Ocean Keltoi sent me and I'm so glad that he did! You definitely have a new subscriber here. Looking forward to seeing what else you discuss and to bingeing the rest of your content! Thank you for handling this topic in such an eloquent and thoughtful manner.
I am so pleased you made this video. A few months ago I started reading the New Humanist magazine and it really had me engaged. The articles were really interesting to me. Then I decided to subscribe to the online magazine and it told me that the money was going towards the Rationalist Association. I didn't know much about this and I eventually did a search. I came across a video on TH-cam with Ricky Gervais and Richard Dawkins. They were introduced by someone who was talking about this association and how they want to rid the world of pseudoscience and religion. She said it like it was a good thing. I sat there in disbelief as if they were promoting a new world order. I have always been back and forth with religion and I do practice magick, but I consider myself a rational person and see clearly the differences between belief and faith, and science and facts, but believe we need both in this world (else surely everyone would have been made super logical which we are not - we are humans with emotions and feelings! I was so dumbfounded by watching this that I haven't read the magazine since. I know everyone has a bias, but this goes way further and is pushing an agenda that just will not be accepted by the majority of people (thankfully). The number of people who have religion at the heart of their community and way of life and actually benefit from that cannot just be erased with their opinions on what is rational and what isn't. I have always felt like there was something missing in my life and I'm pretty sure it was from being raised by a narcissist and not having that loving family experience that most have, but using magick and believing in something more out there, however much I find it hard to believe that it is the absolute truth, is something that has an impact on this emptiness I have felt. I think that these New Atheists are very closed-minded and are not considering how religion, as a whole, does a lot of good in the world, even though there are several things that are harmful about it, and perhaps the issues with it will get better over time as it becomes more modernised. You've made some excellent points in this video. Thank you for making it!
Thank you so much for your comment, I’m glad you found the video interesting and helpful! Like you I’ve also been back and forth about religion-I’m not a theist, but I do engage in religious and magical practices. I used to be friends with some very rationalist atheists who do believe religion in all its forms should be completely wiped out from the world… Through them, I kind of adopted a similar (although much less harsh) stance, where I thought religion was generally negative. But then, I actually started getting involved with some religious practices myself when I was at a really low point in my life, and that was ultimately what helped me get through that period of depression. Then I actually started studying religions more generally, and came to realize that New Atheists completely miss the mark in a lot of ways, as they fail to take a nuanced approach to religion that actually considers how it operates within people’s lived realities. I agree completely that we need a balance of rationality/logic and belief/faith or imagination in this world. There’s a place for rationality and the scientific method, but when it comes to religious practices that are genuinely benefiting people, I tend to think that they don’t necessarily belong there. I’m glad that magick has been so beneficial for you, and I think when it comes to things like this, it doesn’t matter what the “absolute truth” is (if there even is one). What matters is your own experience, and what it does for you!
@@theskepticalwitch6611 Yeah same...certain practices and beliefs helped me so much when I was struggling so I cannot deny their value in the lives of others. I really can't see how these people can be seemingly so intelligent (i.e. Richard Dawkins) yet not open minded enough to see anything beyond their own perspective on this. They ultimately will have no authority on those who don't share their opinion thankfully. Thanks :) I totally agree with you!
Both can easily exist as long as the religion isnt forced upon the public by an organization. Modern paganism is both optional and personalized. Sovereign practices like these do not need to be in any way opposed to science.
Thank you for this informative and well-researched video :) I sometimes wonder if anti-theism and scientism have arisen in part as an overcompensation for anti-science. I can understand people who believe in the value of science getting frustrated hearing others say things like "Just pray and God will heal you of any disease," and then taking their response beyond "Science is useful for curing diseases" to "There is no question that can't be answered through science." When people feel triggered, they can become defensive and overreact. But just as religion is not always the best approach for solving some problems, science is not the best approach for solving others. My go-to example of this is the question "What is your favorite color?" This isn't a question that has an objective answer. Yes, you could try to apply the scientific method, like by seeing what proportion of your possessions are a certain color or by scanning your brain to see if an area associated with pleasure is activated when you see a certain color, and you might even get useful information from these tests, but they can't tell you if something objectively is your favorite color, because what "favorite" means is inherently subjective, the answer can change by simply asking the question, the answer can change over time, or there might not even be an answer (maybe you just don't have a favorite color). Spoiler alert: This is pretty much exactly how I think about gender.
This is a good way of thinking about it! I agree that scientism may be a reaction against the prevalence of anti-science... it does seem people get really overly defensive about it. I like the colour analogy, that makes a lot of sense, and the connected to gender as well. Thank you for that!
I love this! This is exactly the feeling I get when talking to a lot of intense, "new atheists." It's important to understand the emotional place where someone is coming from. Also, as a trans person, I totally agree about gender. I can't explain what my gender means in an objective sense, I just know what mine feels like to me.
I both enjoyed and agreed with much in this video. I appreciate digging into the roots of the movement to help understand what is driving it today as well. I agree that to think you understand the "One True Reality" when our sciences discover crazy new possibilities daily seems shortsighted to me, even beyond the fact we only truly have our own lived experience to base our understanding on. I very much enjoyed the video. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it! I think that in today's world of rapid scientific advancement, all we can know for certain is that at this point, we can't really be certain of anything.
Important points well delivered as usual! I think there's definitely a balance between healthy scepticism and obnoxious overbearing criticism. It's why I call myself a non-theist Witch rather than Atheist as there are a lot of off-putting associations to that word.
Thank you! 😊And I totally agree-healthy skepticism is really important, and modern science is necessary in so many ways, but using it to attack religious or spiritual beliefs that aren’t harming anyone often isn’t really beneficial or productive. I also avoid the term atheist as well, because of the baggage.
I call myself an atheist! Can't say im a witch because magic is reserved for fictional stories like harry potter and no matter how you want to spin it to fit some weird definition because you want to make it feel logical despite it not being so due to absolutely no evidence of magic or spells working or spirits or fairies or anything considered supernatural Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence guys!
@@theskepticalwitch6611 what baggage? You mean the baggage RELIGIOUS PEOPLE have made the term out to be?? Why not call yourself what you are which is an atheist instead of clinging onto antiqued ideas about things you can only speculate on?
Here from OceanKeltoi too 🙋🏻♀️ excellent video! And many of the sources that you cited I can definitely use for the purpose of my own thesis. Sources like this dont usually get flagged up in my field, so it's very useful! So thanks!
@@theskepticalwitch6611 I'm in historical studies (background is Egyptology) looking at how people revive ancient religions today and the subsequent reactions from archaeolgists (often not good - though improving!).
Oooh wow that’s super interesting! Have you published anything on that yet I could read? I originally wanted to go into Egyptology before I went for anthropology/religious studies!
Metaphysical materialism is also a big problem with their thinking. This is why they actively dismiss all parapsychological research and the wast amount of literature on religous and spiritual experiences.
This is so good. It reminds me of the time I learned how young the evangelical movement is, and how erroneous it is when we act like all Christians throughout history have either been evangelicals or Catholics, which whilst most of us do know that's not true, does seem to be a way people behave. It's always more nuanced. Thank you for making this!
That's true, and a really good point. When it comes to religion, we often tend to think that the way things are now reflect the way they've always been, but that's not true. Everything is historically contingent, and often that history is a lot more recent than we think!
I think it's true, this disenchantment of the world. I think a lot of people have less reverence and connection for nature as they've moved away from believing in nature spirits/gods. As we've built more comfort in our lives thanks to science it has also increased that disconnect I've definitely been one of those people, doing this witchcraft stuff allowed me to be more mindful of life and appreciate earth and the living beings on it. I know this wasn't your main point, but it really stuck out to me!
