Why Richard Dawkins' humanists remind me of a religion

[cbayer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/richard-dawkins-humanists-religion-atheists?newsfeed=true

New atheists may repudiate faith but their schismatic squabbles and adulation of figures such as Dawkins sound familiar

Michael Ruse
Tuesday 2 October 2012 03.30 EDT


The adulation by supporters is a kind of worship. This certainly surrounds Richard Dawkins, who is admittedly charismatic'. Photograph: Murdo Macleod

Humanism in its most virulent form tries to make science into a religion. It is awash with the intolerance of enthusiasm. For a start, there is the near-hysterical repudiation of religion. To quote Richard Dawkins:

"I think there's something very evil about faith … it justifies essentially anything. If you're taught in your holy book or by your priest that blasphemers should die or apostates should die – anybody who once believed in the religion and no longer does needs to be killed – that clearly is evil. And people don't have to justify it because it's their faith."

In the caricaturing of "faith" as murderous fundamentalism, one hears echoes of the bloody and interminable Reformation squabbles between Protestants and Catholics. It is also of course to give help to the real enemy, those who turn their back fully on science as they follow their religion.

There are other aspects of the new atheist movement that remind me of religion. One is the adulation by supporters and enthusiasts for the leaders of the movement: it is not just a matter of agreement or respect but also of a kind of worship. This certainly surrounds Dawkins, who is admittedly charismatic.

Freud describes a phenomenon that he calls "the narcissism of small differences", in which groups feud over distinctions that, to the outside, seem totally trivial. The new atheists show this phenomenon more than any group I have encountered.

more at link

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. bah. The premise is lousy. The argument, skewed and unsupportable. The conclusion, bullshit.

But I can see why people of faith want to turn the tables, and accuse us of beliefs and adoration, rather than celebrating someone brave enough to stand up in public, against the scorn and hatred of religious assholes.

[cbayer]

3. If you had read the article, you would know that it was written by an atheist who

puts himself as a 7 on Dawkins scale of atheism.

[wickerwoman]

6. Why read the article when the extract is so lame?

I'm not getting that 30 seconds of my life back and I'm certainly not chasing this idiot down the rabbit hole no matter where he puts himself on the atheist scale.

Agreeing with someone does not make me a cult member and do you know why? Because if someone else came along with a better argument than Dawkins, I would listen, think about it and possibly change my thinking about the issue. No devoutly religious person is willing to honestly do that for Dawkins as evidenced by this rubbish article that only seeks to denigrate atheists by suggesting they are just as brainwashed as non-atheists. The premise misses the point completely.

[cbayer]

7. I think he is talking about a rather small group which you most likely are not a part of.

They are more accurately defined as anti-theists, imo, and not atheists.

I disagree that devoutly religious people don't ever honestly look at and question their own beliefs. Again, there are fundamentalists of all stripes who question nothing, but among believers and non-believers, there are many who question and question deeply.

[matt819]

28. You're exactly right

And this so-called schism among atheists is truly idiotic. At first I thought it was purely drummed up by the RW. Maybe it's been drummed up by some self-promoters pissed off that Richard Dawkins gets all the headlines.

Who cares? It sounds more like squabbling you find, or at read about, in the academic world.

[rexcat]

20. So he claims to be an atheist...

that does not mean what he writes is worthy of anything.

What a weak response on your part.

[Confusious]

8. LOL. Don't be coy, tell how you really feel. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. holding my tongue is ingrained, ever since the nuns beat up on me so often.

[PDJane]

2. I have a personal relationship with reality.

I have read Dawkins, and find him interesting, but I don't think you could call me a follower. In fact, I really can't see this, although that may be a flaw in my personality.

[Confusious]

9. I second your response.

Though I haven't read Dawkins, I find him interesting, nothing more.

[AlbertCat]

16. Though I haven't read Dawkins, I find him interesting,

He is!

May I suggest "Unweaving the Rainbow"

[immoderate]

5. I want in on calling this nonsense.

Theists want parity on calling atheism a religion. This is so they can claim," See... they're just as bad as we are!"

Nonsense. While there may be those few who evangelize non-belief and could value some atheists as transcendental figures, intellectual atheists deny and eschew this kind of worship. Scientists return to the data and disclaim the infallibility.

Celebrity involves a different kind of worship, not the claims of this author.

--imm

[Big Blue Marble]

10. So far the majority of responses to this thread are proving the author's observation.

The reactivity of these responses is exactly what he is discussing.

Read the article. Self-observation is a good thing especially if you actually have
an open mind. You might actually learn something about yourself.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. On that, we disagree. strongly.

[Big Blue Marble]

14. Really, you disagree about having an open mind? N/T

[intaglio]

13. So in this scheme of things

Any pop star is a prophet or god, and every hero was worshiped i.e. "The adulation by supporters is a kind of worship"

Then the author proceeds to say;

Humanism in its most virulent form tries to make science into a religion. It is awash with the intolerance of enthusiasm.

and sees no contradiction in his words.

