Most atheists are more sensible than that. I don't think that The New Atheists, for example, or those under their influence, would actually make that claim. They would likely dispute the claim that religions invented morality, and rightly so. And I can't see most people within that sort of group having an attitude reflected in the exclamation "we won't be moral - so take that religious people!". More like, "we reject your presumption of moral authority!" — Sapientia

I find most of the new atheists are engaged in 'straw God' arguments - they take what is the most caricatured version of the idea, namely that of young-earth creationists and reactionary fundamentalism, as being what is meant by 'God'. I never believed in the kind of God that they say doesn't exist, but I still don't consider myself atheist (although many of my Christian forbears might consider me to be that.)

As regards 'moral authority', there is the kind of moral authoritarianism that is associated with the organised religions, particularly Christianity and Islam. But what I was referring to was not the rejection of that, so much as the conscientious declaration of the essential meaninglessness of the Universe. That is writ large in new atheist polemics. And as for Marxism, everything is the result of our relationship to the means of production. Marx said of the Origin of Species, which he read weeks after publication:

Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle… Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, “teleology” in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained. — Karl Marx

'Doing away with purpose' is essential to that mind-set. But that inevitably shades into doing away with Tao, Dharma, Logos, any notion of 'law' in any sense other than the mechanical arrangement of matter, which, as Nietszche correctly foresaw, culminates in nihilism.

Those stats are of philosophers, not atheists as a general category.

Does what you read, and your interest in philosophy in general carry over to your "everyday life"? — anonymous66

Consider what Bertrand Russell says on the nature of thought:

Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit.

My everyday life consists of comfortable habits, relations to people and established institutions etc.. So perhaps I should not carry over my interest in philosophy to my everyday life....

&
Yeh fair points. Anti realism comes much more naturally to me and most the people I speak to about ethics. I feel like moral realism takes a lot more work than anti-realism unless people take a very naive realist position. This feeling is probably because of the culture.

Also just had a look at the age ranges in the paper, only 9 of the philosophers interviewed were born after 1980. Which could be relevant if people want to claim that there has been a cultural shift.

Well, the significant shift I was referring to began in the Enlightenment and came to full fruition in the early twentieth century, so I don't think there's a generational difference that maps to the relevant cultural shift. I think it's that people, philosophers included, are still unwilling to allow ethics to be entirely contingent and relative (if they think about it), at the same time as they find it difficult to justify this. MacIntyre's historical analysis is an attempt to untangle this mess. One thing to notice is that although you can't get an ought from an is, this is just because we're using the post 17th century understanding of "ought", which is of an imperative detached from real desires and goals. You can get what is now called an 'instrumental ought' from an is--but not a 'moral obligation'.

What is the article/book he does that in? I'm a bit wary of psychological explanations especially when they're used to explain away positions that I don't agree with (they often appear more convincing then they should be).

It's in After Virtue. There are reasonable summaries of the argument here on Wikipedia and here on the IEP.

I'm a bit wary of psychological explanations especially when they're used to explain away positions that I don't agree with (they often appear more convincing then they should be). — shmik

I think that's wise, not only with psychological explanations but also with historical explanations (whether the latter reduce to the former, as you imply, I won't attempt to address). For example, we could explain Descartes' Meditations as a response to the insecure standing of natural science in his lifetime, and can further say that science turned out not to need absolutely certain foundations anyway, so it doesn't really matter. But hyperbolic doubt and the cogito still remain standing as important philosophical challenges and insights. I think we can synthesize these attitudes and say that the best philosophers are those who best bring out the problems particular to their milieus.

But the question of historicism, similar to the question of psychologism, is one I'm still thinking about.

I said a bit more about all this recently in this post in the "moral facts" discussion.

Which often results in moral relativism or nihilism... — Thorongil

Perhaps so, but it needn't do.

How many atheists are unabashed moral realists? I honestly doubt there's that many. — Thorongil

I don't know, but I reckon if you asked them some very simple questions on ethics, they'd give answers indicative of moral realism.

Meta-ethics: moral realism 56.4%; moral anti-realism 27.7%; other 15.9%.
God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%. — shmik

If I were to make estimates of the culture around me, I'd say 90% are moral anti-realists. Of course, I haven't been spending any time in churches, lately. So maybe I should say 90% of those who don't attend church are moral anti-realists.

