The Irrational Atheist

MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
The Irrational Atheist

Hi all,

 

So I've been reading The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day.  I haven't finished it yet but I'm almost there.  My general take is that the book is very confused.  Day sets out that he's going to take apart the reasoning of his Unholy Trinity (Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens) but very quickly devolves into dropping Dennet in and out of his arguments, and continuous promotion/depromotion of Hitchens as a serious threat all in the opening chapter.  While that doesn't take away from any future arguments to be made it does make the direction of the book seem a little wayward.

 

Once we actually get into the book itself Day takes the time to make some new definitions on atheism and science.  Specifically he splits atheists into "High Church" and "Low Church" atheists - High Church atheists being strong atheists with high levels of academic qualification and standing (generally), while Low Church members are the Joe Average characters of the piece.  he also splits science into three secions - the body of knowledge, the method, and the profession.  From here he then takes a look at the statistics of prison populations and uses various numbers to show that there are more non-believers in jail than christians, therefore non-believers are more immoral.  Specifically the argument seems to be that statistics based on atheist v christian populations never take into account the people that don't believe but haven't described themselves as atheists.  Only once this is done does he really move onto the challenge of tackling his Trinity.

 

If I were to unfairly sum up his arguments against the three main targets I would say this:

Harris - poor reasoning and maths, not enough recognition of the evil of science in his extinctino formula

Dawkins - no empirical evidence for claims of memes etc., childish refutal of criticism that should make scientists blush

Hitchens - only a journalist and so his vociferous defense of science is uneducated and clumsy.

 

If I were to be fair I would say that, at times, Day does present some interesting arguments.  I've never read Harris but some of the refutations presented by Day seem plausible enough.  His argumentation for religion accounting for only a small fraction of the world's wars is reasonable and looks well-researched, although it has encouraged me to read his source material to make my own judgment.  All in all I would say the book is an interesting read that made me ponder a few things and is generally worth it if you have some time to spare.  However, I do have one or two problems...

 

First off there is this:

 

"This idea may explain why the following pair of definitions have
proven to be useful in distinguishing between the High Church atheist
and the agnostic.


agnostic: I don’t believe there is a God. Because I haven’t seen the
evidence.


atheist: There is no God. Because I’m an asshole."

 

This appears at the end of a section detailing a possible link between atheism and high scoring on the Asperger's quotient.  Day's seeming point that atheism may be tied to certain autistic qualities could have led to somewhere if he hadn't finished off with this cheap shot.  I'm sure he may try and pass it off as a joke but the association is made "atheist = asshole".  This is continued throughout the book with language constantly coloured to equate atheism with death and (more consistently) communism.  Vox Day is clearly an educated man and refers to many sources througout so it is rather shaming to continually rely on the evil of communist dictatorships, without ever really referring to the root causes of those societies.  If you couple this with attacks on with marital status, relevancy of qualifications, personal qualities and the very weak "he isn't the first to say it..." argument [ref coming] then what we begin to see is a book that has some potentially thought provoking ideas which begin to get lost in a mire of insult, implication and mockery.  Not quite the reasoned tome advertised.

 

These are only my initial impressions and I will try to give a more detailed review later.  Has anyone else read this?  Any thoughts?

 

michael

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Interesting.  Thanks for

Interesting.  Thanks for letting us know about the book.

One very interesting thing you mentioned there is his claims of a connection between atheism and Aspergers.

I find it interesting because I believe that I have Aspergers.

However to claim that atheism is somehow directly linked to it is...faulty in my opinion in the extreme.

I was a self-professed christian for 30 years.  I wonder how he would explain that away.

There is one theory behind why the rate of Aspergers is increasing.  It hasn't been proven yet but I found it interesting.  The theory is that when two people who are very intelligent have a child together, sometimes the child's brain doesn't quite develop like normal and causes Aspergers or Autism.  Because of the rise of the tech industry combined with the fact that most people end up meeting their future spouse at their place of work, this is leading to the pairing up of intelligent people into a relationship more and more.

I haven't heard of a study of Aspergers and rates of IQ, but I think the average number would be much higher than the normal populations IQ average of 100.

I do not find it shocking that the higher IQ a person has the greater chance that they will be atheist.

