Scientific Materialists like Richard Dawkins deny that purpose exists. This is evident in New Atheism’s militancy in which they campaign to eradicate religion. They feel, because of its dominance and harmful effects to the human psyche, and as a result, the planet, that it is their sacred cause (IE: purpose) to end its rule over humanity’s future.
Need I say more? Purpose is inherent in the universe. Even those who deny purpose are driven and controlled by it. If New Atheism could take a step back, and see itself for what it is (a messy, dialectical response to the entrenchment of Abrahamism), then it would immediately understand. Of course, if they acknowledged that, then their entire worldview would be shattered and require reconstruction.
The irony is that they feel it is their purpose to assert the non-existence of purpose.
Unfortunately, as it has in the past, atheism will make no meaningful gains in the war against religion. Humanity’s need for purpose, comfort, resilience in the face of adversity, and, most importantly, an actual answer to its peculiar and terrifying condition requires a replacement of its current worldview, not the abolishing of the need for a worldview.
New Atheism is essentially nihilism, masked by a gutted and philosophically bankrupt version of Stoicism. Its adherents speak of science giving all of the answers, when it has conclusively provided none. It describes processes that occur and their causes, not the reasons why they occur: their purpose.
The irony is that they rely on an infinite regress of causes to “explain” how the universe operates, while denouncing theism for its infinite regress of causes that “explains” how the universe operates.
There is no functional difference between deism and the scientific explanation of the Big Bang. This shows that science is nothing but an interpretation of data they have gathered by observing patterns. Other scientists could just as easily be deist, and at least deism appeals a bit more to our sense of purpose.
To New Atheism, denial of purpose represents a giant middle-finger being flipped to the current religious establishment. If the population of the West has an average mental age of fourteen, then New Atheism has a mental age of about sixteen. They are in the rebellious teenager phase, and have yet to see past their current impulsive, irrational, and unconsidered perspective on life. It’s “cool” to be stoic in the face of meaninglessness and the creeping depression that results from it.
Are they allowed to be proud for refuting Abrahamism and breaking free of its psychological control? Of course. I applaud anyone who is able to do something like that, especially if they were up to their necks in it.
Are they allowed to be arrogant know-it-alls who appeal to reason and yet deny reason’s existence? Technically, yes. And that’s why they are beyond annoying.
Do you like our work? Want to write for us? Get in touch right here »
There comes a point when refuting an ideology that is so obviously nonsensical, destructive, and childishly false must be seen for what it is: a necessary task.
If you are a Hyperrationalist, you know that there is so much more to learn, and that there are thousands of people today whose intelligence dwarfs that of your own. To make refuting a children’s story (albeit a horrifically violent one) a point of pride becomes an embarrassment.
Admittedly, I was a militant atheist know-it-all from age fifteen to eighteen. I know the feeling intimately. It’s an exercise in mental masturbation to ‘debate’ with creationists, especially when you find a group who encourages it.
But there comes a time to grow out of our rebellious teenage years and become adults. If you truly want Abrahamism to be defeated, then find a suitable, healthy, and, most importantly, purposeful replacement for it.
Don’t write “But there is no God” as a Facebook comment on a post about someone’s family member’s funeral. You’re doing nothing but strengthening the dialectical antithesis to your cause of New Atheism.
Your movement will fail anyway. It is so far removed from the human condition that it has no possibility of gaining any serious traction.
You might as well not look like a prick while you fail. At least add a bit of dignity to your arrogance.
Brett Urben writing for the Apollo Institute of Reason AIR Review©