That's great--witchcraft has really helped me in that sense too! It's allowed me to become so much more connected with the earth, and find that enchantment there :)
You seem to be implying that the fact that this notion (that science should supplant religion) was originated and promulgated by racist, sexist colonialists means that the idea itself is inherently sexist, racist, or colonialist. That is not necessarily the case. You also seem to be implying that since societies do not progress linearly from superstition to science, moving toward science and away from religion is not something that should be pursued. But societies also do not progress linearly from tribalism and warfare to equality and peace. That does not mean that equality and peace should not be pursued.
I think maybe I didn't make it clear enough in this video, but I'm not trying to argue that science itself is racist or colonialist. We have this idea in modern Western society that the Enlightenment was this incredible shining beacon of hope, and I'm not trying to attack the Enlightenment in its entirety by any means--obviously a lot of it was incredibly important for society, and it gave us a wealth of scientific and philosophical knowledge, while also helping us move away from the domination of Christianity. What I am trying to do here is show that not everything about the Enlightenment was necessarily "good"--the idea of science and reason that was constructed at the time was linked to colonialism and racism--to the superiority of the West (specifically the superiority of the white man). Science on its own is not inherently racist or colonialist or sexist, but the narratives around science created during this time *were*. And it's these *narratives* that the New Atheists cling to, without critically engaging with their colonialist roots. Many of the New Atheists speak about Enlightenment reason as though it were the "be all end all," the most incredible thing to ever happen, without critically reflecting on its implications. The idea that science should completely replace religion is a part of these Enlightenment narratives. So while someone today can certainly hold that position without implying anything racist or colonialist, the historical roots of that narrative still matter, and deserve more critical reflection.
Well Marx was very much an atheist, and he likened religion to the “opium of the masses,” as he believed it was something that kept people complacent so they wouldn’t recognize their suffering and revolt against the system
Another spectacular video. A minor correction, Daniel Dennett as far as I am aware has a more nuanced approach to religion in which he rejects the Christian religion particularly as valuable, but acknowledges the necessity of religion as it's ingrained in the brain.
Religion and science are two.sides of the same coin especially in the hands of the greedy and power hungry both feilds have done unspeakable damage. But perhaps those of us inbetween can change things forbthe better and keep thev extreem at bay
This is a strange video. I get the sense that your views and understanding of "The New Atheism" are purely academic and the result of some revisionist reading. As one of the people who would probably have been lumped in with The New Atheists - my Mr. Deity show having launched in 2007 when The New Atheism was on the rise, I can tell you that it was a response to the religious fundamentalism wreaking havoc all over the globe at that time, and since 9/11. And it wasn't simply about Islam. There were pastors here in America calling for the death and rounding up of Homosexuals, for instance. Christian fundamentalism was on the rise as a response to Islamic fundamentalism, leading to much of the bigotry we've seen towards Islam on the Right and center Right. If you don't think there's a conflict between Science and religion, you're gonna need a time machine to go back and stop Christians from destroying the Temple of Serapis and the Library of Alexandria. You're going to have to change the entire history of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries when Christianity took over the Roman Empire and put an end to pluralism. You’re going to have to keep them from destroying all the ancient wisdom/knowledge the Greeks and Romans had acquired because it conflicted with the authority of scripture. You're going to have to stop the Inquisition from threatening Galileo with torture and death simply because he had proven that the Earth does indeed move - again, in opposition to scripture. Hopefully, you can save Giordano Bruno as well - they burned him at the stake. The conflict between science and religion was not started by The New Atheists. It is a millennia old conflict between those who believe that knowledge can be acquired via revelation from the gods/God, and those who challenged such claims to knowledge, requiring repeatable, demonstrable, actionable knowledge instead. There is no actual conflict - not for rational, thinking people. In the last 4,000 years, we have no more actual knowledge of God or the supernatural realm than the ignorant, Bronze Age Shepards in the field who began such nonsense - people who didn't know where the sun went at night. Science puts men on the moon, cures disease, and discovers the fundamental particles of the universe. Religion has been relegated to Jesus showing up on various bread products - toast, tortillas, and now the pita. Indeed, the people who believe that the Blood of Jesus protected them from the Corona virus are no more. They succumbed. And even believers are putting their faith in the vaccine. When reality comes calling, there is no conflict. Science wins every single time. But no one in The New Atheism movement was trying to suppress any ideas or ways of thinking. It was a celebration of the liberation of free thinkers all around the world - many of whom were hacked to death with machetes by the religious in other parts of the world. Indeed, just look here on TH-cam - you'll find debate after debate by these New Atheists who were finally stepping forward after 1,500 years of religious suppression to make their case - proudly, boldly. They wanted MORE dialog, assured that they could demonstrate a better, clearly, less oppressive way of thinking. Are you completely unaware that Atheism used to be something that could get you killed - by the religious and religious authorities - that it still can get you killed in certain parts of the world? Finally, after all that suppression/oppression, we were able to speak our truth in public regardless of the centuries of religious bigotry toward us and our views - complete demonization. There is a conflict between science and Western Religion - those religions based on the Tribal War god of Abraham. And the conflict is one of values. I have an entire series of videos on this topic on my channel if you're interested - Science and Religion are Mortal Enemies. Inquiry, doubt, openness, transparency, progress, innovation, equality, merit, etc... these things were opposed by religion and embraced by science. Which is why over the last 400 years our world has become an infinitely better world to live in. Whereas Christianity, having complete control of Europe for 1,000 years gave us nothing but darkness and misery. Your perspective seems historically very uninformed and even a bit bigoted. The Enlightenment, and the thinking of those so engaged, are why you're living in the imperfect but wonderful world we have today. Were those thinkers perfect? No. But they laid the foundation for the progress which has led all of us here. Reason, pluralism, tolerance, progress, openness, anti-authoritarianism - to which of those values are you opposed? Finally, to say that Atheism or agnosticism don't lead to a less religious world (if I heard you correctly) is to ignore the whole of Western Europe, which through mere persuasion (and a revulsion to the history of vicious sectarian violence in those areas of the world) saw its way to a much more enlightened, civil world by abandoning religion over the last 100 years. Take a look at the statistics for well-being all over the planet. See which countries have less crime, violence, bigotry, abortion, incarceration, wealth inequality, women's and gay rights, etc... almost any metric of well-being! Then look at the percentage of people in that country who consider themselves religious. Correlate the two. I don't think you'll be surprised. I hope not.
If it seems like my understanding of New Atheism is academic, it’s because this is something I’m studying within an academic context. Maybe I’m just not looking in the right places, but interestingly, I have yet to find any academic theorists who actually take the New Atheists seriously, or don’t have a problem with their methods. I know New Atheism is largely a response to religious fundamentalism, and I am well aware that fundamentalism is incredibly oppressive and harmful. But the New Atheists don’t limit their critique to fundamentalism-they extend it to all religion, and tend to lump all religions together. And New Atheists themselves are certainly not absolved from bigotry-Sam Harris in particular contributes to Islamophobic discourse, and Richard Dawkins has been known to make very sexist and transphobic comments. I never said the conflict between science and religion was started by the New Atheists-just that they continue to uphold it as a core part of their identity. Religion and science as the categories we understand them to be today in the West really developed in the 19th century, and it is these 19th century ideals that the New Atheists still cling to. The Enlightenment was about reason, progress, innovation, etc.-but if you think it was about equality and pluralism, then I think it’s you that needs to revisit your history. Enlightenment progress was a specific kind of progress for a specific kind of person-the white, Western man. New Atheists are stuck in 19th century discourse, and by claiming that a Western scientific worldview is the *only* way forward, they continue to perpetuate the racism, colonialism, and intolerance wrapped up with the Enlightenment and its effects. Rather than just attacking religion, I think it’s more helpful and productive to engage in more open dialogue, and to foster *genuine* pluralism, which it doesn’t seem like the New Atheists are attempting to do. Also, I didn’t say that atheism doesn’t lead to a less religious world-I said secularizing forces don’t necessarily lead to a loss of religion. As we can see from just looking around us, living in a modern secular society doesn’t erase religion (as those who believed in secularization theory thought it would). Religion is evolving and changing, rather than disappearing. Organized/formal religion in the West is declining, yes, but we’re seeing other kinds of religion emerging in its place, like a variety of new religious movements, and more individual forms of religion. I think this is because religion meets some of our core needs as human beings-needs that can’t always be met by purely rationalist or scientific worldviews.
