Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a pretty big John Gray fan; I consider his book 'Straw Dogs' to be the greatest book I've ever read. I also enjoyed 'The Immortalization Commission' and the parts of 'Black Mass' and 'The Soul of the Marionette' which I've read (I have 'Black Mass' on PDF and intend to read it in full at some point). He's an erudite and honest writer who is best described as a nihilist, which is entirely in line with my sensibilities. So naturally, his new book caught my eye when I spotted it on Tuesday. This morning, I read the first two sevenths, and...I think it would be a great book for some members of this forum to read, if only because I think it would pretty much anger the lot of you. His first chapter is dedicated to eviscerating New Atheism, which he calls uninteresting and says that he will not mention for the rest of the book upon the conclusion of that chapter. I agree with his criticism of Sam Harris' 'The Moral Landscape' (he never mentioned the book by name, but he was clearly referencing it when he discussed Sam's claim that science alone could determine human ethics); Dennett and Hitchens are spared in this chapter, but he also goes after Dawkins for lack of understanding of 'what religion truly is'--historically more important for the cultural significance of its rituals rather than a set of beliefs to be examined/critiqued as if they were scientific hypotheses or outright claims. I have mixed feelings about this argument, which I've seen others also make; I've always thought 'new atheism' to be too unsympathetic and uncompromising in its religion-bashing, but I also think Gray goes too far here in his emphasis on practice/'faith' over the actual tenets of belief. Good stuff, though, regardless.
The second chapter is a takedown of secular humanism, wherein he goes after Kara Zetterberg's favorite Bertrand Russell (for a few pages, only--one of the things I like about Gray is that he never spends much time on a single topic, which works well with my attention span) and John Stuart Mill (about whom he'd already written an entire book--perhaps that's an exception to the 'never spending much time on a single topic' general rule), among others. His main thesis here is that atheists tend to have faith in the gradual improvement (if not perfectability) of the species and in 'moral progress', a stance he denigrates time and time again. I largely agree with his cynicism here; he'd probably have done well to reference atheist psychologist-rather-than-philosopher Steven Pinker in this section, as I couldn't help but think of Pinker's 'The Better Angels Of Our Nature' several times during this chapter. In the part about Russell, he mentions that Russell's stance on the value of religion (among other things) changed frequently throughout his life, which is perhaps unavoidable over a 98-year lifespan, but Gray's not about to let those changes of opinion go unnoticed.
Anyway, as I said, I'm a big John Gray fan, so I'm biased here, but I'd recommend this book to all here, if only to hear some angry feedback from the posters here whose favorite flavor of atheism is sure to have been critiqued by Gray herein. He states at the outset that he's sympathetic to two of the seven 'types' of atheism that he covers--the last two, and two which I already figure to be of the bleaker variety. I skipped ahead and read the two-page conclusion, and it is one of the finer pieces of writing I've encountered; if I ever actually buy the book as opposed to reading the entire thing over several separate trips to the bookstore, I'll post that essay in its entirety here.
It sounds to me as though he has something to learn. But setting out his case in respect of each point might be thought - provoking. It certainly shouldn't annoy us as if the criticism is justified, we could learn from it, and if it isn't it will bite him in the ass.
I see a few hints of flawed thinking. That he finds "New" Atheism 'uninteresting is his opinion and he is free to express it. If he is suggesting that other people should find it uninteresting too, it puts his thinking in a rather odd light.
What was the other thing I noted.. Science alone could determine human ethics'. It is forgivable as it's a statement that is easy to misunderstand. I think the point is (or ought to be) that morals and ethics are a human construct, given basic survival instincts. Thus, what can tell us, in time, about instincts and human thinking? If is isn't science, in the end - perhaps - then what? I don't think that he has thought it through or even knows what he needs to be thinking through. It SOUNDS like some sort of idea of an impalpable universal moral law floating about thet humans can access.
At this stage, I must say that i don't even want to know what his religious views are. I want only to get his arguments clear to see whether they stack up. So far, I'm not placing any bets on it.
At this stage, I must say that i don't even want to know what his religious views are. I want only to get his arguments clear to see whether they stack up. So far, I'm not placing any bets on it.
He's an atheist. Which is what makes his criticism of lots of different atheists all the more interesting, to me. Don't you ever read his occasional submissions to the Guardian and the like over there in the UK? Not sure how prominent he is in his home country; maybe not very, eh.
As a life long atheist I have zero interest in reading books about atheism, or written by atheists, that the main subject is atheism.
Sounds way too much like the religious reading their bibles.
Pass.