I think I'd class them as philosophers too, though they didn't pursue it thoroughly and decided to change the world instead. — jamalrob

Yes, they sort of fit in with the rest, but stand out in some respects. Nigel Warburton's Philosophy: The Classics has a chapter on part one of The German Ideology, for example, and I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

There's a fantastic book about Marx specifically as a philosopher: Karl Marx by Allen W. Wood. It's very clear, and it's critical but broadly sympathetic. It's sort of like Eagleton's Why Marx was Right with philosophical meat on the bones (I seem to recall you saying you read that). — jamalrob

Thanks for the book recommendation.

I find most of the new atheists are engaged in 'straw God' arguments - they take what is the most caricatured version of the idea, namely that of young-earth creationists and reactionary fundamentalism, as being what is meant by 'God'. I never believed in the kind of God that they say doesn't exist, but I still don't consider myself atheist (although many of my Christian forbears might consider me to be that.) — Wayfarer

I don't think that that's a fair criticism, since they often take care to clarify who they're targeting and why. They're not 'staw God' arguments if you misapply them.

I find most of the new atheists are engaged in 'straw God' arguments - they take what is the most caricatured version of the idea, namely that of young-earth creationists and reactionary fundamentalism, as being what is meant by 'God'. I never believed in the kind of God that they say doesn't exist, but I still don't consider myself atheist (although many of my Christian forbears might consider me to be that.) — Wayfarer

I have nothing good to say about the New Atheist movement.
Have you read anything by Chris Hedges, author of I Don't Believe in Atheists and When Atheism Becomes Religion: America's New Fundamentalists?

As someone who grew up as a fundamentalist, and then started getting involved with atheists who are fans of Dawkins and Harris (both leaders in the New Atheist movement), I can definitely see the similarities.

Here are some of the similar attitudes present in both the Radical Christian Right (fundamentalists) and the New Atheists:

• Us vs Them (atheists say all religions are bad, fundamentalists say all non-fundamentalists are bad).
• Evil is not something present in all humans, but rather evil is only present in the "other", the ones picked out for vilification. (see above)
• A utopian vision (if only everyone were to become Christians, or atheists, then the world would be a better place)
• Ignorance of world history. (including an ignorance of the history of religion)
• Hatred of Islam (or at least vilification of Islam).

No. No it isn't. That is the attitude of a small minority. Most atheists are more sensible than that. I don't think that The New Atheists, for example, or those under their influence, would actually make that claim. They would likely dispute the claim that religions invented morality, and rightly so. And I can't see most people within that sort of group having an attitude reflected in the exclamation "we won't be moral - so take that religious people!". More like, "we reject your presumption of moral authority!" — Sapientia

I did talk honestly about my real-world experiences. I did meet some very vocal atheists who do see morality in a twisted way such that I don't know how they could strive for any kind of moral excellence. Also see my post where I mention Chris Hedges and the New Atheist movement. - From what I know and experienced of the New Atheist movement, I don't want anything to do with them. It's just fundamentalism, but for atheists.

I did talk honestly about my real-world experiences. I did meet some very vocal atheists who do see morality in a twisted way such that I don't know how they could strive for any kind of moral excellence. Also see my post where I mention Chris Hedges and the New Atheist movement. - From what I know and experienced of the New Atheist movement, I don't want anything to do with them. It's just fundamentalism, but for atheists. — anonymous66

I wasn't suggesting that you were being anything other than honest about your experience, although I do think that you're subject to bias.

This is the post in question...

Anyway, I tried various denominations until about 3 years ago, at which time I started calling myself an atheist, and started looking for other atheists to hang out with. The ones I met were just too anti-religion for my taste. I'm also not impressed with the way that the atheists I've met approach morality- which looks to me very much like "religions invented morality, we don't like religions, and we won't be moral- so take that religious people!". I've since decided that the atheists who hang out in groups with "atheist" in the title of said group, aren't the type of people I want to spend much time with. (that's been my experience with the few groups I've spent time with... your mileage may vary). — anonymous66

I'd like to meet someone who is an atheist, and who shares my conviction that morality is objective. I do know of some atheist philosophers who argue in defense of objective morality, so that's a good start.

