This, unfortunately, comes to us from the “Nice try but no cigar” and or “Aw shucks, what about me guys?” files.
Back in 2007 AD Michael Shermer, pseudo-skeptic extraordinaire, made an obviously failed attempt to reason with the four celebrity New Atheists. In Scientific American Magazine of all places, yeah I know you thought that Scientific American Magazine was about science (apparently their online version is not exactly a peer-reviewed science journal), Michael Shermer wrote an article entitled, “Rational Atheism – An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens.”
Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are the celebrity New Atheists, the so called “Four Horsemen,” who are really more akin to “My Little Ponies.” Sure, when you first get a toy you are really excited and your purchase all of the accessories but after a while you grow up.
In the case of the big four et al, at first they are exciting they are vociferous, they play the part of the underdog, they make emotionally charged statements, the make arguments from outrage, arguments form embarrassment, they take on Christianity, they encourage and insight reactions of ridicule, and elbowing your buddy in the ribs to the point that atheists think that laughing at someone is tantamount to the discrediting of their argument.
Michael Shermer quotes and comments on Prof. Richard Dawkins’s “always poignant prose, ‘raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.’ Amen, brother” (religious reference in original).
Who would argue that it is not a good thing to raise consciousnesses, be brave, happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled?
But how do these things play out in the lives of atheist, particularly the New Atheists, specifically the celeb-four? What is having your consciousness raised realizing that you are one of the most intelligent people in the history of the planet? Is being brave becoming the most recent in a 2,000 yr old line of people who besmirch Christianity? Is being happy, balanced and moral making a living by expressing personal prejudice and inspiring others to do likewise? Is being intellectually fulfilled inventing quaint tall tales about how things just happen to happen?
Ultimately, atheism is consoling delusion, which manifest themselves in various ways such as:The consoling delusion of lack of ultimate accountability.The consoling delusion of absolute autonomy.The consoling delusion of considering yourself to be the highest being in creation.
The consoling delusion of erudite elitism.
In any case, Michael Shermer made an obviously failed attempt to reason with the supposed champions of reason.
Some of the obviously ignored advice went as follows:
we should be cautious about irrational exuberance_
Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe_
Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason_
It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind_
As Carl Sagan cautioned_’You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it’_
In the words of_Martin Luther King, Jr_’_Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred_
If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same_
As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant_
One may be tempted to state that at least the four follow the advise about champion science and reason. However, gone are the days when scientists in a lab coat were virtually considered infallible in their pronouncements. Modern day people are too well informed and can readily parse a scientist’s statements into actual observation on the one side and pure worldview biased interpretation on the other.
As far as reason, this is also an area in which the top four fail miserably having had their attempts at reason exposed for the emotive assertions that they really are.