New Atheism offers better philosophy, faith than religion

[cbayer]

http://nyunews.com/2013/02/25/cicconet-8/

Posted on February 25, 2013

by Marcelo Cicconet

As science advanced over time, the God hypothesis became increasingly less necessary as a way to explain the occurrence of natural events. This caused religiosity to decline, especially among educated people. As secular states developed and freedom of expression emerged as a human right, criticism of religion — both by philosophers and scientists — became widespread.

In this sense, the so-called New Atheists movement — led by Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens — is not new. It was, however, started because of the way the power of religion started to be utilized — the terrorist attacks of 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for blind faith in the concept of a rewarding afterlife.

The New Atheists present a modern supporting framework for individuals who are able to overcome the frightening concept of eternal punishment, which is often presented to them during a religious childhood. The movement also helps people realize that adages like “anything is possible” or “God works in mysterious ways” are merely shortcuts, ways of avoiding more intellectual explanations. Many books written by New Atheists provide excellent guidance out of the mazes and away from the traps of faith in its pure form.

However, despite recent attempts such as Dawkins’ “The Magic of Reality” and Harris’ “Free Will,” the New Atheists don’t have the same level of success they used to with laying the foundations of a fulfilling atheist life.

more at link

[rrneck]

1. Good stuff

"...and the average atheist is in great part left to find his way through life alone, having to learn and test alternatives by himself."

Best news yet. Here's a book I found interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361813754&sr=8-1&keywords=the+wisdom+of+crowds

The Wisdom of Crowds

While our culture generally trusts experts and distrusts the wisdom of the masses, New Yorker business columnist Surowiecki argues that "under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them." To support this almost counterintuitive proposition, Surowiecki explores problems involving cognition (we're all trying to identify a correct answer), coordination (we need to synchronize our individual activities with others) and cooperation (we have to act together despite our self-interest). His rubric, then, covers a range of problems, including driving in traffic, competing on TV game shows, maximizing stock market performance, voting for political candidates, navigating busy sidewalks, tracking SARS and designing Internet search engines like Google. If four basic conditions are met, a crowd's "collective intelligence" will produce better outcomes than a small group of experts, Surowiecki says, even if members of the crowd don't know all the facts or choose, individually, to act irrationally. "Wise crowds" need (1) diversity of opinion; (2) independence of members from one another; (3) decentralization; and (4) a good method for aggregating opinions. The diversity brings in different information; independence keeps people from being swayed by a single opinion leader; people's errors balance each other out; and including all opinions guarantees that the results are "smarter" than if a single expert had been in charge. Surowiecki's style is pleasantly informal, a tactical disguise for what might otherwise be rather dense material. He offers a great introduction to applied behavioral economics and game theory.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[trotsky]

2. Correct. I fail to see a problem with the "New Atheists" being unable to tell me...

how I should live my life. That's one of the best parts about being independent from any religious dogma. And given how humans tend to act when someone DOES dictate a moral guide to them, well, perhaps it's time to try something new.

[DreamGypsy]

3. A mediocre OP, with not such a great title...

...since the title suggests that atheism offers a 'better faith' than religion.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>

The word 'faith' only occurs twice in the body of the article, both falling under definitions 2 or 3:

1). "the terrorist attacks of 9/11 wouldn't have happened if it weren't for blind faith in the concept of a rewarding afterlife"
2). "Many books written by New Atheists provide excellent guidance out of the mazes and away from the traps of faith in its pure form."

Atheism does not require any concept of 'faith'. Certainly loyalty, fidelity, and sincerity can be personality attributes of anyone. I like Bob Dylan's use of the word 'faithful' in this sense, from Love Minus Zero/No Limit:

My love she speaks like silence
Without ideals or violence
She doesn't have to say she's faithful
Yet she's true, like ice, like fire

I don't think the New Atheist writers are particularly obligated to lay "the foundations of a fulfilling atheist life". Our genetics, development, brains, and upbringing give us the tools to live our lives. We can learn from history, sociology, psychology, art, music, poetry, and literature about the behaviors of individuals, cultures, and societies the lead to contentment and fulfillment.

And, yes, religious texts and teachings can be among the sources of our knowledge, but deities and unsupported beliefs are not essential components of a fulfilling life.

[cbayer]

4. It's the student newspaper from NYU, so I think it may have been written by a student.

I thought his take on this was interesting.

[Jim__]

5. He's a research scientist at NYU.

A bit from his IMPA webpage:

This is my IMPA's webpage (my current main web address is marceloc.net). I studied at IMPA for 5.5 years. In this institution I got a Master's in Pure Mathematics and a Ph.D (in fact a D.Sc.) in Applied Mathematics (Computer Graphics). Then I worked for 6 months as a postdoctoral fellow in it's Vision and Graphics Laboratory (VISGRAF).

If you follow the link from there to marceloc.net, he says he is an opinion writer at Washinton Square News.

[cbayer]

6. Thanks for that, Jim. I tried to get more on him but was having difficulty.