Another atheist I can agree with on so much:
“Another consequence of fetishizing the often ill-defined might of “logic and reason” and a narrow comprehension of science is scientism…When I use the word scientism, I’m referring to mindsets that either underappreciate, discount, or even denigrate the contributions of philosophy, the context of lived experiences, and the significance of social sciences. Thus, scientism in this context describes attitudes that view natural science as the only meaningful interpretation of life…
An over-commitment to a limited realm of science that disregards philosophy is how we get epistemological distortions by some declaring “I have no beliefs,”…This is also how we get those who overlook the import of fields like cognitive science, psychology, sociology, and anthropology and conclude the only way people could be religious is because they suffer from mental defect or mental illness…
As covered in Why You Sound Ridiculous Claiming Religiosity is a Mental Defect, this belief isn’t only ableist but it underscores a refusal to acknowledge the limitations of the scientific method.
Those who embrace scientism have a habit of erasing the value of sociocultural issues. They’ll also attempt to explain physical, social, cultural, or psychological phenomena through a single scope that exalts the methods of natural sciences above all other forms of human inquiry…”
And then there are other atheists (David Cross) who have no idea what they are talking about…
Milbank nails it:
“[Stephen] Law is inexplicably stuck, like so many ‘philosophers of religion’ who are simply behind the curve, in a long-ago exploded (by Sellars, Quine, Davidson, Rorty, McDowell, Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault etc) philosophical world view for which truth can be neatly divided between truths of fact and truth of logic, between the lab and the armchair. Equally between both and claims of value, which therefore must be airily subjective and surely the masks of power as Nietzsche taught. One is here so disappointed with the lily-livered character of recent Anglo-Saxon atheists, who will not boldly and bracingly embrace, like the Alpine philosopher, the collapse of all ethics that must follow in the wake of the death of God. For nihilism is worthy of respect but not humanism – the ultimate result of Protestant middle-class and middle-brow culture, despicable to all peasants and nobility alike!”
The above is so clear from the comments to my last post regarding power and ethics. They are the responses of those who, aware or unawares, are simply mimicking that which was bequeathed to them from a “Protestant middle-class and middle-brow culture, despicable to all peasants and nobility alike!”
Nietzsche is still the only atheist worthy of our respect—God that there were more like him today. Instead we have the “lily-livered” impostors who want a Judeo-Christian ethic and sensibility of decency and “richness” in our culture but are clueless as to what that requires.
Is modern unbelief rooted in Christianity? Absolutely it is. Even the unbelief of modernity isn’t something the agnostic or atheist could generate themselves. It is derivative of the space opened up by theological moves, not secular ones.
He really should delete his social mediaaccounts…wow.