Hey, your prerogative. Gray's books are heavy on intellectual history which is to me edifying in its own right. But I've always been a philosophical sort, and I read stuff like this for fun, and I always will as long as I have a functioning central nervous system. Some of my favorite books ever are squarely in the 'atheist' [sub-]genre--including multiple books by Harris, who is lampooned by Gray in this here book, as mentioned. To me it's also somewhat amusing that you'll read thousands of posts on this forum about atheism but refuse to read a book--why you make that distinction, I'm not entirely sure. With a book like 'Seven Types of Atheism', atheism isn't exactly what I'd call the main subject--it's more the overall philosophies of people who either identify/identified as atheists or can be considered as such.
Last edited by Matt Marcinkiewicz; 10-11-2018 at 04:24 PM..
To me it's also somewhat amusing that you'll read thousands of posts on this forum about atheism but refuse to read a book--why you make that distinction, I'm not entirely sure.
Based on the summary provided in the OP, I feel no need to read the book because none of the criticisms offered apply to me or my particular brand of atheism. Mine is narrow, it means that I do not believe in any particular god while not pretending that I do know the answers to the riddles of the cosmos. My attitudes toward secular humanism, thoughts about those who are religious, are separate matters from the question of is there or isn't there a god. My opinions on those first two could change without it having any impact on my stance on the third.
He's an atheist. Which is what makes his criticism of lots of different atheists all the more interesting, to me. Don't you ever read his occasional submissions to the Guardian and the like over there in the UK? Not sure how prominent he is in his home country; maybe not very, eh.
I stopped reading daily news some time ago. Though I rated the Guardian above most of the others, despite its' habit of putting the rights of every other people above the rights of the UK (and I'm no Trump -loving Brexiter).
So he's an atheist. I still think he is exhibiting some misconceptions about atheism. There is only one kind of atheism - there are several kind of atheists. And his lack of interest in 'New' atheism is purely his own opinion, not any particular criticism of it (1). The thinking seems to be journalistically sloppy.
But as I say, if the points he is making are set out, he could be making some valid ones. Of course living in the Uk, he may not see religion as a problem. 'Tolerance and Respect' is the watchword. You really have to Do atheism for a while before you realise what a thing religion is to be dumped on humanity, and perhaps he doesn't realise how the values he presumably espouses (in every article he gets published in the Guardian) have the best hope of moving onto the next social level of reason from kneejerk instinct. And that means leaving religion behind.
And that means people leaving it behind because they come to understand what a crock it is. And that means
people telling them. And that means "New" Atheism (2). And his lack of interest is just laziness really. If not ignorance. I won't even suggest good old "Respect", which is the thin end of blasphemy law.
Ok, we don't expect all atheists to be militant, but I wish they wouldn't fight us for - so far as I can see - no good reason at all.
Again I'm forcibly reminded of prof. Stavrakopulou, who is speaking out against 'New' atheism, while at the same time complaining about the problems religion causes for a Bible -scholar who happens to be an atheist. She is fighting on the wrong side. I know why - she is fascinated by the bible; it's her life's work. I don't know what the angle is of this fellow.
Could be the usual British problem. 'I don't believe any of that stuff, but -where's the harm if it makes people happy? And it does a lot of nice good, especially to nice hobbittses, it's not nice, not kind, is it precious, to attack religion, which does no harm to anybody".
Yes, I think that may be it. There's even a growing awareness that over-tolerance of Islam has become a feature of near - dogmatic British PC. And one that needs to be corrected.
(1) though it sounds like the familiar "I don't like it, but saying 'Not Interested' excuses me from having to exhibit my biases".
(2) which is of course, the same as Old Atheism, but is different in that it will no longer be bullied and intimidated into silence.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-12-2018 at 02:29 AM..
There is only one kind of atheism - there are several kind of atheists.
Yes and no...? I mean, do you deny the basic distinction between, say, weak and strong atheism--lack of belief versus active nonbelief? He actually took his title from a 1930s book called 'Seven Types Of Ambiguity', written by an atheist poet he seems to have admired. So it's somewhat of a device, but, yes, it's mostly about the many different kinds of atheists--there in reality being as many kinds of atheism as there are atheists, just as there are as many kinds of Christianity as there are Christians, etc.
Since I wrote this original post, I returned to the bookstore and read chapter 3, which has a phenomenal 4-5-page take on [the folly of] transhumanism that is worth quoting in full, and I then skipped ahead to an illuminating 7-8-page discussion of the Marquis de Sade, which was awesomely written. Suffice it to say, I am converted to the cause of this book!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
