This is a great essay, but I wish it had a different title. Perhaps because Bartool Bits has 'gone on the offensive' recently, this came across initially as an extension of that project... because I'm swamped with work, I skipped this essay until now, and I entirely misread what it was about solely because of the title! Of course, much of that issue falls on my shoulders. But I thought I'd make this note in case it's helpful.
Also, and this may or may not be helpful too, I think the problem you're engaged with is deeper than 'New Atheism', and while this movement provides the celebrity faces, I often wonder if engaging on this front serves only to shore up the opposition. After launching a lot of volleys in the late 2000s against the New Atheists, I had an epiphany and concluded I was playing into their hands at that time by doing so. The circumstances are somewhat different now, but the philosophical challenge is just as difficult. As just one example, Christopher Hitchens was a boon to magazine publishers because hatred for him shored up his celebrity credentials, so they let him say really remarkably hateful and racist things. Arguing against him always risked enhancing his platform.
You have to write what you have to write, I know - but sometimes the angle of approach makes an enormous difference as to who can be reached.
These are idle morning thoughts, I hope something in them is helpful, or at least interesting.
Thanks Chris. I did have trouble with that title. So you picked up on something, and I'm open to suggestions.
I hear you on the "offensive" issue. I'm acutely aware of it. However, I do see what I'm doing as essential because the folks in question are role models and present themselves self-consciously as such. I have no intention of going on about it any further than necessary. But it seems enormously salient to the points I've been making about interiority. There are real world consequences to believing one is a selfish robot. And this zeitgeist is sweeping. If you'll note, I do poke fun here and there, but mostly I stick to the point about these atheists being irrational know-it-alls with contempt for all things cultural.
It's not just for the record that I'm getting all this down, but also because I hope to help those who encounter intellectual thugs of the atheist stripe in their day to day. Once you note the limited tool kit, they become a lot easier to handle, and let's face it, such party-poopers could use a little handling to wipe the smugness from their faces. Pointing out to someone that they're appealing to authority for example and not arguing rationally or scientifically is a powerful approach.
As for this "offensive" series of articles failing to get through to a certain crowd, I'm well aware of that too. But I also don't think I need to worry about those who don't read my work anyway. I'm not trying to convince folks who see themselves as Hal 9000. They are beyond my therapy.
This is a great essay, but I wish it had a different title. Perhaps because Bartool Bits has 'gone on the offensive' recently, this came across initially as an extension of that project... because I'm swamped with work, I skipped this essay until now, and I entirely misread what it was about solely because of the title! Of course, much of that issue falls on my shoulders. But I thought I'd make this note in case it's helpful.
Also, and this may or may not be helpful too, I think the problem you're engaged with is deeper than 'New Atheism', and while this movement provides the celebrity faces, I often wonder if engaging on this front serves only to shore up the opposition. After launching a lot of volleys in the late 2000s against the New Atheists, I had an epiphany and concluded I was playing into their hands at that time by doing so. The circumstances are somewhat different now, but the philosophical challenge is just as difficult. As just one example, Christopher Hitchens was a boon to magazine publishers because hatred for him shored up his celebrity credentials, so they let him say really remarkably hateful and racist things. Arguing against him always risked enhancing his platform.
You have to write what you have to write, I know - but sometimes the angle of approach makes an enormous difference as to who can be reached.
These are idle morning thoughts, I hope something in them is helpful, or at least interesting.
Stay wonderful!
Chris.
Thanks Chris. I did have trouble with that title. So you picked up on something, and I'm open to suggestions.
I hear you on the "offensive" issue. I'm acutely aware of it. However, I do see what I'm doing as essential because the folks in question are role models and present themselves self-consciously as such. I have no intention of going on about it any further than necessary. But it seems enormously salient to the points I've been making about interiority. There are real world consequences to believing one is a selfish robot. And this zeitgeist is sweeping. If you'll note, I do poke fun here and there, but mostly I stick to the point about these atheists being irrational know-it-alls with contempt for all things cultural.
It's not just for the record that I'm getting all this down, but also because I hope to help those who encounter intellectual thugs of the atheist stripe in their day to day. Once you note the limited tool kit, they become a lot easier to handle, and let's face it, such party-poopers could use a little handling to wipe the smugness from their faces. Pointing out to someone that they're appealing to authority for example and not arguing rationally or scientifically is a powerful approach.
As for this "offensive" series of articles failing to get through to a certain crowd, I'm well aware of that too. But I also don't think I need to worry about those who don't read my work anyway. I'm not trying to convince folks who see themselves as Hal 9000. They are beyond my therapy.
Thanks for these detailed notes, appreciated.