Rightwing Atheists Hawks

[Michael]

Why the "New Atheists" are Rightwing on Foreign Policy.

It must strike progressive atheists as a stroke of bad luck that Christopher Hitchens, leading atheist spokesperson, happens to have hawkish views on foreign policy. After all, with atheists an overwhelmingly left-wing group, what were the chances that the loudest infidel in the western world would happen to be on the right?

Actually, the chances were pretty good. When it comes to foreign policy, a right-wing bias afflicts not just Hitchens's world view, but the whole ideology of "new atheism," especially as seen in the work of Hitchens allies Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-wright/why-the-new-atheists-are_b_230448.html)

This is one of the most annoying pieces of drivel I've encountered in a long time. It is a bad case of taking a 'result' and postulating it as a 'cause'.

Fact is, there is NOTHING even remotely rightwing about atheism.

However, if US media is your only guide, then I can see why one might think so. Fact is, rightwing warhawks are no more characteristic of atheists than leftwing pacifists.

I think the US media just has a passion for rightwing warhawks and always offers a platform and a big megaphone to rightwing warhawks regardless if they are Christians, Mormans, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Republicans, Democrats, Independents or even homosexuals.

Thus, the only 'out' atheists in the entire US media landcape are in fact, rightwing warhawks with high-profile US media perches. No real surprise at all.

Taking that as 'proof' that atheism is inclined towards rightwing warmongering is beyond absurd, it is moronic and stupid. But it is rather common for US media to assert that rightwing warmongering is very normal and anyone who opposes this has questionable intentions and is probably a communist.

And I might add that Christopher Hitchens is probably one of the biggest jackass egotists in US media. I can't imagine anyone takes this idiot seriously on any issue.

[Non Sequitur]

And I might add that Christopher Hitchens is probably one of the biggest jackass egotists in US media. I can't imagine anyone takes this idiot seriously on any issue.

If one must be an atheist, at least go back to Nietzsche who has some intelectual substance. Harris is a boob and I could think up better arguments against religion than Hitchens and Dawkins.

[Michael]

If one must be an atheist, at least go back to Nietzsche who has some intelectual substance. Harris is a boob and I could think up better arguments against religion than Hitchens and Dawkins.

Yes, I agree completely. Hitchens, Dawkins & Harris I find to be ideologists with a political agenda of anti-religion. They aren't really interested in atheism so much as they are interested in attacking religion.

That's not atheism at all - that's just anti-religion. There is a big difference between the two.

And I agree - Nietzsche is the most intellectually respectable defense of atheism. Problem is, 99% of the population either is ignorant of Nietzsche or mis-represents him.

[Donkey]

Uh... I've never had the slightest inclination that Dawkins is right wing...

[Michael]

Uh... I've never had the slightest inclination that Dawkins is right wing...

From the article...

Consider Dawkins's assertion, in his book The God Delusion, that if there were no religion then there would be "no Israeli-Palestinian wars."

This is a mainline rightwing talking point. It is fundamental to the rightwing world view that the issue between Israel in Palestine be interpreted entirely as a 'religious' conflict (which explains why it can't/shouldn't be resolved so the status quo of Israeli dominance will remain undisturbed).

That one point alone puts Dawkins into the 'rightwing' camp on US foreign policy issues.

[Donkey]

From the article...



This is a mainline rightwing talking point. It is fundamental to the rightwing world view that the issue between Israel in Palestine be interpreted entirely as a 'religious' conflict (which explains why it can't/shouldn't be resolved so the status quo of Israeli dominance will remain undisturbed).

That one point alone puts Dawkins into the 'rightwing' camp on US foreign policy issues.
Imho it doesn't make Dawkins right wing, it makes him a moron. He is a brilliant evolutionary biologist, but he clearly knows not that much about geo-politics.