I'd like to meet someone who is an atheist, and who shares my conviction that morality is objective. I do know of some atheist philosophers who argue in defense of objective morality, so that's a good start. — anonymous66

Well, I am not one of them, although to be honest, I haven't even deeply thought about the issue in quite a long time. I'm sure there were members of the old forum who held that position, and there might likewise be members of this forum who hold that position.

In the atheist groups I know of, if you bring up morality, you Will soon become entangled in an argument about religion. They don't seem to be able to separate the two concepts.

In response to the original question: yes, I would argue it is having a profound effect. My views on political philosophy, cultural and moral relativism and the truth of determinism cause me to perceive the world and events in a different way than I used to. I am not trying to "blow my own horn" here, but everything seems a lot less personal, less petty and more rational with my philosophical mindset.

Put simply: there is significantly less emotional judgement, vengefulness, retributive ideas or hate in my life. Nothing I say or do is personal or aimed at anyBODY in particular, rather aimed at discovering truth and approaching things with reason.

I am not trying to "blow my own horn" here, but everything seems a lot less personal, less petty and more rational with my philosophical mindset. — Mustapha Mond

I see something similar in my own life. Others may not notice much of a change, but I feel more calm, more centered. More and longer stretches of time wherein I'm "rational", perhaps? If we are pursuing wisdom, and wisdom helps us know how to act, then it follows that we should become better at knowing how to act.

But, I also know that it's a discipline, something I have to keep working at, if I want to continue to enjoy the benefits.

Indeed, the pursuit requires constant upkeep. Over a year, my views have drastically changed on a huge number of topics and, I'm sure, within the next year I shall have completely different views.

I find most of the new atheists are engaged in 'straw God' arguments - they take what is the most caricatured version of the idea, namely that of young-earth creationists and reactionary fundamentalism, as being what is meant by 'God' — Wayfarer

I don't think that that's a fair criticism, since they often take care to clarify who they're targeting and why. They're not 'staw God' arguments if you misapply them. — Sapientia

They don't take any care whatever. In their view, as all religion is reactionary superstitious nonsense, then it doesn't deserve any real analysis or proper argument beyond invective and misinformed polemics. I could post links to dozens of critics that point this out, but it's not worth the bother.

What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind. 1 — Peter Higgs

They don't take any care whatever. — Wayfarer

That's just not true, though. For example, I recall seeing video footage of Dawkins and Hitchens doing just what I've said, and they've no doubt addressed this in their literature too.

What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind. 1 — Peter Higgs

This is amusing, because it's the same criticism that you just made, and my reply would be the same. If he's concentrating his attack on fundamentalists, then that's that. Why would you or Higgs attempt to redirect it an an unintended target and then complain about it as if it is Dawkins fault and not your own?

Like you say, it's a common objection, hence the reason it has been addressed and explained and clarified and qualified.

I also find the New Atheists to be profoundly anti-religion. I seriously doubt any of them can give or have ever given an honest appraisal of positive qualities of religion. Or any positive effects of any form of religion on the individual. They believe the only good religion is one that is extinct- not being practiced.

Just as the religious fundamentalist's vision of a utopia is one in which there is nothing but (their particular brand of) fundamentalists, the New Atheist's vision of a utopia is one in which there are no religions.

I have no problem thinking of New Atheists as being atheist fundamentalists.

Does what you read, and your interest in philosophy in general carry over to your "everyday life"? — anonymous66

Among the general population, I am outstanding as a man who can argue his points. On philosophy forums I see myself as just about average, but with the common man, I stand out as a teacher.

Consequently, street preachers either run the other way when they see me, or else try to befriend me with buying me a beer, or hugging me, or granting me eternal absolution from all my sins.

I have no problem thinking of New Atheists as being atheist fundamentalists. — anonymous66

I agree, with the addition that the only difference between religious fundamentalists and atheist fundamentalists is the yoke R.F.'s wear in terms of their respective religions' dogmas. Atheists are free of dogma. Other than that, they can be as rabid and as devout to atheism as the worse religious fundamentalist you can imagine.

yes