So I wonder what his point is.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Very interesting. I have an

Very interesting. I have an IQ in the 140s. I've been diagnosed with Aspergers. And, I am of course an atheist.

But yeah. He was an utter twatwaffle about it.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


mr804
Special AgentSuperfan
mr804's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2007-11-04
User is offlineOffline
hi guys,  I'm an asshole!

hi guys,

 

 I'm an asshole! He's right!!


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Dude, you must have the

Dude, you must have the mental equivalent to an iron stomach to be reading that book. It must be like sorting trash with the tip of your nose. I spotted it on Amazon a few weeks back, and everything, from its author's obnoxious pen name (presumably... it's what, a phonetic of "voice of god," or something mind-bendingly stupid like that?), to its targeted meta ad hom approach, to its incredibly unimaginative and derivative title and cover art.

But, yeah, apologetics are cheap sophistry for baboons. I have no patience for it, but thanks for taking one "for the team."


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Yes - his name is a phonetic

Yes - his name is a phonetic equivalent to "vox dei" or "voice of god." I'm reading it myself in preparation for my "blog debate" or some shit with him, so I won't be giving away much here.

His book is interesting, sometimes humorous, and full of special pleading arguments and the misuse of statistical data. Despite this,  I'm impressed with it and think it may well be the best book written on the subject to date. I just think he's still too attached to that pesky confirmation bias. We shall see what happens after I write the first part of my response.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote:Yes - his

kellym78 wrote:

Yes - his name is a phonetic equivalent to "vox dei" or "voice of god."

Beat me to it.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
It seems like I saw this at

It seems like I saw this at the bookstore a few weeks ago.  I wouldn't read it if someone paid me. 


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:kellym78

HisWillness wrote:

kellym78 wrote:

Yes - his name is a phonetic equivalent to "vox dei" or "voice of god."

Beat me to it.

HAHA!!! Ha...he... Smiling


AdvancedAtheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Does Vox Day address the

Does Vox Day address the fundamental question of whether reality works the way theists claim? If not, then like other apologists he has just generated a load of philosophical bullshit to confuse the issue.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
AdvancedAtheist wrote:Does

AdvancedAtheist wrote:

Does Vox Day address the fundamental question of whether reality works the way theists claim? If not, then like other apologists he has just generated a load of philosophical bullshit to confuse the issue.

 

Day's claim isn't to back up, defend or even address the questions of theistic reality.  The book is simply a counterargument against the "New Atheist" publications.  To quote Day himself from the intro to the book:

"This is not a theological work. The text contains no arguments for the existence of God and the supernatural, nor is it concerned with evolution, creationism, the age of Earth, or intelligent design. It contains no arguments from Scripture; in attacking the arguments, assertions, and conclusions of the New Atheists, my only weapons are the purely secular ones of reason, logic, and historically documented, independently verifiable fact. This is not a book about God, it is about those who seek to replace Him."

So, no, he doesn't really address the issue.  I think you have to take it as read that he belives in God (and perhaps creation) and that he's simply trying to pick apart the arguments for his non-existance.

 

For anyone that would like to read the book but don't want to buy it, a free copy can be found here

http://irrationalatheist.com/files/TheIrrationalAtheist.pdf

 

M

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


AdvancedAtheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote: Day's

MichaelMcF wrote:

 Day's seeming point that atheism may be tied to certain autistic qualities could have led to somewhere if he hadn't finished off with this cheap shot.   

A lot of progress in understanding math and science has come from autistic neurologies, not to mention their ability to create and master complex technological systems. This suggests they have a greater ability to see the underlying structure of the universe than the people who confuse their hominin social experiences with "reality." Religious, nonautistic people basically behave like chimps who cower in submission to their pack's alpha male.


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
OK - my first post is up at

OK - my first post is up at www.rationalresponders.com/vox_day_1

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Just making it easy to find

Just making it easy to find the info on this issue.  Here is the post in which Kelly briefly touches on Vox Days first response.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote:HAHA!!!

kellym78 wrote:

HAHA!!! Ha...he... Smiling

This looks like the mad laughter of someone exposed to Vox Day's inane and pointless rhetoric. I hope you survive reviewing the book. I started reading his response to your review, and I had to stop because my brain seized.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence