Julian Baggini attacks "Four Horseman"

[DMB]

The Norwegian Humanist magazine Fritanke has an article by British atheist Julian Baggini attacking "the Four Horseman", Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

http://www.fritanke.no/ENGLISH/2009/The_new_atheist_movement_is_destructive/

He admits to not having read their books, so his criticisms are based on press articles and interviews.

His basic beef seems to be that atheism (despite the name) does not depend on having religion to attack.

It is only because of historical accident that atheism is not widely recognised as a world-view in its own right. This world view is essentially a very general form of naturalism, in which there are not two kinds of stuff, the natural and the supernatural, but one. The forces that govern this substance are also natural ones and there is no ultimate purpose or agency behind them. Human life is biological, and thus does not survive beyond biological death.


The Horsemen OTOH find plenty to attack in religion and Baggini sees this as harmful

It reinforces what I believe is a myth, that an atheist without a bishop to bash is like a fish without water. Worse, it raises the possibility that as a matter of fact, for many atheists, they do indeed need an enemy to give them their identity.

Is he right?

[Oolon Colluphid]

No, it's a lot of rot. Certainly for Dawkins, and probably for the others, they only write about religion because it's so in-your-face. It's there, whichever way you turn. And its proponents keep sticking their oar in, unbidden. 'Four-Horsemen atheism' is a response, not a baseline. The rest of the time, I'm sure they would go along entirely with 'Jonathan Miller atheism', not even thinking about their lack of faith.

That's the bottom line. You only think about it -- or talk about it, or write about it -- when someone brings their own faithheadedness up.

He's effectively arguing that it's a religion, when we all know it's a hair colour (bald).

[tjakey]

There is no god, religion has it wrong, I figured that out, so I am an atheist.

But if everyone figured out there was no god then none of us would be atheists?

Me thinks Baggini is trying to stir up a word storm in a semantic teapot.

[Ray Moscow]

Send Julian to the US Bible Belt for a few years, and then let's see what he thinks.

"In your face" doesn't being to cover it.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

If the issue were one of aggressively pursuing rebuttal of quiet, largely ceremonial religiosity which otherwise yielded to reason on practical matters, then I think Baggini would be correct. But having grown up in a place that prides itself as the "buckle" of the so-called bible belt and having later been involved in the larger evangelical movement which takes crazy everywhere within US borders, I can say from first-hand and sadly prolonged experience that quiet dignity and civil disagreement are inadequate to the task of slowing (much less stopping) religious hysteria.

Reason alone cannot quiet a panicked herd. It takes strong presence, a type of force if you will. The zealous of any religion are masters in its use and are unable or unwilling to respond to anything less.

[BioBeing]

He admits to not having read their books, so his criticisms are based on press articles and interviews

....

Is he right?

I am not going to read his article on principle, but based on half reading your summary I can tell you that he is 100% wrong.

I mean wtf??? About 90% of the "reviews" of books like the God Delusion I have come across in the press have been by people who have not read them. Come on people! Read the book, then write a review. Do not base your review on someone else review which he based on a what a friend said after he skimmed it in Borders, or was that another book...

[Ray Moscow]

Dawkins has a way of writing books that get reviewed based on their titles alone.

Or maybe that speaks more of the reviewers ....?

[BioBeing]

And btw - he is wrong. Atheism by itself is not a worldview. There are atheists who believe in the supernatural (like ghosts).

And I am an atheist who also happens to bash religion (at least on internet forums). The former does not automatically lead to the latter.

Who is this jerk?

[Mediancat]

Well, the part where he invoked Pac-Man was a surprise, and the opening line was tolerable, but honestly, comparing the "four horsemen" to fascist dictators pushed the entire thing over the edge.

-- bear in mind, I'm only reviewing based on what I've heard about his article, I haven't actually read it . . .

Rob

[trendkill]

It is only because of historical accident that atheism is not widely recognised as a world-view in its own right. This world view is essentially a very general form of naturalism, in which there are not two kinds of stuff, the natural and the supernatural, but one.So does that mean atheism depends on having belief in the supernatural to attack?


-- bear in mind, I'm only reviewing based on what I've heard about his article, I haven't actually read it . . .

Rob
Same here.

[lpetrich]

I read his article, and he seems to be saying that they are too focused on opposing something rather than saying what they are for.