@@theskepticalwitch6611 So, you’re looking at it through a purely academic lens, and there are no academic theorists who actually take the New Atheists seriously, etc... That’s quite a broad net you’ve cast there. I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s comment regarding the Book of Mormon witnesses (the majority of whom were from the Whitmer family), "I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.” I hope you understand that academics are not the only people who’s opinions have value, nor should they be the only people you find of interest. For someone championing diverse opinion and respect for all points of view, this seems quite narrow-minded to me. Yes, The New Atheists (myself included) lump all the religions based on the Tribal War god of Abraham together because they are the “people of the book.” And that book is as vile an affront to human progress and well-being as has ever been assembled. Supporting and embracing a God (and His Holy Word) who commits genocide, and requires genocide of his followers, asks believers to kill homosexuals and sexually active young girls, etc… is something we all oppose. Guilty! You critique Harris a Dawkins for their misdeeds, casting them aside completely as not serious, and problematic. But you’re going to defend people who follow that genocidal, homophobic, misogynistic monster - people who pay homage to this Holy Book advocating such things? This seems to me like being a little bit pregnant, if not a complete attempt to have your cake and eat it too. I suspect you don’t really know the damage Western Religion has done in the last 1,500 years (and continues to do). Your comments about the conflict between science and religion are no substitute for an actual argument. Aside from the fact that such ideas about the conflict go back far beyond the 19th century... so what? What you need to demonstrate, if this is your argument (and I’m genuinely not sure it is), is that science and religion are not in conflict - or that the conflict in not great or substantial. For me, that conflict has nothing to do with my identity. That conflict is simply an empirical fact which has done untold damage to human progress for the last 1,500 years. The suppression of any knowledge which conflicted with scripture or challenged the authority and power of the Church, and Church authorities is undeniable. For Hitchen’s sake, the Catholic Church just finally got around to apologizing for that whole Galileo mess - at the end of the last century!!! I will take your challenge regarding equality and pluralism. Inspired by the Enlightenment thinkers (18th century rather than 19th, by the way), Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal” and established our earliest ideals of religious pluralism. Our Constitution’s establishment clause is based on Jefferson’s earlier efforts at religious pluralism in Virginia. Our revolution here in America, inspired by the Enlightenment thinkers, inspired and launched the movements for equality and pluralism we continue today all over the world. Were they as enlightened as we are now after another 250 years? Of course not. They could only see as far as their times would allow. But to dismiss their epic contribution to the world you live in is beyond short-sighted. Reason, progress, and innovation are at the heart of the thinking which has led us to this point. Rather than just attacking The New Atheism, I think it would have been more helpful and productive to engage in more open dialog and foster genuine understanding, which it doesn’t seem like you’re attempting to do, Skeptical Witch. Christopher Hitchens spent a great deal of time traveling all around the country with a Christian minister, debating, dialoging, hanging out, etc… There’s even a movie about it - check it out! Harris and Dawkins had endless debates with religious representatives. Have you done that with any of The New Atheists? Or is that kind of thing forbidden in academia these days? (Forgive the snark. I can’t always help myself.) And why is it that some attacks, for instance, “America is a racist country founded on the ideals of white supremacy” are embraced by academics (and BLM, Antifa, etc…) like yourself (and rightly so!). But attacks against the institutions which caused the racism and white supremacy (they cannot be disentangled from the White, Christian Nationalism which drove colonialism), are somehow out of bounds? Again, I suspect you are simply unaware of the damage Western religious thinking has caused and continues to cause. I guess my biggest criticism is the broadness and almost complete lack of specifics in your presentation. It’s a very broad brush you paint with. If there are particulars you disagree with relating to the specific claims and attacks on religion by The New Atheists, I would like to have heard them. I wonder exactly what you would like The New Atheists to have remained silent about. Is it the genocide, the homophobia, the misogyny, slavery, genital mutilation, the eternal embrace of violence by Jesus and his Father, or the idea that love and violence go together like PB&J? The Enlightenment grew out of the principles we were learning from our new-found practice of science - openness, merit, transparency, anti-authoritarianism, diversity of thought, progress, etc… And the world has become an infinitely better place by embracing those ideals. If you’ll look at the American Constitution, you’ll see it’s nearly a complete rejection of the Canon Law embraced by the Church and practiced throughout Europe - a complete affront to human dignity and justice. That’s why people risked their lives getting on tiny little boats to come here - to get away from that bullshit! Dealing with actual reality (meteorology for instance) as opposed to religious nonsense (witches and Jews control the weather), lift us up - all of us. The world has a shitload of problems to solve, and guess who’s going to solve them? It’s not going to be the religious cutting our carbon emissions. Nor did prayer give us protections from Covid. Yes, new religions will pop up. But they will pop up now in the gentle, reasonable, fertile soil laid down by the thinkers of the Enlightenment - imperfect as fuck, but still a quantum leap ahead of the thinking of those draped in the robes of ecclesiastical authority.
I wouldn’t say that I’m coming at this from a “purely” academic lens-yes my perspectives are highly influenced by academia since that’s the sphere I’m most immersed in, but academia doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and neither do I. Popular discourse is influenced by academic discourse, and vice versa. I also most definitely value opinions that don’t come from within the academic world-the ability to contribute meaningfully to discussions like this is by no means tied to having a fancy piece of paper with one’s name on it. My partner, for instance, is not in academia, and is himself a fairly hard atheist who admires Christopher Hitchens and the like (and some of his opinions do fall into the realm of New Atheism). We often have conversations about this kind of thing, and I’m continuously learning from him. Just because I oppose some New Atheist claims doesn’t mean that I’m closed-minded-I’m always learning, and my opinions are shaped from both within and outside of the academic context. I’m well aware of the damage religion has done (and continues to do), and am not at all attempting to defend people or groups who hold misogynistic, homophobic, racist, or otherwise oppressive beliefs. I also think it’s incredibly important to speak out against these things, and certainly agree that religion can lead to moral corruption and horrible suffering. But none of the Christians I know personally are homophobic or racist or misogynist, or take the Bible literally in that sense. Just like none of the Muslims I know personally condone violence, and are in fact extremely against the atrocities that have been committed in the name of their God. Most of the religious people I know believe in equality, and in the efficacy of science. But I’m also Canadian, not American, so I’m sure it’s probably different there, especially in the South. Ironic though, isn’t it, that Thomas Jefferson stated that all men are created equal while himself owning numerous slaves? The Enlightenment and the changes it inspired have lead to incredible progress, yes, and much of it was for the benefit of many-we all know this. All that I’m trying to do here is to deconstruct this idea that all this Western progress that came about during the time, and in the following centuries, was necessarily good for everyone. I’m interested in breaking down the myths that exist around these grand narratives of progress, and in unpacking the stories we tell ourselves in the West about what it means to be “civilized,” or what constitutes proper knowledge. Of course there will always be religious zealots who are anti-science, and those who spread harmful dogma (like prayer being an effective protective measure against COVID), but I don’t think grand, universalizing claims about religion being evil will help us in moving towards a truly pluralistic society. Like I mentioned in a previous comment, I don’t think universalizing claims really get us anywhere, and neither does adhering to strictly dualistic frameworks. Western secular modernity itself emerged out of Protestantism-even the very foundations of our secular societies are deeply entangled with Christianity. So when dealing with the complexities of our reality, a fluid approach is much more helpful than binary modes of thinking. And this is one of my issues with the New Atheists-they use these binary frameworks and linear models of progress without critically reflecting on them. I don’t disagree with everything the New Atheists say (I am also against religious fundamentalism) but they fail to take a nuanced approach to religion or science, which I think is ultimately necessary for creating pluralistic societies, and necessary for combating intolerance.
