New Atheist Fundamentalism
If you look up fundamentalism on Wikipedia you find this opening definition:
Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs. However, fundamentalism has come to apply to a tendency among certain groups—mainly, though not exclusively, in religion—that is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions, leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency.
Sam Harris is a fundamentalist. Harris favours a strict and literal interpretation of religious scripture because it's easier for him to dismiss it as Iron Age superstition. He will dismiss Multilevel Selection in evolutionary theory as hogwash because it contradicts, in his view, the work of his friends Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. He will also attack, denigrate and ridicule his opponents without ever really making a strong case against their claims. Check out this great post on his attitude and behaviour towards Francis Collins. Sam Harris is not a scientist, he is an advocate of Scientism.
New Atheists believe, they have beliefs too, that they are just anti-religion. This is not entirely accurate, they are more than just anti-religion. New Atheists are anti-theists, they are anti-God. They have created a new religion for themselves, one that doesn't worship a supreme being but instead worships what in their not so humble estimations is a supreme world view. A world view centred around reason and logic. New Atheism is not areligious, it’s a form of scientism and Harris is one of it’s most vocal Imams.
He’s not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, William Brigg takes aim at his PhD thesis here. One of his friends and co-religionists however is a scientist, Richard Dawkins, but even Dawkins is driven entirely by his emotions when it comes to religion and in his field of Evolutionary Biology he flat-out refuses to even entertain any theories that might challenge his own. Dawkins is a personification of what Max Planck meant when he said "science advances one funeral at a time." People like Dawkins and especially Harris think they are purely rational beings using only logic and reason to navigate their way through the world but what they are doing is in fact falling prey to Descarte’s Error. They are frauds and their masks are slipping more and more. People are waking up to the Trustafarian Harris and the Upper Class Twit Dawkins.
[youtube
Aristotle said: The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Sam Harris clearly demonstrated in his an episode of his podcast Waking Up that he is incapable of doing that or at best unwilling to do it. In his first “conversation” with Jordan Peterson he spent two hours arguing over the definition of one word, truth. This is atomism in action. Harris could have allowed his guest to continue to explain his ideas without accepting his broader definition of what is essentially “higher” or “religious truth” but he simply could not do that. Harris knew where the conversation was going and that it would seriously challenge if not outright demolish his straw man position on religion. His fixation on one word was simply a diversionary tactic so he could later blame his guest for the unproductive discussion and label him as incoherent and irrational.
The fact is, Sam Harris has reasoned himself into and illogical and irrational corner and he’s stuck there. He’s not a philosopher, he’s not a scientist, he’s not a brilliant mind. He is a charlatan, a somewhat articulate and at times eloquent huckster. He’s a 21st century L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith (sorry Mormons).
I enjoyed reading this however I want to pick you up on one point, the discusion of Truth.
This is pivitol and I understand why the person you mention dwelled on it.
If you look up Absolute Truth you will see that Athiests deny it exists.
Even Wikipedia see's this as being a nonsense.
You see to argue that there is no absolute truth requires an absolute position, in itself therefore an absolute truth.
Thus philosophically there must be an absolute truth but in denying it Atheists allow themselves to focus on Relative truth which shifts like the sand.
We can truly claim that the problems we have with truth in society today is due to Athiesm and the 1933 manifesto. With no absolute truth, we are able to be bouyed up and blessed by 'Post Truth' and 'Fake News'. In my view this is all due to Atheism and its relative truth being dishonestly promoted into society.
All it takes is one piece of solid scientific proof of a god, then boom no more atheists. It's that easy. So far, there has been none.
I agree that many atheists are just on a bandwagon of belief because really thinking about things yourself is just too much work. However, many of us do read, do think. Many of us simply seek truth. Science helps with this. Science doesn't allow for poorly-defined premises or slippery words that need to be interpreted in a spiritual context (whatever that means). If you are unable to pinpoint the facts, dogma hides beneath an ever-shifting smokescreen which makes it impossible for the truly honest truth seeker to decipher.
He doesn't do this to make it easier to dismiss. He's using the scientific laser focus necessary for burning things closer to the bone of truth. To explain something as 'God's being mysterious' doesn't explain anything. Nobody's nearer the truth. It encourages ignorance. Just like when the child asks, 'How are babies made?' Either to avoid the embarrassing question, or because the adult doesn't know the answer, they're told 'the stork brought it'.
@anjkara - no Christian would ever expect you to have solid scientific proof of God - there is a good reason for it - Free Will.
Humankind has Free Will from the beginning.
If what you demand was produced you lose your free will, how could you not believe?
No Christian would ever want that to occur outside of when it is meant to, because the only time that occurs is at a point of ending, either in meeting God due to death or meeting God due to the end of the World.
But I would also suggest that no scientist would expect you to have solid scientific proof of Love.
You are the one seeking scientific proof - let us look at Love, which is described as an attribute of God.
Give me one scientific paper giving something simple, such as the weight of Love (mass) or the Speed of a Love in a look (you can use meters per second or feet) - once you can do that then lets look at God.
The point being that you don't expect to make a cake using concrete and a jackhammer.
It is extremely foolish to expect to look at a philosophical constuct using science which is immersed in the material - the reason that science is the daughter of philosophy is because to look at this you need to use the highest tools we have, not lower ones, such as science
Nice to meet you brother.
Following and upVoting.