Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

theobjectivestandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#31

Post by AmaroqWolf »

I find it sad that almost every commenter here so far has not only defended the New Atheists, but they've also defended intuition and innate-conscience based morality.

You're doing the exact same thing the author of the article accused the New Atheists of. Stop defending emotion based morality and start arguing for rational, reality-based morality.

I'm still studying Objectivism myself, but as far as I know, Ayn Rand has already based morality in reality. The article stating this at the end doesn't seem to be intended as a baseless assumption. It's basically saying "Here's a reality-based morality. For its validation, see Rand's works." I'd listen to it and actually try to understand where Rand was coming from before attacking her. I see idiotic attacks on her philosophy every day, and not a single one of the attackers understands or has even tried to understand it.

If you think there's an alternative to Rational Egoism, base that alternative on facts, not on personal feelings or the whims of large groups of people.

Again, stop arguing for emotion based morality, and start basing morality on facts.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#32

Post by w00pla »

The thing I hate most in the world is pseudo-intellectual atheists that just know that they are right.

Many religions teach you that the goal is not to be a douche. Most college pseudo-intellectual atheists/internet atheists are douches.

I am/was an agnostic. At this point I am willing believe the exact opposite of Dawkins and his fellow atheist zealots - since I know that they are assholes.

They (like the Khrushchev of old) just replaced religion with their own zealotous dogma.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#33

Post by mike_organon »

AmaroqWolf wrote: post #31

I find it sad that almost every commenter here so far has not only defended the New Atheists, but they've also defended intuition and innate-conscience based morality. You're doing the exact same thing the author of the article accused the New Atheists of. Stop defending emotion based morality and start arguing for rational, reality-based morality. I'm still studying Objectivism myself, but as far as I know, Ayn Rand…

Well said. I find this philosophy similar to science, in that as a fan of science, I find it exciting when new evidence or theory comes up to correct or expand an old theory. I'm following this thread for that reason.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#34

Post by dk »

ErrantX wrote: post #30
dk wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person is not a conclusion. The article ends by advocating Ayn Rand's ideas and works, clearly. Whatever one's views might be of her doesn't invalidate everything that precedes.

Indeed. It was the whole point of the article, really though. The writer took each of the "new atheists", listed their theories and pointed out where it doesn't sync with the writers views. But there were also no solutions (something the writer calls dawkins et al on a few times) to the fundamental questions - until the end when Ayn Rand is presented as the answer (and I mean her works in the possessive)

The article argues every step for a reality-based ethics. And the author has one in mind, not surprisingly. Advocacy is not a crime and arguments are not invalidated by conclusions.

Responding in the form "I agree that..." or "I disagree that..." could start an interesting discussion.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#35

Post by ErrantX »

dk wrote: post #34
ErrantX wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. It was the whole point of the article, really though. The writer took each of the "new atheists", listed their theories and pointed out where it doesn't sync with the writers views. But there were also no solutions (something the writer calls dawkins et al on a few times) to the fundamental questions - until the end when Ayn Rand is presented as the answer (and I mean her works in the possessive)

The article argues every step for a reality-based ethics. And the author has one in mind, not surprisingly. Advocacy is not a crime and arguments are not invalidated by conclusions. Responding in the form "I agree that..." or "I disagree that..." could start an interesting discussion.

> Advocacy is not a crime and arguments are not invalidated by conclusions

Of course; I just wish that the writer had mentioned this at the top so I could have given the arguments context. I've read Rand and personally don't find her useful so all that reading led to... nothing insightful (for me anyway) :)

There was a lot of use of "The fact is" - this is just bad rhetoric. I didn't feel these sections were well enough argued/presented to constitute a solution to the questions posed earlier in the piece.

Ultimately I just felt the conclusion was poor - the article posed a lot of questions and never really addressed them, except to say read Ayn Rand.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#36

Post by Dellort »

w00pla wrote: post #32

The thing I hate most in the world is pseudo-intellectual atheists that just know that they are right. Many religions teach you that the goal is not to be a douche. Most college pseudo-intellectual atheists/internet atheists are douches. I am/was an agnostic. At this point I am willing believe the exact opposite of Dawkins and his fellow atheist zealots - since I know that they are assholes. They (like the Khrushchev…

Why not just have no stance and simply be nonreligious? Belief of any kind grounded on no evidence at all has always been a grave mistake.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#37

Post by catzaa »

Dellort wrote: post #36
w00pla wrote: post #32

The thing I hate most in the world is pseudo-intellectual atheists that just know that they are right. Many religions teach you that the goal is not to be a douche. Most college pseudo-intellectual atheists/internet atheists are douches. I am/was an agnostic. At this point I am willing believe the exact opposite of Dawkins and his fellow atheist zealots - since I know that they are assholes. They (like the Khrushchev…

Why not just have no stance and simply be nonreligious? Belief of any kind grounded on no evidence at all has always been a grave mistake.

Why? Human beings have many lies that they belieeve are true, and we are not poorer for it.

(E.g. Unconditional love, true love, etc...).

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#38

Post by Dellort »

catzaa wrote: post #37
Dellort wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just have no stance and simply be nonreligious? Belief of any kind grounded on no evidence at all has always been a grave mistake.

Why? Human beings have many lies that they belieeve are true, and we are not poorer for it. (E.g. Unconditional love, true love, etc...).

Because it is dangerous. People act according to their beliefs regardless of them being grounded in real evidence or not. I would say we are poorer for it as we have seen people fly planes into buildings or have tried to eradicate an entire race as a result of their beliefs.

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#39

Post by [deleted] »

AmaroqWolf wrote: post #31

I find it sad that almost every commenter here so far has not only defended the New Atheists, but they've also defended intuition and innate-conscience based morality. You're doing the exact same thing the author of the article accused the New Atheists of. Stop defending emotion based morality and start arguing for rational, reality-based morality. I'm still studying Objectivism myself, but as far as I know, Ayn Rand…

[deleted]

Re: The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc)

#40

Post by applicative »

Give up on Rand, she is a philistine. Try David Gauthier (amazon link: http://tinyurl.com/moralsbyagreement ) if you want a serious theory that might speak to you, if she does. Plenty of game theory to amuse, on your way to serious reflection!

I wonder about the plan of 'basing morality on reality'. In a way it can't be rejected of course, but it is a formula that is very easy to misread. There was a traditional distinction between 'practical' and 'theoretical' philosophy -- the origin of the familiar opposition practice/theory, but quite different. The associated epistemologies are very different.

Consider, to take a trivial illustration that doesn't reach so high as the ethical: my (practical) knowledge the I am typing something to Hacker News, and your (theoretical) knowledge of the same thing, if you are watching. Is my knowledge an effect of the 'reality' that I am typing something to Hacker News. Is it so to speak 'reality based', as yours certainly is?

Plenty of knowledge of reality, e.g. the layout of the keyboard, what has actually appeared on screen, etc. comes in, of course. But I am making this 'reality', I am making the thing that is cold external reality for you. The assymetry between your knowledge and mine in this case has parallels at the higher levels. Maybe Randism is true of Martians, for example. But even so that wouldn't be how the Martians know it. They wouldn't have 'reality based' knowledge of it. We would, if we could come to this knowledge by studying them.

Similarly, justice and mutual recognition belong to human life but we don't know this the way Martians would. There needn't be anything mystical in this.

Post reply on HN