Yes of course! I agree that good science does definitely strive to be as objective as possible. I just wanted to bring up the argument that it we can’t have truly objective or neutral understandings of reality in order to challenge some of our societal narratives around science!
I agree that new atheists often miss the reality of religious people today, but for all the other point in this video i think you build up a big straw man to argue against. Simply saying new atheists do not study science or religion in every day life of religious people or they are promoting a colonial relic or in general want to silence people is itself too far away from reality. Also the idea that scientist have to consider biases etc. is nothing new, but the everyday business of people who do research. And similar to that, everybody agrees with you that science needs to become more democratic and open and so on... To compare religious beliefs with those grounded in scientific knowledge is a bit misleading, too, i think. Scientific beliefs result from a process of challenging them selfs, religious ones not, they are made up and are not falsifiable. But maybe I misunderstood it myself so please help me if I did :)
New Atheists generally don't engage with any of the research being done in contemporary religious studies, which is why they're not really taken seriously in the discipline. Within the academic context, the position they promote is seen as being outdated and uncritical, because they are clinging onto that Enlightenment narrative that for the most part, scholars have moved beyond. And they may not always be consciously attempting to silence people, but often times that is what they end up doing. A more obvious example of this can be seen with Sam Harris--he's not just opposed to radical Islam, but to *all* Muslims, as he thinks that Islam is necessarily opposed to progress and reason. But in doing this, he takes a position that justifies Islamophobia and violence against Muslims. It's also problematic in that it attempts to universalize Western understandings of things like "progress" and "reason," which are themselves socio-historical constructions. This universalizing is a form of silencing, and a form of epistemic violence, which is still perpetuated by the West. As many marginalized peoples will tell you, "colonialism" is not something that's in the past, but rather continues into the present. And the New Atheists, and their attempts to universalize Western categories of knowledge and ideas of progress, are a part of this ongoing colonialism. Also I know that recognizing biases is a part of modern science today, but it's rare that scientists will really consider the social, cultural, and historical biases that contribute to our understanding of what counts as "scientific knowledge" in the West. Again, I'm trying to point out here that universalizing claims are problematic, because there's no such thing as a neutral or universal position. Everything is historically and culturally situated, and attempting to universalize one framework of understanding *is* to silence other worldviews and perspectives that may differ from it.
@@theskepticalwitch6611 thank you so much for the detailed answer! I really appreciate it :D So i don't know that much about Sam Harris and I do not agree with him in what I know, but is he against all Muslims or against islam? Because the question that is know in my head is how to criticize specific beliefs or practices from ones social/economic/historical/educational/... viewpoint without "silencing"? In the last part of your answer im not sure if you mean like knowledge or a moral or the scientific method? And i definetely agree about colonialism and the problems of proposing a objective universal way of living or understanding and so on, but what i really miss is, after explaining the problems, is to give an alternative or an idea how to change for the better, that would be very interresting to hear and more constructive, too. Anyway im not well read on this topic so thanks again for your answer, that really helped :D
@@nmzszmn4747 No problem! I'm always really happy to have discussions and open dialogue about things like this :) I'm always learning more myself, so it's great to have these kinds of conversations! Sam Harris is against Islam. And I don't think he's intentionally trying to be hateful, but his prejudice ultimately paves the way for hate. I think that one step in moving towards a society where we can criticize aspects of others' beliefs without silencing them is to shift more towards a pluralistic society, where the state and "public sphere" is not expected to be strictly secular, but rather actually makes room for diversity and more open dialogue between people of all faiths. It's a complex question your asking, and the answer isn't at all clear-cut... But it's something I do hope to make a video on in the future! I think the key is moving away from a secular society that aims to universalize that secularism towards a society that values pluralism and difference more.
@@theskepticalwitch6611 , you are damn sure about the thoughts of every "new" atheist. Please tell me where you learned telepaphy. Was it an online course or were you born that way?
@@theskepticalwitch6611 is babbling " As many marginalized peoples will tell you, "colonialism" is not something that's in the past, but rather continues into the present. And the New Atheists, and their attempts to universalize Western categories of knowledge and ideas of progress, are a part of this ongoing colonialism." Wow, just wow! Those evil"new" atheist are to blame for just everything wrong in the world. I have to wonder how many of those evil doers Skeptical B...Oops Witch thinks are around to have so much negative impact.
Of course, we know a lot more not about reality than we did thousands of years ago. But even still, what we know is still relatively little compared to what we *don't* know. I don't buy the idea that societies undergo a linear progression from superstition to knowledge. Things are much more complex than that. Even in the Western world today, there are plenty of educated people who hold "superstitious" or magical beliefs.
Saving for later because judging by the last video i commented on you believed in things you cannot possibly prove to exist. So when i have the time to actually watch it ill be able to either enjoy your video or dislike is so hard i have to make a video response because of how poorly this video could be. Only my future self in a few hours will know for sure. Heres hoping you didn't say anything about an atheist despite it not being so. I really hope i Dont have to make a video about this video lol. Fun fact: atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods either due to lack of evidence proving a gods existence or due to lack of conceptual understanding of what a god even is. Its not a religion it has no tenets or dogma or popes or anything. Its like saying not stamp collecting is a hobby when in reality it's the exact opposite more or less
Maybe actually watch the video before commenting? I’m aware that atheism is not a religion, but the new atheists specifically have been compared to religious fundamentalists because they’re so dogmatic in their approach. I have nothing against atheists, and am a non-theist myself. But some of the ideologies new atheists promote are problematic, and I think need to be questioned, which is all I’m really doing here.
@@theskepticalwitch6611 did you even read what i said? It's like you're not paying attention. I made that comment as a reminder to watch your video and btw im just watching it now and so far so good. Now how about you let me judge for myself? Should i be petty instead? 😒🙄
Philosophy, religion and science were three different ways how people throughout history tried to answer questions of existence, purpose of life, natural phenomena etc. Philosophy (love of wisdom) was using intellect and reasoning to answer these questions, religion used spirits, gods, and later God, and eventually very recently (since Galileo and Newton) the scientific method of observation, testing and critical thinking was developed. Out of those three methods only science can arrive to valid answers that are true (real, accurate, factual) because philosopers and priests made everything up to support their own ideas, they came to conclusions based only on their preferences. So, whether you like it or not, trying to harmonize religion and science, or saying that those two are equaly valid is futile and non-sensical since one stands on wishful thinking and other on observable facts.
You make a good point, but I also think that we can’t put such rigid boundaries around philosophy, religion and science. In reality, these ways of thinking always flow into and interconnect with each other. Maintaining a strict binary between science and religion is problematic, because it denies the messiness of reality as it’s actually experienced by people.
This was an excellent video. I truly appreciate the work you put into it.
Thank you so much!
Blessed Be for people like you 🌛🌟🌜🙏
Thanks for the suggestion Ocean!
Thanks Ocean Keitol for suggesting the link 🌛🌟🌜🙏Blessed Be
Ocean Keltoi sent me and I'm so glad that he did! You definitely have a new subscriber here. Looking forward to seeing what else you discuss and to bingeing the rest of your content! Thank you for handling this topic in such an eloquent and thoughtful manner.
