4 ms·

I firmly believe that guys like Dawkins/Harris/Tyson have done substantial harm to a certain kind of person's perception of the world. One can quite easily see

I firmly believe that guys like Dawkins/Harris/Tyson have done substantial harm to a certain kind of person's perception of the world. One can quite easily see the worldview they espouse, in the broadest sense, is compatible with the worst of human tendencies and ideologies. I find people can gain utterly monstrous views about fellow human beings through the superiority they earn for simply "believing in Science."

vkou 3y ago
> One can quite easily see the worldview they espouse, in the broadest sense, is compatible with the worst of human tendencies and ideologies. Could you name one or more major orthodox worldviews or institutions that are not, in practice, compatible with amplifying and perpetuating the worst of human tendencies and ideologies?
- beepbooptheory 3y ago
  'Orthodox' is an interesting qualifier here.. and with it I am inclined to say 'no'. But saying that is more a comment on the fraught history of humanity, rather than an agreement on the more reductive or banal point you want to be making here. But even if I concede to maybe a more charitable reading of your question, that any conceivable worldview could be compatible with facism or whatever, it doesn't mean that some can't be worse than others! And, IMO, this one is definitely on the more compatible side of the spectrum. But totally respect your opinion if you want argue about degrees here, because either way any given ideology is substantially determined and sustained from material conditions, social relations, etc, anyway; its always more a symptom than a problem itself.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > 'Orthodox' is an interesting qualifier here It's a necessary qualifier, because we're not talking about some niche five-person ideology or group that hasn't actually been tested by time. We need to talk about one that I've heard of, and can plausibly evaluate! > But saying that is more a comment on the fraught history of humanity, rather than an agreement on the more reductive or banal point you want to be making here. No, it's a comment that most structures of thought and reasoning are not actually a guardrail that will protect you against poor behaviour, and that in itself, without specifics, it's a poor criticism to level against a type of thinking, or an idea. You can criticize the specifics of the problems of Dawkins, but it's a cheap, parting shot to just say 'Well, Dawkins is compatible with horrible things', without elaborating further. Almost everything is compatible with horrible things! It's a low-information criticism!

vkou 3y ago

> One can quite easily see the worldview they espouse, in the broadest sense, is compatible with the worst of human tendencies and ideologies. Could you name one or more major orthodox worldviews or institutions that are not, in practice, compatible with amplifying and perpetuating the worst of human tendencies and ideologies?

beepbooptheory 3y ago
'Orthodox' is an interesting qualifier here.. and with it I am inclined to say 'no'. But saying that is more a comment on the fraught history of humanity, rather than an agreement on the more reductive or banal point you want to be making here. But even if I concede to maybe a more charitable reading of your question, that any conceivable worldview could be compatible with facism or whatever, it doesn't mean that some can't be worse than others! And, IMO, this one is definitely on the more compatible side of the spectrum. But totally respect your opinion if you want argue about degrees here, because either way any given ideology is substantially determined and sustained from material conditions, social relations, etc, anyway; its always more a symptom than a problem itself.
- vkou 3y ago
  > 'Orthodox' is an interesting qualifier here It's a necessary qualifier, because we're not talking about some niche five-person ideology or group that hasn't actually been tested by time. We need to talk about one that I've heard of, and can plausibly evaluate! > But saying that is more a comment on the fraught history of humanity, rather than an agreement on the more reductive or banal point you want to be making here. No, it's a comment that most structures of thought and reasoning are not actually a guardrail that will protect you against poor behaviour, and that in itself, without specifics, it's a poor criticism to level against a type of thinking, or an idea. You can criticize the specifics of the problems of Dawkins, but it's a cheap, parting shot to just say 'Well, Dawkins is compatible with horrible things', without elaborating further. Almost everything is compatible with horrible things! It's a low-information criticism!