Then the author indulges in personal attack masquerading as argument ("near hysterical repudiation&quot and supporting it with a quote that is actually factual regarding religion and ignoring Dawkins' deliberate use of irony in describing vile preaching as evil.

The author claims that it is a caricature to classify faith as "murderous fundamentalism" but uses as his comparison a particularly long lasting and murderous piece of fundamentalist violence. The author also ignores current manifestations of murderous fundamentalism that, oddly are mainly perpetrated by persons of faith - not by avowed atheists.

Mr Ruse continues with his attack by stating - with no supporting evidence either actual or hearsay - that

"... groups feud over distinctions that, to the outside, seem totally trivial. The new atheists show this phenomenon more than any group I have encountered."

I suspect that he is thinking of the distaste that certain skeptics have for others because of actual racism and sexism. Does he similarly regard the faithful who hate such attitudes as "schismatic"? I very much doubt it.

There is one activity which arouses considerable argument and that is the craven obeisance to the pretty bits of religion that accomodationists like Mr Ruse espouse. This last seems to be the cause of Mr Ruse's nasty little hit piece, he dislikes the disdain that more famous skeptics have for his accomodationism. No-one doubts Mr Ruse is an atheist but a lot of people find his acceptance of the acceptable faces of faith disingenuous; especially given his refusal to acknowledge that both "Good" faith and "Bad" faith spring from the same sources.

This is nonsense - badly written, badly researched nonsense - with side orders of score settling and envy. If Mr Ruse believes that argument of this nature is "schismatic" then he is a schismatic and should be ejected from the atheist "movement". His difficulty is that such martyrdom is impossible because there is no "Central Council of Atheists" which could eject him.

[AlbertCat]

15. Did Richard buy some humanists???

[rrneck]

17. With a species that invented the pet rock

anything can become a religion.

[trotsky]

18. By the logic of that writer, EVERY group is a religion. Democrats are sure as hell a religion.

Anyone who has been on DU more than 5 minutes knows we "feud over distinctions that, to the outside, seem totally trivial."

Too funny.

If anything, what Ruse has "shown" is that religion is a totally human invention, like every other contrived group, a conclusion with which every atheist should be in full agreement.

[dimbear]

19. I believe this is the same gent who claims Darwinism is a religion.

Classify any statement he makes containing the word "religion" as content free.

[cbayer]

21. Do you mean that he holds Darwinism up in a religious way?

I can't really find a reference to that, but he is a huge fan of Darwin and the theory of evolution.

[dimbear]

22. This seems to be the same guy.

http://creation.com/michael-ruse-evolution-is-a-religion

Sorry to link to a wacko site, but you see my point.

[cbayer]

23. I'm having trouble finding a link to the original article, so it's hard to understand this out of

context.

But he seems to be making a rhetorical point and his definition of religion is not entirely clear.

[Jim__]

25. I think this is a link to the original article.

http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html

He seems to be referring to the evolutionary ideas of Erasmus Darwin, Thomas Huxley, and Herbert Spencer as being like a religion; but he does have caveats about some of the claims made by the current advocates:

...

One of the earliest evolutionists was the eighteenth-century physician Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles. He was no atheist, believing rather in God as "Unmoved Mover": a being who decides right at the beginning on the future course of nature, lays down unbreakable laws, and never acts again.

Rightly, Erasmus Darwin saw this "deism" as challenging Christian theism, which takes God as ready always to intervene miraculously in His creation. For Erasmus Darwin, evolution was simply confirmation of his commitment to a law-bound process of creation set down by a non-interventionist God. It was part and parcel of his alternative religion.

To this vision, Darwin's grandfather added an enthusiasm for social progress -- as embodied by the Industrial Revolution -- which progress he then read right into his science. Erasmus saw social progress as a rise from a simple village-based society to the complexity of the modern city, and analogously he thought evolution rises progressively from the simple, the undifferentiated blobs of the first life forms (known as "monads&quot , to the apotheosis of organic complexity, the human race.

In his progressivism -- especially in his belief that we humans ourselves can and do improve our overall well-being -- Erasmus clearly stood in yet another way against Christianity, which stresses that salvation can come only through God. For the Christian, our greatest gains "count for naught."

...

[cbayer]

27. I saw that, but wasn't sure that was really the article, as I haven't been able to find

references posted to it from anything but sites by creationists who are using it to discredit him.

Really unclear what that's all about.

[Jim__]

30. Did you read the longer article linked to at the end of the OP article?

In that longer article, Ruse makes similar claims about Huxley and E O Wilson. For example:

...

He published a collection of his essays under the title Lay Sermons. The popular press knew him as ‘Pope Huxley’. And he wouldn’t brook any opposition. The Catholic biologist St George Mivart, a former student of Huxley who wrote against Darwin, found this out in quick order. From being one of the chosen inner group, he was expelled into outer darkness. Before long, charges were floating that Mivart was scientifically and religiously undependable, and that he also exuded a whiff of moral unreliability. Differences about science weren’t just epistemological: they were ethical too. That is what I don’t like: Huxley made science into something that behaved like a religion.