The aggravating misconception that the Palestine-Israeli conflict is based in religion is not a right wing view, it is an ignorant one. Plenty of lovey dovey left wing CAN'T WE ALL JUST get along! people I know also think that religion is a fundamental motivator in the dispute.

I've only read Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale, but he is pretty anti-war even in that. I would not call him a hawk by any stretch of the imagination.

[andrewl]

I have read both Sam Harris's books and i quite enjoyed them. There seems to be some sort of general acceptance here that he is an idiot but im not really sure why. Perhaps somebody would be inclined to make a case for why he is an idiot?

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

I have read both Sam Harris's books and i quite enjoyed them. There seems to be some sort of general acceptance here that he is an idiot but im not really sure why. Perhaps somebody would be inclined to make a case for why he is an idiot?

Andrew

more than anything else, he assumes that the extremes of religion are the real representatives of a religion rather than just the far extremes. His understanding of Islam is also deeply flawed, borderline insulting.

Furthermore, the man is just an ass because he treats anyone who happens to believe in something you can't prove to be stupid.

[Michael]

I have read both Sam Harris's books and i quite enjoyed them. There seems to be some sort of general acceptance here that he is an idiot but im not really sure why. Perhaps somebody would be inclined to make a case for why he is an idiot?

Andrew
Same reason for Hitchens and Dawkins.

They all START with the conclusion that religion is evil and work from that premise - and seek to assert that atheists have a duty to oppose religion.

That all just makes these guys sound like religious preachers - demanding fealty to their ideology and dismissing other ideologies as evil.

I hold that these fellows are exactly representative of that which they supposedly oppose - dogma.

[andrewl]

Same reason for Hitchens and Dawkins.

They all START with the conclusion that religion is evil and work from that premise - and seek to assert that atheists have a duty to oppose religion.

That all just makes these guys sound like religious preachers - demanding fealty to their ideology and dismissing other ideologies as evil.

I hold that these fellows are exactly representative of that which they supposedly oppose - dogma.


The End of Faith does not conclude that religion is evil. (in fact Sam Harris claims to draw inspiration from religion, particularly eastern religions, he even practices meditation.)

He merely notes that there are a subset of complete whackos who are religious, and that the vast majority of so called religious people (whom he recognizes are sane, rational, well-meaning, and generally good people) unintentionally give validity to the ideas held by, and actions committed by, the fanatics.

The conclusion is that in a world where we possess the technological ability to wipe out life as we know it, we can hardly afford to give all that tacit or unintentional approval to the ideas that a few hold literally.

If anything its a call to the moderates to speak out against the morons in their midst (very similar to westerners demanding moderate muslims speak out against fanaticism), and if they are not truly committed to their religion (i.e., just doing it to please the in-laws, the parents, or for the socializing) that they really just drop the charade.

Andrew

[andrewl]

more than anything else, he assumes that the extremes of religion are the real representatives of a religion rather than just the far extremes. His understanding of Islam is also deeply flawed, borderline insulting.

Furthermore, the man is just an ass because he treats anyone who happens to believe in something you can't prove to be stupid.


That is incorrect, as per my reply to Michael above. Its the exact opposite of what you claim.

[The Drunk Guy]

Is this thread from the AVClub? Should I be telling a "fucktard" to "die of cancerAIDS?"

[Non Sequitur]

The End of Faith does not conclude that religion is evil. (in fact Sam Harris claims to draw inspiration from religion, particularly eastern religions, he even practices meditation.)

He merely notes that there are a subset of complete whackos who are religious, and that the vast majority of so called religious people (whom he recognizes are sane, rational, well-meaning, and generally good people) unintentionally give validity to the ideas held by, and actions committed by, the fanatics.

The conclusion is that in a world where we possess the technological ability to wipe out life as we know it, we can hardly afford to give all that tacit or unintentional approval to the ideas that a few hold literally.

If anything its a call to the moderates to speak out against the morons in their midst (very similar to westerners demanding moderate muslims speak out against fanaticism), and if they are not truly committed to their religion (i.e., just doing it to please the in-laws, the parents, or for the socializing) that they really just drop the charade.