But he could at least take the time to read those books, so he'll get an idea of what they are arguing, rather than simply claiming "I've seen it all before."

Being an atheist does not necessarily mean being anti-religion. One can be an atheist and be indifferent to religion, or even be a believer in Plato's Royal Lie theory of religion.

[David B]

I read his article, and he seems to be saying that they are too focused on opposing something rather than saying what they are for.

But he could at least take the time to read those books, so he'll get an idea of what they are arguing, rather than simply claiming "I've seen it all before."

Being an atheist does not necessarily mean being anti-religion. One can be an atheist and be indifferent to religion, or even be a believer in Plato's Royal Lie theory of religion.

This atheist is anti-religion.

Introspection is not very reliable, I think, but my best guess is that having been sucked into religion myself, when I wasn't well informed about all sorts of things that I do understand now, I don't want to see other people to be similarly led astray.

So I argue against woo in general, of which religion (unless very both liberally and sympathetically interpreted, is a part.

A sort of empathy and altruism thing, as best I understand my own motivations.

David

[Oolon Colluphid]

If the issue were one of aggressively pursuing rebuttal of quiet, largely ceremonial religiosity which otherwise yielded to reason on practical matters, then I think Baggini would be correct. But having grown up in a place that prides itself as the "buckle" of the so-called bible belt and having later been involved in the larger evangelical movement which takes crazy everywhere within US borders, I can say from first-hand and sadly prolonged experience that quiet dignity and civil disagreement are inadequate to the task of slowing (much less stopping) religious hysteria.
cf:
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.
http://richarddawkins.net/print.php?id=1071

[Oolon Colluphid]

I am not going to read his article on principle, but based on half reading your summary ... Do not base your review on someone else review which he based on a what a friend said after he skimmed it in Borders, or was that another book...
Erm...

:p


ETA: or was that your point?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Now, if he'd referred to The One Horseman, and targeted Christopher Hitchens alone, he might have a point. Before GING I wasn't particularly familiar with Hitchens, but he certainly comes across as defining himself by what he's against.

But then, I suppose that if you make your living by being an iconoclast, that's inevitable, so shouldn't be held against Hitchens. If you're known for constantly attacking stuff, you're bound to look as if you're only interested in attacking stuff. Lose-lose situation.

[Worldtraveller]

And that's a pretty accurate summary of Hitchens. Sometimes I think he continued his support for the war in Iraq because 1) He didn't want to admit he was wrong; 2) It got him lots of interview time on Faux News where he might not have been otherwise; 3) It allowed him to still cause an uproar amongst the general demographic of those who support his views on religion.

He does have a good sense of humor though, and my brief meetings with him leads me to believe he's a wierd version of Rush Limbaugh (i.e. I'm not sure he really believes a lot of the stuff he spouts, but he knows what gets publicity).

I got him to sign my copy of his book "To Lane, fuck you" :D

[DMB]

Hitchens certainly stands out as different from the others. He seems to have moved from fairly far left to rather rightish during his lifetime. He enjoys attacking (think of the wonderful demolition job he did on Mother Teresa) and because he is extraordinarily articulate and good at thinking on his feet, he runs rings round the opposition.

[BioBeing]

I am not going to read his article on principle, but based on half reading your summary ... Do not base your review on someone else review which he based on a what a friend said after he skimmed it in Borders, or was that another book...
Erm...

:p


ETA: or was that your point?

Yup - that was the point. ;)

[wordy]

The Horsemen OTOH find plenty to attack in religion and Baggini sees this as harmful

I think it depends on the circumstances.

If one attack something then a lot of people think the attack is not fair and they start to defend the thing one look down on and that which one defend is easily seen in good light.

so if one find it necessary to attack religion then one need to find very proper level of criticism.

The more I hated Christian faith the more drawn I was to defend it in the end.

A kind of paradox. Same with anti-racism and anti-xenophobism ??? the more I fighted racism and xenophobia the more I tended to see their point of it. Very disturbing.

I wish someone could take a hard look into why Populist Parties are so big in Europe. Several countries they are above 4 percent and in some they reach very high figures.

I think that people tend to defend those they see as unjustly declared a villain or mean person?

so if we are very unlucky our constant harping about how bad Christian faith is maybe trigger a revival for Evangelism and they take power in Europe 2015 or so. They would make a law against any kind even very mild criticism of personal faith in a god .