, who reportedly describes himself as a “strong conservative” on fiscal issues but, annoyingly, exhibits no racial biases. “It would be so much easier if I could just write him off as a bigot, but as far as I can tell he harbors no resentment or disdain toward people of color. For God’s sake, we argued every issue from states’ rights to income disparity but nope, he didn’t say anything even tacitly racist. Not once.” Hardwick later concluded that her acquaintance’s opposition to most of President Obama’s policies meant he was probably “close enough” to count as a racist.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Gandalf

[Turnbull]

Mislim da si pogrešno locirao težište kritike - a ono se nalazi na kratkovidosti posetioca iz daleke Amerike, koji informišući se o društvu od onih koji su na njegovom vrhu, stvara sliku idilične pred-modernosti. Nije loše u takvim situacijama ipak pitati za mišljenje i ona sa dna ove hijerarshijske strukture, wouldn't you say?

[Gandalf]

idi u q, naterao si me da procitam taj deo o boravku u Indiji. nista posebno problematicno, prosto se opisuje intelektualni put od mladica koji pristupa svemu sa visine moralne cistote i uverenosti u (ateisticku & prosvetiteljsku) Istinu, do shvatanja dfa stvari mozda i nisu tako proste.

 

necitao ostatak, ali u tom delu bi se reklo da Hedzis ucitava dosta toga.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Gandalf

[Indy]

Ja sam od tog Haidta odustao na pola knjige, nisam mogao dalje... Ja sam sad majstor, radim rukama, nisu ta intelektualna ceranja vise za mene. Nije lako objasniti koliko je sva ta tlapnja bez znacaja u nekoj svakodnevnoj borbi za opstanak. EDIT. Drugim recima, to nije powerful mojo. Vezbe disanja koje sam ucio nekad u borilackim vestinama, mnogo su korisniji mojo.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Indy

[Gandalf]

Ja sam od tog Haidta odustao na pola knjige, nisam mogao dalje... Ja sam sad majstor, radim rukama, nisu ta intelektualna ceranja vise za mene. Nije lako objasniti koliko je sva ta tlapnja bez znacaja u nekoj svakodnevnoj borbi za opstanak. EDIT. Drugim recima, to nije powerful mojo. Vezbe disanja koje sam ucio nekad u borilackim vestinama, mnogo su korisniji mojo.

ne bih rekao da je bas tlapnja, samo mi Haidt ne deluje preterano interesantno (do ovog linkovanog teksta, nikad cuo). meni je Joseph Campbell odlicno legao.

[Indy]

Pa, to, nije stvarno interesantno.

[Turnbull]

idi u q, naterao si me da procitam taj deo o boravku u Indiji. nista posebno problematicno, prosto se opisuje intelektualni put od mladica koji pristupa svemu sa visine moralne cistote i uverenosti u (ateisticku & prosvetiteljsku) Istinu, do shvatanja dfa stvari mozda i nisu tako proste.

 

necitao ostatak, ali u tom delu bi se reklo da Hedzis ucitava dosta toga.

 

 

Okej, Gandalfe, ali ta priča ima neko značenje u kontekstu kako ostatka knjige, tako i Hajtovih intervjua i javnog nastupa. Evo intervjua koji sam ja svojevremeno kačio:

 

Moralno razmišljanje u stereotipima međutim često vodi tome da se unizi sopstveni neprijatelj. To je očito i u američkoj izbornoj borbi.

Levica se često oseća neprijatno pri pomisli na konkurenciju među grupama, desnica ne. Eksperimenti pokazuju da čovek više ceni članove neke grupe ukoliko joj se i sâm priključi. Istovremeno, zbog toga ne dolazi do rasta mržnje prema drugim grupama. Ovo se vidi na primeru timskih sportova. Pojedinac navija za svoj tim, ali ne želi uništenje svog protivnika. Zato posle utakmice svi mogu zajedno da odu na pivo. Poneki zaboravljaju da se mora živeti zajedno: huligani ili političari. I ponekad se zaista želi uništenje protivnika: to se dešava u slučaju rata ili genocida.

Neka naivna duša mogla bi da primeti da bi ipak bilo lepo kada bi, za promenu, bilo malo više tolerancije.

Sigurno. Pomislite samo na pesmu Johna Lennona „Imagine“ – ona bi mogla biti himna mnogih levičara. Ali svet koji dočarava ta pesma vodio bi pre u anarhiju, nego u sreću. Ko ima decu, pre naginje konzervativnijem mišljenju. Red i jasne posledice za učinjene postupke na iznenađujuće pozitivan način utiču na ponašanje adolescenata. „Slepa mrlja“ levice je da ona ne razume ovaj moralni kapital. Ne može se organizovati jedno društvo samo na temeljima ljubavi, poverenja i saosećanja. Potrebne su institucije, zakoni, norme, autoriteti i granice.

Mnogi konzervativni Amerikanci s nipodaštavanjem označavaju zapadnoevropske države kao „socijalističke“.

Američka levica se divi Evropi i već dugo pokušava da sopstvenu zemlju učini što sličnijom Evropi. Ne bez razloga: činilo se da evropska država blagostanja iz perioda nakon II svetskog rata funkcioniše. Pa ipak, desnica od sedamdesetih godina objašnjava da se država blagostanja prema evropskom modelu ne dâ isfinansirati. Sada vidimo da su imali pravo.

 

Ovo je isto što i Sem Haris u svom najgorem izdanju - scijentizam u službi novog konzervativizma. Ne mogu da verujem da to ne vidiš.

[Gandalf]

Okej, Gandalfe, ali ta priča ima neko značenje u kontekstu kako ostatka knjige, tako i Hajtovih intervjua i javnog nastupa. Evo intervjua koji sam ja svojevremeno kačio:

 

Ovo je isto što i Sem Haris u svom najgorem izdanju - scijentizam u službi novog konzervativizma.

Ja sam se orijentisao na ono sto sam procitao. Za kontekst bih morao da procitam knjigu, sto nemam nameru.

 

Ovaj intervju je nesto drugo - znacajna je razlika izmedju price o odrastanju i spoznaji da stvari i nisu tako proste, i ovakve ubedjenosti u sopstvenu pravovernost.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Gandalf

[Turnbull]

Slažem se, ja ti samo kažem da ga je Hedžis vrlo dobro pročitao, kao i nameru cele te knjige.