Andrew

but his point is that religious ideas are dangerous in themselves, not that people themselves are crazy and use certain ideas. I have a significant problem with this statement because what he is saying is that something is wrong with religious belief itself, not people.

[andrewl]

but his point is that religious ideas are dangerous in themselves, not that people themselves are crazy and use certain ideas. I have a significant problem with this statement because what he is saying is that something is wrong with religious belief itself, not people.

He does argue that many (or most) religious ideas are just really bad ideas, and insofar as people really believe those ideas they base their actions on them. But he also notes that most adherents to religion do not in fact believe these ideas, and so they do not act on them. Although, these moderates (cafeteria catholics, for example) by virtue of the fact that they tacitly give validity to these ideas for the people that do hold them literally and act on them are indeed helping to manifest the danger of these ideas.

Its not just the ideas he is criticizing though. Ideas that lack beleif remain only as impotent words or text and nothing more. Its when people really and truly beleive these ideas, and they are given validity and impetus by moderates, that the danger is truly realized. People still act as the agency that triggers the danger.

Andrew

[Zarquon]

I have the following misconception:
No religion->No conservatives->No bullshit->WIN!
Mind correcting me?

[Michael]

I have the following misconception:
No religion->No conservatives->No bullshit->WIN!
Mind correcting me?
Okay.

No religion -> No society -> No laws -> loose!

[Donkey]

I have the following misconception:
No religion->No conservatives->No bullshit->WIN!
Mind correcting me?

Okay.

No religion -> No society -> No laws -> loose!
Well I disagree with both of you! :ummm:

[Michael]

Well I disagree with both of you! :ummm:

That's all well and fine. Where is your argument?

[Zarquon]

Okay.

No religion -> No society -> No laws -> loose!
I'd say the fact that there are some 26o Million atheists worldwide, and it hasn't really ruined the world any more than it was(who are vastly underrepresented amongst the world prison population I might add), and that Scandinavian countries and the Chinese seem to get on perfectly well without much religiosity, would indicate that society can get on perfectly well without religion.
Secular ethics and humanist values could certainly take religion's p;ace and do a much better job at promoting fulfillment. In fact, if people no longer believed in the supernatural, they would have a hard time justifying anthropocentrism, regionalism, chauvinism, sexism, racism, homophobia, and all other parochial isms.
Indeed, without a belief in the soul and the afterlife, people would have to confront their own mortality, justify and reevaluate their beliefs, which would lead more humility, and a concerned with the welfare of not just themselves but also of others, and not let injustice and hyocrisy be.

[Non Sequitur]

Secular ethics and humanist values could certainly take religion's p;ace and do a much better job at promoting fulfillment. In fact, if people no longer believed in the supernatural, they would have a hard time justifying anthropocentrism, regionalism, chauvinism, sexism, racism, homophobia, and all other parochial isms.
Indeed, without a belief in the soul and the afterlife, people would have to confront their own mortality, justify and reevaluate their beliefs, which would lead more humility, and a concerned with the welfare of not just themselves but also of others, and not let injustice and hyocrisy be.

History does show that the believers who believe in more than just "cheap grace" do work to end injustice. There is a list filled with people who devoted their lives to end injustice because of religious principles. Hypocrisy is a function of human nature.

[Zarquon]

History does show that the believers who believe in more than just "cheap grace" do work to end injustice. There is a list filled with people who devoted their lives to end injustice because of religious principles. Hypocrisy is a function of human nature.
No argument with that, the fact is religion often acts as an excuse for and sometimes even encourages parochial mentalities and belief in an after life is certainly a barrier towards bringing about better conditions in this one.

[Non Sequitur]

No argument with that, the fact is religion often acts as an excuse for and sometimes even encourages parochial mentalities and belief in an after life is certainly a barrier towards bringing about better conditions in this one.