Thanks so much, I appreciate Ocean Keltoi's sharing of my video! I'm glad that you enjoyed it :)
I am so pleased you made this video. A few months ago I started reading the New Humanist magazine and it really had me engaged. The articles were really interesting to me. Then I decided to subscribe to the online magazine and it told me that the money was going towards the Rationalist Association. I didn't know much about this and I eventually did a search. I came across a video on TH-cam with Ricky Gervais and Richard Dawkins. They were introduced by someone who was talking about this association and how they want to rid the world of pseudoscience and religion. She said it like it was a good thing. I sat there in disbelief as if they were promoting a new world order. I have always been back and forth with religion and I do practice magick, but I consider myself a rational person and see clearly the differences between belief and faith, and science and facts, but believe we need both in this world (else surely everyone would have been made super logical which we are not - we are humans with emotions and feelings! I was so dumbfounded by watching this that I haven't read the magazine since. I know everyone has a bias, but this goes way further and is pushing an agenda that just will not be accepted by the majority of people (thankfully). The number of people who have religion at the heart of their community and way of life and actually benefit from that cannot just be erased with their opinions on what is rational and what isn't. I have always felt like there was something missing in my life and I'm pretty sure it was from being raised by a narcissist and not having that loving family experience that most have, but using magick and believing in something more out there, however much I find it hard to believe that it is the absolute truth, is something that has an impact on this emptiness I have felt. I think that these New Atheists are very closed-minded and are not considering how religion, as a whole, does a lot of good in the world, even though there are several things that are harmful about it, and perhaps the issues with it will get better over time as it becomes more modernised. You've made some excellent points in this video. Thank you for making it!
Thank you so much for your comment, I’m glad you found the video interesting and helpful!
Like you I’ve also been back and forth about religion-I’m not a theist, but I do engage in religious and magical practices. I used to be friends with some very rationalist atheists who do believe religion in all its forms should be completely wiped out from the world… Through them, I kind of adopted a similar (although much less harsh) stance, where I thought religion was generally negative. But then, I actually started getting involved with some religious practices myself when I was at a really low point in my life, and that was ultimately what helped me get through that period of depression. Then I actually started studying religions more generally, and came to realize that New Atheists completely miss the mark in a lot of ways, as they fail to take a nuanced approach to religion that actually considers how it operates within people’s lived realities.
I agree completely that we need a balance of rationality/logic and belief/faith or imagination in this world. There’s a place for rationality and the scientific method, but when it comes to religious practices that are genuinely benefiting people, I tend to think that they don’t necessarily belong there. I’m glad that magick has been so beneficial for you, and I think when it comes to things like this, it doesn’t matter what the “absolute truth” is (if there even is one). What matters is your own experience, and what it does for you!
@@theskepticalwitch6611 Yeah same...certain practices and beliefs helped me so much when I was struggling so I cannot deny their value in the lives of others. I really can't see how these people can be seemingly so intelligent (i.e. Richard Dawkins) yet not open minded enough to see anything beyond their own perspective on this. They ultimately will have no authority on those who don't share their opinion thankfully. Thanks :) I totally agree with you!
Both can easily exist as long as the religion isnt forced upon the public by an organization. Modern paganism is both optional and personalized. Sovereign practices like these do not need to be in any way opposed to science.
Thank you for this informative and well-researched video :)
I sometimes wonder if anti-theism and scientism have arisen in part as an overcompensation for anti-science. I can understand people who believe in the value of science getting frustrated hearing others say things like "Just pray and God will heal you of any disease," and then taking their response beyond "Science is useful for curing diseases" to "There is no question that can't be answered through science." When people feel triggered, they can become defensive and overreact. But just as religion is not always the best approach for solving some problems, science is not the best approach for solving others.
My go-to example of this is the question "What is your favorite color?" This isn't a question that has an objective answer. Yes, you could try to apply the scientific method, like by seeing what proportion of your possessions are a certain color or by scanning your brain to see if an area associated with pleasure is activated when you see a certain color, and you might even get useful information from these tests, but they can't tell you if something objectively is your favorite color, because what "favorite" means is inherently subjective, the answer can change by simply asking the question, the answer can change over time, or there might not even be an answer (maybe you just don't have a favorite color). Spoiler alert: This is pretty much exactly how I think about gender.
This is a good way of thinking about it! I agree that scientism may be a reaction against the prevalence of anti-science... it does seem people get really overly defensive about it. I like the colour analogy, that makes a lot of sense, and the connected to gender as well. Thank you for that!
I love this! This is exactly the feeling I get when talking to a lot of intense, "new atheists." It's important to understand the emotional place where someone is coming from. Also, as a trans person, I totally agree about gender. I can't explain what my gender means in an objective sense, I just know what mine feels like to me.
I both enjoyed and agreed with much in this video. I appreciate digging into the roots of the movement to help understand what is driving it today as well. I agree that to think you understand the "One True Reality" when our sciences discover crazy new possibilities daily seems shortsighted to me, even beyond the fact we only truly have our own lived experience to base our understanding on.
I very much enjoyed the video. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it! I think that in today's world of rapid scientific advancement, all we can know for certain is that at this point, we can't really be certain of anything.
Important points well delivered as usual! I think there's definitely a balance between healthy scepticism and obnoxious overbearing criticism.
It's why I call myself a non-theist Witch rather than Atheist as there are a lot of off-putting associations to that word.
Thank you! 😊And I totally agree-healthy skepticism is really important, and modern science is necessary in so many ways, but using it to attack religious or spiritual beliefs that aren’t harming anyone often isn’t really beneficial or productive. I also avoid the term atheist as well, because of the baggage.
I call myself an atheist! Can't say im a witch because magic is reserved for fictional stories like harry potter and no matter how you want to spin it to fit some weird definition because you want to make it feel logical despite it not being so due to absolutely no evidence of magic or spells working or spirits or fairies or anything considered supernatural
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence guys!
@@theskepticalwitch6611 what baggage? You mean the baggage RELIGIOUS PEOPLE have made the term out to be?? Why not call yourself what you are which is an atheist instead of clinging onto antiqued ideas about things you can only speculate on?
@@Georg3e I think you've proven why people don't want to use the term pretty well! lol
@@dothemagicalthing your point?
Thank you for making this video!
Ocean sent me. And glad I am for it. Grate vid and well done. Blessed be sister.
Thanks so much! And thanks to Ocean Keltoi for sending you! :)
great work on this. Can’t wait to see more from you!
Thank you so much! :)
Here from OceanKeltoi too 🙋🏻♀️ excellent video! And many of the sources that you cited I can definitely use for the purpose of my own thesis. Sources like this dont usually get flagged up in my field, so it's very useful! So thanks!
Thanks so much, I'm glad Ocean Keltoi sent you over! What is your thesis that you're working on? And which field is that?
@@theskepticalwitch6611 I'm in historical studies (background is Egyptology) looking at how people revive ancient religions today and the subsequent reactions from archaeolgists (often not good - though improving!).
Oooh wow that’s super interesting! Have you published anything on that yet I could read? I originally wanted to go into Egyptology before I went for anthropology/religious studies!
@@theskepticalwitch6611 I'll message you on Instagram 😊
1:32, For a moment I thought that the video will going to be about circuses because I saw four clowns in my mobile phone screen 😂.
Keep watching this woman. She's awesome and is going to go places.
The amount of work you put in your videos is amazing ❤️✨
Thanks so much, I appreciate that!
Ocean Keltoi sent me! I look forward to more content.
Thanks! I'm grateful to him for sending you over here :)
Very well done!! (:
Thank you!
Metaphysical materialism is also a big problem with their thinking. This is why they actively dismiss all parapsychological research and the wast amount of literature on religous and spiritual experiences.
Greetings from Morocco good Luck ♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
Salaam/Bonjour! 🎑
This is so good. It reminds me of the time I learned how young the evangelical movement is, and how erroneous it is when we act like all Christians throughout history have either been evangelicals or Catholics, which whilst most of us do know that's not true, does seem to be a way people behave. It's always more nuanced. Thank you for making this!
That's true, and a really good point. When it comes to religion, we often tend to think that the way things are now reflect the way they've always been, but that's not true. Everything is historically contingent, and often that history is a lot more recent than we think!
I think it's true, this disenchantment of the world. I think a lot of people have less reverence and connection for nature as they've moved away from believing in nature spirits/gods. As we've built more comfort in our lives thanks to science it has also increased that disconnect
I've definitely been one of those people, doing this witchcraft stuff allowed me to be more mindful of life and appreciate earth and the living beings on it.
