10/18/2009—As I have been doing research for an upcoming book on a new, higher law approach to the Establishment Clause, I have looked at the attitude of the New Atheists toward relativism and its darker twin, nihilism. My proposal is that the government may combat relativism in educational efforts that include the use of religious symbols. The idea of higher law or objective value in general is that there is such a thing as right and wrong beyond human opinion.
I had assumed that the New Atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, would endorse relativism, but they do not. Harris said in Newsweek a couple of years ago that he believes in absolute right and wrong and in 2002 Hitchens berated the left for not recognizing the “evil” of Saddam Hussein. Only Richard Dawkins seems to accept relative values as the actual state of the universe. The New Atheists are certainly attacked as promoting relativism, so what is going on?
Of course it may be that the New Atheists are lying for propaganda purposes. They might just not want to admit that their positions are essentially nihilistic. Or, it may be that their positions are nihilistic despite themselves. Others may see the implications of what they say better than they do. I believe Charles Taylor suggests for example that atheistic ontology is inconsistent with objective values.
I can certainly testify that most secular people I speak to embrace relativism and reject objective values. There seems to be a disconnect here that I cannot yet understand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is no unified 'new atheist' stance on relativism. Really, the only thing so-called 'new atheists' have in common is that they are unapologetic atheists. Nothing about morality inherently follows from that basis.
ReplyDeleteSee the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo for one science-based take on morality. Note that it is neither strictly relativist, nor absolutist. We have an evolved human moral intuition, and our specific cultures and personal experiences develop moral frameworks to work with our moral intuitions.
Of course it may be that the New Atheists are lying for propaganda purposes. They might just not want to admit that their positions are essentially nihilistic. Or, it may be that their positions are nihilistic despite themselves. Others may see the implications of what they say better than they do. I believe Charles Taylor suggests for example that atheistic ontology is inconsistent with objective values.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps your preconceived notions of atheism are simply wrong.
I can certainly testify that most secular people I speak to embrace relativism and reject objective values.
In terms of their actions, are they any less moral than their religious counterparts?
Boy, when I wade into philosophical subjects like relativism, I wonder if language-based thinking, specifically labeling, is a net negative. The only thing I objectively know in this discussion is that we don't understand each other very well. But, we really don't have a choice, do we?
ReplyDeleteI concur with Wonderist and Recall (nice set of cybernyms, eh?) and simply add that capital "A" Atheists don't exist, so it makes it hard for them to coordinate their actions. If one of them were lying for propaganda purposes (accommodationism, perhaps?), other atheists would likely be the first to call them out.
I would love a link to Taylor's work - besides his massive tomes. I think I have recommended The Immanent Frame here before. Any other sources?
Finally, my main point. I think you're going to have much more problems justifying a higher law than figuring out how it relates to atheists.