It's not the New Atheists that are Arrogant

In #articles

In a Salon article entitled "New Atheism’s fatal arrogance: The glaring intellectual laziness of Bill Maher & Richard Dawkins", Sean Illing outlines what he seems to think are knock-down arguments about the content and approach of those so-called "New Atheists" such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. The core of the article is in the third paragraph:

But there’s something missing in their critiques, something fundamental. For all their eloquence, their arguments are often banal. Regrettably, they’ve shown little interest in understanding the religious compulsion. They talk incessantly about the untruth of religion because they assume truth is what matters most to religious people. And perhaps it does for many, but certainly not all – at least not in the conventional sense of that term. Religious convictions, in many cases, are held not because they’re true but because they’re meaningful, because they’re personally transformative. New Atheists are blind to this brand of belief.

Another gem:

Of course, most religious people consider their beliefs true in some sense, but that’s to be expected: the consolation derived from a belief is greater if its illusory origins are concealed. The point is that such beliefs aren’t held because they’re true as such; they’re accepted on faith because they’re meaningful.

Seriously?

Just ask yourself, if you swapped out "religion" in the texts above, and inserted astrology, witchcraft, alien visitation, scientology, 911 Truther or Anti-vaccination, would the author still have such a glib response to the lack of evidence? These all give their adherents meaning, a feeling of belonging to something greater than themselves, or an importance to themselves that they wouldn't otherwise have. Who are we to criticize these? They "consider their beliefs true in some sense" but gain some "consolation derived from the belief", and thus these "beliefs aren’t held because they’re true as such; they’re accepted on faith because they’re meaningful".

Essentially Sean Illing is saying that it doesn't matter whether the belief is true, it only matters if it makes you feel good. Of course he excludes himself from these false notions with "many people (myself included) find no practical advantage in believing things without evidence. But what about those who do?" What a patronizing and arrogant thing to say! Seems like he's projecting a bit.

Does Sean Illing not see the dangers in this line of reasoning? It does matter if people believe things without evidence. It does matter that, even in the cases where the belief is "content free", that the believers are using the same vocabulary as the fanatics - and thus provide intellectual cover for the fanatics. It does matter that believing in something merely because it gives you meaning, or makes you feel good, is a bad idea. How much legitimate meaning could be derived from beliefs that are not well supported by evidence?

This is the message of the so-called New Atheists, and it is not arrogant.