Very true, but that is why religion that falls into the escapist mentality is almost universally condemned as Heresy. In Christian theology we call it Gnosticism (the Catholic Church actually calls it "Americanism" in some cases interestingly enough). Most unfortunately, large parts American Christianity falls into gnostic modes of thinking.

[Michael]

I'd say the fact that there are some 26o Million atheists worldwide, and it hasn't really ruined the world any more than it was(who are vastly underrepresented amongst the world prison population I might add), and that Scandinavian countries and the Chinese seem to get on perfectly well without much religiosity, would indicate that society can get on perfectly well without religion.
Secular ethics and humanist values could certainly take religion's p;ace and do a much better job at promoting fulfillment. In fact, if people no longer believed in the supernatural, they would have a hard time justifying anthropocentrism, regionalism, chauvinism, sexism, racism, homophobia, and all other parochial isms.
Indeed, without a belief in the soul and the afterlife, people would have to confront their own mortality, justify and reevaluate their beliefs, which would lead more humility, and a concerned with the welfare of not just themselves but also of others, and not let injustice and hyocrisy be.
All that is well and fine, but how does one get to where we are in society without the integral help of religious institutions to get here?

My point is that religious institutions have historically been one of the integral elements in the creation and establishment of civil society. Wipe away religion and you potentially wipe away one of the pillars that civil society stands upon. That risks rocking the foundations as it were. That's not prudent or wise if one values the freedom and prosperity of civil society.

Btw, from a historical perspective, I'd say that atheism is a luxury afforded by modernism (much like civil rights or gay rights).

[Donkey]

That's all well and fine. Where is your argument?
:) I was literally running out the door to the airport.
I have the following misconception:
No religion->No conservatives->No bullshit->WIN!
Mind correcting me?
If I may be so bold, humans are perfectly capable of employing glorious bullshit without believing in God.
Okay.

No religion -> No society -> No laws -> loose!
Society and its rules predates humanity, upon which religion is more or less dependent, and its rules survive quite fine without it. While we live in a religiously obsessed culture, our theoretical political structure is secular... I'm an atheist (and so are you if I recall correctly), but neither of us is running around urinating on the social contract.

Indeed, religion is as often used to challenge the status quo as it is to enforce it. Religion is at its best when it is oppressed.

[Zarquon]

All that is well and fine, but how does one get to where we are in society without the integral help of religious institutions to get here?

My point is that religious institutions have historically been one of the integral elements in the creation and establishment of civil society. Wipe away religion and you potentially wipe away one of the pillars that civil society stands upon. That risks rocking the foundations as it were. That's not prudent or wise if one values the freedom and prosperity of civil society.

Btw, from a historical perspective, I'd say that atheism is a luxury afforded by modernism (much like civil rights or gay rights).
I do not argue that religion might have instrumental in human development(so were rape, incest, and murder) as it promotes conformity and order.
I argue that its a tribalist institution that has outlived its utility and that we should be able to do(and in the literal sense already are) without it in the present and the future.
We have govt and laws, so we don't need religion and its 'morality'.
And you can't ignore tribes like the Piraha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people), while making your 'argument from history'.

[The Drunk Guy]

Indeed, religion is as often used to challenge the status quo as it is to enforce it. Religion is at its best when it is oppressed.
I disagree. Oppression leads to tension and rage. Rather, religion is best when taken as a moral philosophy and not as a rule book for everyday living. Learning how to treat others is much different than learning how to judge and persecute others.

[Zarquon]

I disagree. Oppression leads to tension and rage. Rather, religion is best when taken as a moral philosophy and not as a rule book for everyday living. Learning how to treat others is much different than learning how to judge and persecute others.
Its morality is deontological at best and childish/arbitrary at worst, we can and already have done better morally(UN declaration of Human Rights, the principle of civil liberties,etc); god and religion stopped being effective explainers, exhorters, and inspirers long ago(for educated people), now their main function is consolation.
No wonder the only place you find god in academia is in literature and theology.