...

The same sorts of shifts can be seen in Humanism, as it reflects the concerns and beliefs of the day. Julian Huxley was mightily impressed by large government works and big science, things that kick-started economies in the 1930s: he wrote a whole book about the Tennessee Valley Authority. Edward O Wilson is concerned with ecology and biodiversity. He argues that in a world of plastic we would perish and that we need nature to survive, physically and psychically. Thus follow the moral imperatives that he derives from an evolutionary and scientific world-view.

By temperament, Wilson is a deeply religious man. This goes back to his Baptist childhood in the American South. He describes his discovery of evolutionary biology as a conversion experience. His faith did not fall away: it changed horses. Despite a strategic alliance with religious leaders in the environmental cause, he can be scathing about religious beliefs. Nonetheless, he sees religion as fulfilling deep human needs. In that sense it needs to be replaced by something like it. If monotheistic religion is a tribal cultural construct, he argues, then ‘religious faith is better interpreted as an unseen trap unavoidable during the biological history of our species. And if this is correct, surely there are ways to find spiritual fulfilment without surrender and enslavement. Humankind deserves better.’

...

That sounds a lot like the article in omniology. I believe that omniology article was originally published in the National Post om May 13, 2000 - but I can't find that online.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. "Humanism in its most virulent form tries to make science into a religion."

And the rest of the article is just as incoherent.

[onager]

26. And he tried to play this old shell game...

Humanism in its most virulent form tries to make science into a religion...

There are other aspects of the new atheist movement that remind me of religion.

Incredibly sloppy, even for an "article" that basically amounts to a butthurtful personal screed.

Atheism and humanism are completely different things. Not all humanists are "secular humanists." Many are religious and some of those even post here. Atheism simply means not believing in gods.

I work with several Republican atheists who probably wouldn't identify as "humanists," since that term would be too Leftish for them. I know it shouldn't, but we live in the real world, not the Ivory Tower where every definition can be parsed to infinity. One of them, I'm happy to report, got a begging e-mail from Todd Akin and responded by sending a donation to Claire McCaskill.

And proving how out of touch this writer is:

One is the adulation by supporters and enthusiasts for the leaders of the movement: it is not just a matter of agreement or respect but also of a kind of worship. This certainly surrounds Dawkins, who is admittedly charismatic.

Insert one million ROFLs. Richard Dawkins has spent the past year being relentlessly skewered and barbecued by the people at FreeThoughtBlogs and SkepChick, who went on to form Atheism-Plus. Which, among other things, claims it is "atheism plus humanism."

[TheOther95Percent]

29. I am an atheist.

Last edited Tue Oct 2, 2012, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I avoid fellow non-believers who want to plumb the depths of my beliefs. I certainly appreciate what Richard Dawkins and others have done for the "cause" but I don't want to rate myself on any ten point scale. I do not believe in a supreme being or beings. I don't really care what others believe as long as others' beliefs aren't rammed down my throat.

I argued today with some religious nut acquaintance who is all up in arms about religious liberty and birth control coverage. I am an employer. I pay for salaries and benefits. Should I have the right to decide that my employees can't put money into collection plates because that violates my beliefs?

[longship]

31. Ruse and Dawkins have been disagreeing on this for some time.

Rise is a philosopher; Dawkins a biologist. I like them both, but find Dawkins' frankness refreshing. He generally says what he means.

I firmly believe that there may be a demarcation problem with the definition of religion, just as there clearly is with the definition of science. We all know science and religion when we see them. Catholicism is religion; particle physics is science. But when one burrows down into realms where things get fuzzy, what criteria do you use?

No, Dr. Ruse. Atheism is not religion. I don't even see it as anti-theism, although Dawkins has clearly labelled himself as anti-theist. There is overlap between atheists and anti-theists, but I know many atheists who clearly love religion. (Robert M. Price, the Bible Geek, comes to mind.)

I also call myself an anti-theist, but I am likely not similar to Dawkins in this respect. I would hate to be measured on such a scale as it would clearly be inaccurate.

Dawkins' scale is a rhetorical device in The God Delusion to quantify his beliefs so that others, many who misquote him, can understand where he sets the line of demarcation. Nothing more.

I am beginning to find Michael Ruse annoying. He's been doing this shit for years. But, he gets quoted by people who want atheists as the enemy so often that it's no wonder us atheists get cranky.

So here is where I set the line. And yes, it is fuzzy:

I do not care what you believe as long as you keep it to yourself and leave others to their consciences. If you go beyond that, the extent that you go beyond it will bring your beliefs under my -- and undoubtedly Dawkins' -- radar. And there are many others in this new atheism that feel the same way.