I know this wasn't your main point, but it really stuck out to me!
That's great--witchcraft has really helped me in that sense too! It's allowed me to become so much more connected with the earth, and find that enchantment there :)
You seem to be implying that the fact that this notion (that science should supplant religion) was originated and promulgated by racist, sexist colonialists means that the idea itself is inherently sexist, racist, or colonialist. That is not necessarily the case.
You also seem to be implying that since societies do not progress linearly from superstition to science, moving toward science and away from religion is not something that should be pursued. But societies also do not progress linearly from tribalism and warfare to equality and peace. That does not mean that equality and peace should not be pursued.
I think maybe I didn't make it clear enough in this video, but I'm not trying to argue that science itself is racist or colonialist. We have this idea in modern Western society that the Enlightenment was this incredible shining beacon of hope, and I'm not trying to attack the Enlightenment in its entirety by any means--obviously a lot of it was incredibly important for society, and it gave us a wealth of scientific and philosophical knowledge, while also helping us move away from the domination of Christianity. What I am trying to do here is show that not everything about the Enlightenment was necessarily "good"--the idea of science and reason that was constructed at the time was linked to colonialism and racism--to the superiority of the West (specifically the superiority of the white man). Science on its own is not inherently racist or colonialist or sexist, but the narratives around science created during this time *were*. And it's these *narratives* that the New Atheists cling to, without critically engaging with their colonialist roots.
Many of the New Atheists speak about Enlightenment reason as though it were the "be all end all," the most incredible thing to ever happen, without critically reflecting on its implications. The idea that science should completely replace religion is a part of these Enlightenment narratives. So while someone today can certainly hold that position without implying anything racist or colonialist, the historical roots of that narrative still matter, and deserve more critical reflection.
@@theskepticalwitch6611 Thank you for that response. I think I see your point more clearly now.
What did Marx say about religion
Well Marx was very much an atheist, and he likened religion to the “opium of the masses,” as he believed it was something that kept people complacent so they wouldn’t recognize their suffering and revolt against the system
Another spectacular video. A minor correction, Daniel Dennett as far as I am aware has a more nuanced approach to religion in which he rejects the Christian religion particularly as valuable, but acknowledges the necessity of religion as it's ingrained in the brain.
Thanks for this! That’s good to know! Dennett is the one I’ve read the least out of the four main New Atheists, so this is interesting
Religion and science are two.sides of the same coin especially in the hands of the greedy and power hungry both feilds have done unspeakable damage. But perhaps those of us inbetween can change things forbthe better and keep thev extreem at bay
This is a strange video. I get the sense that your views and understanding of "The New Atheism" are purely academic and the result of some revisionist reading. As one of the people who would probably have been lumped in with The New Atheists - my Mr. Deity show having launched in 2007 when The New Atheism was on the rise, I can tell you that it was a response to the religious fundamentalism wreaking havoc all over the globe at that time, and since 9/11. And it wasn't simply about Islam. There were pastors here in America calling for the death and rounding up of Homosexuals, for instance. Christian fundamentalism was on the rise as a response to Islamic fundamentalism, leading to much of the bigotry we've seen towards Islam on the Right and center Right.
If you don't think there's a conflict between Science and religion, you're gonna need a time machine to go back and stop Christians from destroying the Temple of Serapis and the Library of Alexandria. You're going to have to change the entire history of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries when Christianity took over the Roman Empire and put an end to pluralism. You’re going to have to keep them from destroying all the ancient wisdom/knowledge the Greeks and Romans had acquired because it conflicted with the authority of scripture. You're going to have to stop the Inquisition from threatening Galileo with torture and death simply because he had proven that the Earth does indeed move - again, in opposition to scripture. Hopefully, you can save Giordano Bruno as well - they burned him at the stake.
The conflict between science and religion was not started by The New Atheists. It is a millennia old conflict between those who believe that knowledge can be acquired via revelation from the gods/God, and those who challenged such claims to knowledge, requiring repeatable, demonstrable, actionable knowledge instead. There is no actual conflict - not for rational, thinking people. In the last 4,000 years, we have no more actual knowledge of God or the supernatural realm than the ignorant, Bronze Age Shepards in the field who began such nonsense - people who didn't know where the sun went at night. Science puts men on the moon, cures disease, and discovers the fundamental particles of the universe. Religion has been relegated to Jesus showing up on various bread products - toast, tortillas, and now the pita.
Indeed, the people who believe that the Blood of Jesus protected them from the Corona virus are no more. They succumbed. And even believers are putting their faith in the vaccine. When reality comes calling, there is no conflict. Science wins every single time.
But no one in The New Atheism movement was trying to suppress any ideas or ways of thinking. It was a celebration of the liberation of free thinkers all around the world - many of whom were hacked to death with machetes by the religious in other parts of the world. Indeed, just look here on TH-cam - you'll find debate after debate by these New Atheists who were finally stepping forward after 1,500 years of religious suppression to make their case - proudly, boldly. They wanted MORE dialog, assured that they could demonstrate a better, clearly, less oppressive way of thinking. Are you completely unaware that Atheism used to be something that could get you killed - by the religious and religious authorities - that it still can get you killed in certain parts of the world? Finally, after all that suppression/oppression, we were able to speak our truth in public regardless of the centuries of religious bigotry toward us and our views - complete demonization.
There is a conflict between science and Western Religion - those religions based on the Tribal War god of Abraham. And the conflict is one of values. I have an entire series of videos on this topic on my channel if you're interested - Science and Religion are Mortal Enemies. Inquiry, doubt, openness, transparency, progress, innovation, equality, merit, etc... these things were opposed by religion and embraced by science. Which is why over the last 400 years our world has become an infinitely better world to live in. Whereas Christianity, having complete control of Europe for 1,000 years gave us nothing but darkness and misery.
Your perspective seems historically very uninformed and even a bit bigoted. The Enlightenment, and the thinking of those so engaged, are why you're living in the imperfect but wonderful world we have today. Were those thinkers perfect? No. But they laid the foundation for the progress which has led all of us here. Reason, pluralism, tolerance, progress, openness, anti-authoritarianism - to which of those values are you opposed?
Finally, to say that Atheism or agnosticism don't lead to a less religious world (if I heard you correctly) is to ignore the whole of Western Europe, which through mere persuasion (and a revulsion to the history of vicious sectarian violence in those areas of the world) saw its way to a much more enlightened, civil world by abandoning religion over the last 100 years. Take a look at the statistics for well-being all over the planet. See which countries have less crime, violence, bigotry, abortion, incarceration, wealth inequality, women's and gay rights, etc... almost any metric of well-being! Then look at the percentage of people in that country who consider themselves religious. Correlate the two. I don't think you'll be surprised. I hope not.
If it seems like my understanding of New Atheism is academic, it’s because this is something I’m studying within an academic context. Maybe I’m just not looking in the right places, but interestingly, I have yet to find any academic theorists who actually take the New Atheists seriously, or don’t have a problem with their methods.
I know New Atheism is largely a response to religious fundamentalism, and I am well aware that fundamentalism is incredibly oppressive and harmful. But the New Atheists don’t limit their critique to fundamentalism-they extend it to all religion, and tend to lump all religions together. And New Atheists themselves are certainly not absolved from bigotry-Sam Harris in particular contributes to Islamophobic discourse, and Richard Dawkins has been known to make very sexist and transphobic comments.
I never said the conflict between science and religion was started by the New Atheists-just that they continue to uphold it as a core part of their identity. Religion and science as the categories we understand them to be today in the West really developed in the 19th century, and it is these 19th century ideals that the New Atheists still cling to.
The Enlightenment was about reason, progress, innovation, etc.-but if you think it was about equality and pluralism, then I think it’s you that needs to revisit your history. Enlightenment progress was a specific kind of progress for a specific kind of person-the white, Western man. New Atheists are stuck in 19th century discourse, and by claiming that a Western scientific worldview is the *only* way forward, they continue to perpetuate the racism, colonialism, and intolerance wrapped up with the Enlightenment and its effects.