[The Drunk Guy]

Its morality is deontological at best and childish/arbitrary at worst, we can and already have done better morally(UN declaration of Human Rights, the principle of civil liberties,etc); god and religion stopped being effective explainers, exhorters, and inspirers long ago(for educated people), now their main function is consolation.
No wonder the only place you find god in academia is in literature and theology.
I strongly feel that people use religion as an excuse to accept their ignorance. As long as their "right with God," they feel that they are knowledgeable and wise enough to decide things, not only for themselves, but for others. I like to think of religion as a wheelchair being used by someone perfectly capable of walking. It's an excuse to achieve less because their actions have frivolous effects here as eternity will be spent elsewhere.

[Michael]

I strongly feel that people use religion as an excuse to accept their ignorance. As long as their "right with God," they feel that they are knowledgeable and wise enough to decide things, not only for themselves, but for others. I like to think of religion as a wheelchair being used by someone perfectly capable of walking. It's an excuse to achieve less because their actions have frivolous effects here as eternity will be spent elsewhere.

That sounds all well and fine, but it sure doesn't explain my mother. She's certainly a Christian, goes to church regularly, and often expresses her belief that some inexplicable things are "God's will".

She's not ignorant at all, though she's not exactly the most informed person in the world either. And she certainly doesn't use religion as a crutch (or I've never seen any evidence of this). She is troubled by, but entirely silent on the subject of her atheist children.

In other words, I don't think one can generalize about religious people like that. I've personally been surprised when I found out various persons whom I assumed to be atheists were not - I'm normally quite perceptive about people's religion.

[The Drunk Guy]

That sounds all well and fine, but it sure doesn't explain my mother. She's certainly a Christian, goes to church regularly, and often expresses her belief that some inexplicable things are "God's will".

She's not ignorant at all, though she's not exactly the most informed person in the world either. And she certainly doesn't use religion as a crutch (or I've never seen any evidence of this). She is troubled by, but entirely silent on the subject of her atheist children.

In other words, I don't think one can generalize about religious people like that. I've personally been surprised when I found out various persons whom I assumed to be atheists were not - I'm normally quite perceptive about people's religion.
I'm not stereotyping type, but most folks do act the way I described. I understand that not all religious folks are like that, but I don't think they would cry out in rage to see their faith slipping into the history books either.

My guess is that they're in the mindset of either "better safe than sorry" or "it's comforting." Nothing wrong with that, but those folks aren't going to work hard to change the direction of the faith from extremism to calm rationalism either.

[Americano]

I'd define my mother as a Christian. Though it could be a difficult personal decision for her between Jesus and casino video poker machines.

[Michael]

I do not argue that religion might have instrumental in human development(so were rape, incest, and murder) as it promotes conformity and order.
I argue that its a tribalist institution that has outlived its utility and that we should be able to do(and in the literal sense already are) without it in the present and the future.
That is a statement of faith or ideology, it is not reason based on evidence.

Only a very small minority of human beings actually admit to having disbelief in God.

If opinion polls indicated that a majority of people disbelieved in God, then I'd say you might have a point here. But the numbers aren't even close.

The history of civil society has been intimately intertwined with the history of religion since the beginning of all known history. I don't feel confident of the ability (or motive) of ideological atheists to perform elective surgery to separate the two.

We have govt and laws, so we don't need religion and its 'morality'.
Laws are simply government sanctioned or codified morality. :D

And you can't ignore tribes like the Piraha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people), while making your 'argument from history'.
Yes I can.

That tribe does not represent an example of civil society. The are pre-literate and pre-historic savages. :shrug:

[SMadsen]

That's all well and fine. Where is your argument?
The simple argument is that there isn't a single concept that wouldn't exist without religions.

No part of society is an invention of religion, - not even religions themselves. Religions base their concepts on already existing concepts, not the other way 'round.