A Proletarian critique of 'New' Atheists

[punter18]

http://libcom.org/library/critique-new-atheists

The writer is labeling 'New Atheism' bourgeois atheism and criticizing it for its tendency toward scientism, and cites Dawkins's The God Delusion and Hitchens's God Is Not Great, among other western writers, to formulate the critique. I think I would agree with this conclusion of his in the article:

In conclusion the problem with the New Atheists is that there is nothing new about them: it is the same old bourgeois atheism which cannot offer humanity anything except the cold dead universe of scientism, to replace religious illusions. It leaves humanity forever trapped inside its own ego, forever peering out into a hostile alien universe which threatens at all times to engulf them. This is not a ‘view’ which is thought of and articulated consciously by many writers but rather a trend of modern consciousness in general, reflecting the material workings and basis of bourgeois society.

What are your thoughts on it?

[Rum]

It has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of gods.

[Animavore]

Science is amazing to me. It is, to me, infinitely better than religion. When I read books like Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale or Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos I find myself digesting the pages with keen, wide-eyed interest at how awesome everything is. When I read The Bible or The Koran I find myself rolling my eyes, scratching my head or bored out of my mind.
And speaking of boring - church and all its trappings bore me. Hearing priests talking about things they can't possibly know (like where my dead granddad is now) are a source of irritation to me.
That is to say, I completely disagree with the author. He may be of the opinion that without "religious illusions" the world is a cold, empty place but this is just his opinion, he may not be able to live without a religious discipline which is fine but not my cup of tea. I find the universe to be a large, interesting and amazing place which we haven't even dipped our toes into. The thought of 'what is out there' leaves my mind boggled and drives my imagination crazy. Thoughts of God don't do anything for me.

It's not that he's wrong and it may hold true for him. He may not be able to live without distress without the comfort of religion. He just doesn't seem to be able to get his head around the fact some of us can live happily without religion.

[MiM]

What Rum and Ani said.

The existence of God is not a question to be decided by how we would like things to be. If the author thinks he is better off living in a fairy tale, that's his prerogative.

And I find the "bourgeois" labelling quite qaint

[punter18]

Sorry, the proper headline of the title should have been 'Critique of New Atheists', restricted mainly to Dawkins and Hitchens, not '...Atheism'. I have edited the OP's headline.

[Animavore]

Well by extension I would say there's nothing wrong with offering humanity nothing but the "cold, dead universe of scientism". I read and enjoy science books all the time and so do countless others. I don't even read fiction that much any more. I hope that scientists will continue writing books on the latest, cutting-edge science for the rest of my life.

[Azathoth]

As soon as someone uses the word bourgeois I dismiss them as a wanker.

[FBM]

"Proletarian Critique" would be a good name for a metal band.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So "new" atheism can't offer anything except the universe? Not a bad offer as far as I can see, seeing as that's all there is! The scientific facts about it may appear cold to some but nevertheless, they are facts - and extensively researched, rigorously tested and mutually consistent facts at that.

Religion, on the other hand, can only offer clappy-happy fairy-tales that bear as much relation to reality as MickeyTM does to a mouse. What's more, its proffered fairy-tales are not even consistent within any single religion, let alone between them.

Bullshit may be nice and warm but something about it stinks.

[Robert_S]

Who's paying for this guy to get his masters degree in religion? I got a job and bills to pay so I'll be damned if I'm going to spend my precious time worrying about whether my beliefs can be labeled bourgeois. There's too many real things out there to learn about and too many relevant issues to mull over.

[Hermit]

http://libcom.org/library/critique-new-atheists

What are your thoughts on it?

there is a division in Marx’s view between the true and false aspects of religion, the fantasy and consolation which is purely the result of a situation which “requires illusions”

The required illusion of a god belongs to feudalism, not capitalism. The required illusion of the latter is the autonomous human being. While Marx correctly observes and describes in a more sophisticated way what Feuerbach had noted, that "der Mensch ist was er isst," he has tripped over that distinction. In order to criticise the "New Atheist's" allegedly irrelevant scientism and rationalism, he needs to show that religious sentiments are fundamental necessities in capitalist societies. Good luck to him with that endeavour. There is neither theoretical nor empirical evidence for such necessity. The separation of the 'I' from the rest of existence is not at all grounded in religion in capitalist societies.

If the article is meant to be a Marxist critique of Dawkins' and Hitchens' 'New Atheism', it is rather insubstantial. The author is too preoccupied with Freud, Jung and Brown at the expense of Marx, the only quoted works of whom were written very early in his career (1843 & 44). By the time Marx died almost 40 years later, his approach to issues had changed considerably.


On a trivial note, and just in case you are in contact with the author, "principle defects" should read "principal defects." Similarly later on when the author refers to "The principle difference."

[Audley Strange]

Wait, someone is writing a Marxist critique of New Atheism as being too bourgeois and yet fails to see the entire undertaking itself as being even more so?

Should I read it or consider it academic noise?

[mistermack]

If the good thing about religion is that it's warm and comforting, why on earth should we bother with one that promises us eternal damnation, if we don't behave as someone said, two thousand years ago?

If the actual truth doesn't matter, why not start a new religion, that is much warmer and more comforting? Where animals have souls too, so I can be reunited with Prince, my favorite Collie. And where virgins who go to heaven don't have to wait around being sex-slaves to some spotty git who blew himself up.

Why not invent a god that doesn't want to be praised all the time?
Simply invent the NICEST religion possible, and believe in that. And make it one that DOESN'T want your money.

[Robert_S]

I'll read this again, but I have to say my initial reaction as a prole is one of dismissal.

It reminds me too much of the cilantro incident. I was once waxing on about how wonderful I find fresh cilantro to be in a burrito when someone denigrated it as a "yuppie food". I was rendered speechless by that. I discovered it's wonders when I was living in a low rent working class area in the East Bay (San Francisco Bay: 23rd street, Richmond, California to be precise) where people got shot every night in gang wars and the toxic fumes from the Chevron plant made a lot of people sick. I was asked by the guy cooking burritos in one of those mobile burrito stands if I would care for some on mine.

How did it happen that this guy would call this stuff that you can get a week's supply of for around $0.95 US yuppie food? My guess is that he was too worried about where the idea came from to appreciate something that's cheap and makes life better. It might seem trivial but didn't one nation lose a strategic advantage because they rejected "Jewish Physics" and another nation have problems with their agriculture sector because they rejected "bourgeois science"? Same principle, isn't it?

[Svartalf]

As soon as someone uses the word bourgeois I dismiss them as a wanker.

Well, here, the class struggle still is kicking a little... but bourgeois atheism? I mean, it's the bourgeois establishment that keeps the church in funds and whatever position of moral authority it has... if only because it helps contain the great unwashed (or used to).