Rather than just attacking religion, I think it’s more helpful and productive to engage in more open dialogue, and to foster *genuine* pluralism, which it doesn’t seem like the New Atheists are attempting to do.
Also, I didn’t say that atheism doesn’t lead to a less religious world-I said secularizing forces don’t necessarily lead to a loss of religion. As we can see from just looking around us, living in a modern secular society doesn’t erase religion (as those who believed in secularization theory thought it would). Religion is evolving and changing, rather than disappearing. Organized/formal religion in the West is declining, yes, but we’re seeing other kinds of religion emerging in its place, like a variety of new religious movements, and more individual forms of religion. I think this is because religion meets some of our core needs as human beings-needs that can’t always be met by purely rationalist or scientific worldviews.
@@theskepticalwitch6611 So, you’re looking at it through a purely academic lens, and there are no academic theorists who actually take the New Atheists seriously, etc... That’s quite a broad net you’ve cast there. I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s comment regarding the Book of Mormon witnesses (the majority of whom were from the Whitmer family), "I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.” I hope you understand that academics are not the only people who’s opinions have value, nor should they be the only people you find of interest. For someone championing diverse opinion and respect for all points of view, this seems quite narrow-minded to me.
Yes, The New Atheists (myself included) lump all the religions based on the Tribal War god of Abraham together because they are the “people of the book.” And that book is as vile an affront to human progress and well-being as has ever been assembled. Supporting and embracing a God (and His Holy Word) who commits genocide, and requires genocide of his followers, asks believers to kill homosexuals and sexually active young girls, etc… is something we all oppose. Guilty!
You critique Harris a Dawkins for their misdeeds, casting them aside completely as not serious, and problematic. But you’re going to defend people who follow that genocidal, homophobic, misogynistic monster - people who pay homage to this Holy Book advocating such things? This seems to me like being a little bit pregnant, if not a complete attempt to have your cake and eat it too. I suspect you don’t really know the damage Western Religion has done in the last 1,500 years (and continues to do).
Your comments about the conflict between science and religion are no substitute for an actual argument. Aside from the fact that such ideas about the conflict go back far beyond the 19th century... so what? What you need to demonstrate, if this is your argument (and I’m genuinely not sure it is), is that science and religion are not in conflict - or that the conflict in not great or substantial.
For me, that conflict has nothing to do with my identity. That conflict is simply an empirical fact which has done untold damage to human progress for the last 1,500 years. The suppression of any knowledge which conflicted with scripture or challenged the authority and power of the Church, and Church authorities is undeniable. For Hitchen’s sake, the Catholic Church just finally got around to apologizing for that whole Galileo mess - at the end of the last century!!!
I will take your challenge regarding equality and pluralism. Inspired by the Enlightenment thinkers (18th century rather than 19th, by the way), Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal” and established our earliest ideals of religious pluralism. Our Constitution’s establishment clause is based on Jefferson’s earlier efforts at religious pluralism in Virginia. Our revolution here in America, inspired by the Enlightenment thinkers, inspired and launched the movements for equality and pluralism we continue today all over the world. Were they as enlightened as we are now after another 250 years? Of course not. They could only see as far as their times would allow. But to dismiss their epic contribution to the world you live in is beyond short-sighted. Reason, progress, and innovation are at the heart of the thinking which has led us to this point.
Rather than just attacking The New Atheism, I think it would have been more helpful and productive to engage in more open dialog and foster genuine understanding, which it doesn’t seem like you’re attempting to do, Skeptical Witch. Christopher Hitchens spent a great deal of time traveling all around the country with a Christian minister, debating, dialoging, hanging out, etc… There’s even a movie about it - check it out! Harris and Dawkins had endless debates with religious representatives. Have you done that with any of The New Atheists? Or is that kind of thing forbidden in academia these days? (Forgive the snark. I can’t always help myself.)
And why is it that some attacks, for instance, “America is a racist country founded on the ideals of white supremacy” are embraced by academics (and BLM, Antifa, etc…) like yourself (and rightly so!). But attacks against the institutions which caused the racism and white supremacy (they cannot be disentangled from the White, Christian Nationalism which drove colonialism), are somehow out of bounds? Again, I suspect you are simply unaware of the damage Western religious thinking has caused and continues to cause.
I guess my biggest criticism is the broadness and almost complete lack of specifics in your presentation. It’s a very broad brush you paint with. If there are particulars you disagree with relating to the specific claims and attacks on religion by The New Atheists, I would like to have heard them. I wonder exactly what you would like The New Atheists to have remained silent about. Is it the genocide, the homophobia, the misogyny, slavery, genital mutilation, the eternal embrace of violence by Jesus and his Father, or the idea that love and violence go together like PB&J?
The Enlightenment grew out of the principles we were learning from our new-found practice of science - openness, merit, transparency, anti-authoritarianism, diversity of thought, progress, etc… And the world has become an infinitely better place by embracing those ideals. If you’ll look at the American Constitution, you’ll see it’s nearly a complete rejection of the Canon Law embraced by the Church and practiced throughout Europe - a complete affront to human dignity and justice. That’s why people risked their lives getting on tiny little boats to come here - to get away from that bullshit!
Dealing with actual reality (meteorology for instance) as opposed to religious nonsense (witches and Jews control the weather), lift us up - all of us. The world has a shitload of problems to solve, and guess who’s going to solve them? It’s not going to be the religious cutting our carbon emissions. Nor did prayer give us protections from Covid. Yes, new religions will pop up. But they will pop up now in the gentle, reasonable, fertile soil laid down by the thinkers of the Enlightenment - imperfect as fuck, but still a quantum leap ahead of the thinking of those draped in the robes of ecclesiastical authority.
I wouldn’t say that I’m coming at this from a “purely” academic lens-yes my perspectives are highly influenced by academia since that’s the sphere I’m most immersed in, but academia doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and neither do I. Popular discourse is influenced by academic discourse, and vice versa. I also most definitely value opinions that don’t come from within the academic world-the ability to contribute meaningfully to discussions like this is by no means tied to having a fancy piece of paper with one’s name on it. My partner, for instance, is not in academia, and is himself a fairly hard atheist who admires Christopher Hitchens and the like (and some of his opinions do fall into the realm of New Atheism). We often have conversations about this kind of thing, and I’m continuously learning from him. Just because I oppose some New Atheist claims doesn’t mean that I’m closed-minded-I’m always learning, and my opinions are shaped from both within and outside of the academic context.
I’m well aware of the damage religion has done (and continues to do), and am not at all attempting to defend people or groups who hold misogynistic, homophobic, racist, or otherwise oppressive beliefs. I also think it’s incredibly important to speak out against these things, and certainly agree that religion can lead to moral corruption and horrible suffering. But none of the Christians I know personally are homophobic or racist or misogynist, or take the Bible literally in that sense. Just like none of the Muslims I know personally condone violence, and are in fact extremely against the atrocities that have been committed in the name of their God. Most of the religious people I know believe in equality, and in the efficacy of science. But I’m also Canadian, not American, so I’m sure it’s probably different there, especially in the South.
Ironic though, isn’t it, that Thomas Jefferson stated that all men are created equal while himself owning numerous slaves? The Enlightenment and the changes it inspired have lead to incredible progress, yes, and much of it was for the benefit of many-we all know this. All that I’m trying to do here is to deconstruct this idea that all this Western progress that came about during the time, and in the following centuries, was necessarily good for everyone. I’m interested in breaking down the myths that exist around these grand narratives of progress, and in unpacking the stories we tell ourselves in the West about what it means to be “civilized,” or what constitutes proper knowledge.
Of course there will always be religious zealots who are anti-science, and those who spread harmful dogma (like prayer being an effective protective measure against COVID), but I don’t think grand, universalizing claims about religion being evil will help us in moving towards a truly pluralistic society. Like I mentioned in a previous comment, I don’t think universalizing claims really get us anywhere, and neither does adhering to strictly dualistic frameworks. Western secular modernity itself emerged out of Protestantism-even the very foundations of our secular societies are deeply entangled with Christianity. So when dealing with the complexities of our reality, a fluid approach is much more helpful than binary modes of thinking. And this is one of my issues with the New Atheists-they use these binary frameworks and linear models of progress without critically reflecting on them. I don’t disagree with everything the New Atheists say (I am also against religious fundamentalism) but they fail to take a nuanced approach to religion or science, which I think is ultimately necessary for creating pluralistic societies, and necessary for combating intolerance.
Good video, lots to think about. The point of science is to be as objective as possible though.
Yes of course! I agree that good science does definitely strive to be as objective as possible. I just wanted to bring up the argument that it we can’t have truly objective or neutral understandings of reality in order to challenge some of our societal narratives around science!
I agree that new atheists often miss the reality of religious people today, but for all the other point in this video i think you build up a big straw man to argue against.
Simply saying new atheists do not study science or religion in every day life of religious people or they are promoting a colonial relic or in general want to silence people is itself too far away from reality.
Also the idea that scientist have to consider biases etc. is nothing new, but the everyday business of people who do research.
And similar to that, everybody agrees with you that science needs to become more democratic and open and so on...
To compare religious beliefs with those grounded in scientific knowledge is a bit misleading, too, i think. Scientific beliefs result from a process of challenging them selfs, religious ones not, they are made up and are not falsifiable.
But maybe I misunderstood it myself so please help me if I did :)
New Atheists generally don't engage with any of the research being done in contemporary religious studies, which is why they're not really taken seriously in the discipline. Within the academic context, the position they promote is seen as being outdated and uncritical, because they are clinging onto that Enlightenment narrative that for the most part, scholars have moved beyond. And they may not always be consciously attempting to silence people, but often times that is what they end up doing. A more obvious example of this can be seen with Sam Harris--he's not just opposed to radical Islam, but to *all* Muslims, as he thinks that Islam is necessarily opposed to progress and reason. But in doing this, he takes a position that justifies Islamophobia and violence against Muslims. It's also problematic in that it attempts to universalize Western understandings of things like "progress" and "reason," which are themselves socio-historical constructions. This universalizing is a form of silencing, and a form of epistemic violence, which is still perpetuated by the West. As many marginalized peoples will tell you, "colonialism" is not something that's in the past, but rather continues into the present. And the New Atheists, and their attempts to universalize Western categories of knowledge and ideas of progress, are a part of this ongoing colonialism.
Also I know that recognizing biases is a part of modern science today, but it's rare that scientists will really consider the social, cultural, and historical biases that contribute to our understanding of what counts as "scientific knowledge" in the West. Again, I'm trying to point out here that universalizing claims are problematic, because there's no such thing as a neutral or universal position. Everything is historically and culturally situated, and attempting to universalize one framework of understanding *is* to silence other worldviews and perspectives that may differ from it.
@@theskepticalwitch6611 thank you so much for the detailed answer! I really appreciate it :D
So i don't know that much about Sam Harris and I do not agree with him in what I know, but is he against all Muslims or against islam? Because the question that is know in my head is how to criticize specific beliefs or practices from ones social/economic/historical/educational/... viewpoint without "silencing"?
In the last part of your answer im not sure if you mean like knowledge or a moral or the scientific method?
And i definetely agree about colonialism and the problems of proposing a objective universal way of living or understanding and so on, but what i really miss is, after explaining the problems, is to give an alternative or an idea how to change for the better, that would be very interresting to hear and more constructive, too.
Anyway im not well read on this topic so thanks again for your answer, that really helped :D
@@nmzszmn4747 No problem! I'm always really happy to have discussions and open dialogue about things like this :) I'm always learning more myself, so it's great to have these kinds of conversations!
Sam Harris is against Islam. And I don't think he's intentionally trying to be hateful, but his prejudice ultimately paves the way for hate. I think that one step in moving towards a society where we can criticize aspects of others' beliefs without silencing them is to shift more towards a pluralistic society, where the state and "public sphere" is not expected to be strictly secular, but rather actually makes room for diversity and more open dialogue between people of all faiths. It's a complex question your asking, and the answer isn't at all clear-cut... But it's something I do hope to make a video on in the future! I think the key is moving away from a secular society that aims to universalize that secularism towards a society that values pluralism and difference more.
@@theskepticalwitch6611 , you are damn sure about the thoughts of every "new" atheist. Please tell me where you learned telepaphy. Was it an online course or were you born that way?
@@theskepticalwitch6611 is babbling " As many marginalized peoples will tell you, "colonialism" is not something that's in the past, but rather continues into the present. And the New Atheists, and their attempts to universalize Western categories of knowledge and ideas of progress, are a part of this ongoing colonialism." Wow, just wow! Those evil"new" atheist are to blame for just everything wrong in the world. I have to wonder how many of those evil doers Skeptical B...Oops Witch thinks are around to have so much negative impact.
_we dont know that much about our realty_
compare this to the knowledge of bronce age or iron age people. knowledge conquers superstition.
Of course, we know a lot more not about reality than we did thousands of years ago. But even still, what we know is still relatively little compared to what we *don't* know.
I don't buy the idea that societies undergo a linear progression from superstition to knowledge. Things are much more complex than that. Even in the Western world today, there are plenty of educated people who hold "superstitious" or magical beliefs.
@@theskepticalwitch6611
But th way we deal with the unknown has changed. Many peoply simply will no more stuff a gap with an angel.
The bull...is strong in this one.
Saving for later because judging by the last video i commented on you believed in things you cannot possibly prove to exist. So when i have the time to actually watch it ill be able to either enjoy your video or dislike is so hard i have to make a video response because of how poorly this video could be. Only my future self in a few hours will know for sure. Heres hoping you didn't say anything about an atheist despite it not being so.
I really hope i Dont have to make a video about this video lol.
Fun fact: atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods either due to lack of evidence proving a gods existence or due to lack of conceptual understanding of what a god even is.
Its not a religion it has no tenets or dogma or popes or anything. Its like saying not stamp collecting is a hobby when in reality it's the exact opposite more or less
Maybe actually watch the video before commenting? I’m aware that atheism is not a religion, but the new atheists specifically have been compared to religious fundamentalists because they’re so dogmatic in their approach. I have nothing against atheists, and am a non-theist myself. But some of the ideologies new atheists promote are problematic, and I think need to be questioned, which is all I’m really doing here.
@@theskepticalwitch6611 did you even read what i said? It's like you're not paying attention. I made that comment as a reminder to watch your video and btw im just watching it now and so far so good. Now how about you let me judge for myself? Should i be petty instead? 😒🙄
Philosophy, religion and science were three different ways how people throughout history tried to answer questions of existence, purpose of life, natural phenomena etc. Philosophy (love of wisdom) was using intellect and reasoning to answer these questions, religion used spirits, gods, and later God, and eventually very recently (since Galileo and Newton) the scientific method of observation, testing and critical thinking was developed. Out of those three methods only science can arrive to valid answers that are true (real, accurate, factual) because philosopers and priests made everything up to support their own ideas, they came to conclusions based only on their preferences.
So, whether you like it or not, trying to harmonize religion and science, or saying that those two are equaly valid is futile and non-sensical since one stands on wishful thinking and other on observable facts.
You make a good point, but I also think that we can’t put such rigid boundaries around philosophy, religion and science. In reality, these ways of thinking always flow into and interconnect with each other. Maintaining a strict binary between science and religion is problematic, because it denies the messiness of reality as it’s actually experienced by people.
@@theskepticalwitch6611 No. Philosophy and religion are 'messy', lol. Science, on the other hand, is very orderly.