Pericles,
Once again, I agree with your comments; I said myself above that the New Atheists were just another mode of identity politics, only incongruously conservative. They don’t speak for me either and I think their larger ideology (though not necessarily all their unsuspecting members) is neoliberalism.
George,
<Coming to your exposition, I think I can understand it better than your previous essays.>
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not; certainly I essayed to answer the question, but couldn’t have been in briefer.
< I think e.g. Dawkins and co are “guilty” of the first one-sidedness, you of the second.>
I refute this completely, unless you care to elaborate what looks like your own binary reductionism—what you accused me of above when I said:
< Religion is either, as Marx has it, “a register of the theoretical struggles of mankind”, or it’s “the projection of genuine human needs onto the fabric of the universe”, as Hegel had it; or perhaps it’s a dialectical synthesis.>
I thought it was clear from the context that I was referring a) to the “religious impulse” and b) in the context of Hegel’s and Marx’s thought—idealism verses materialism. I wasn’t attempting to reduce the “hundreds of definitions of religion” to two.
This though a shrewd question:
< could you explain in what sense are you an atheist but not a materialist?>
and the very problematic I’m working on, though in the sense of being both an idealist and a materialist, rather than either or. I don’t have an answer as yet but I can say I don’t subscribe to the meaningless universe school of thought.

Poirot,
I like your quotes : )
Houellebecq:
The “Bahahahha. We're talking sh1t. Aren't we? Bahahaha.” Is Sponge Bob and Patrick, right? I’d know that laugh anywhere!

That is precisely what I have been trying to get across to you, woot.

>>Maybe you should look at the issue of how atheism is perceived by believers and not just do the same thing.<<

You have painted a big red target on the back of atheism, first by calling it Atheism, then by having a conference for Atheists. This is how "believers" are now able to categorize atheists, by giving them all the attributes of Atheists.

>>Dawkins doesn't speak for me, I have disagreed with him on many points and issues<<

You obviously have no concept of public relations. Perceptions are everything. It may well be true that you disagree with Dawkins (I'd be intrigued to hear where you differed, by the way. Care to share?), but that is not what an outside, biased observer will see. They will simply grab the opportunity to lump you all together, and assume that because I am an atheist, I subscribe to the self-promotion of Atheism, and its rather unsavoury side-effects.

>>The problem seems to me to come down to the fact they are projecting what they think better than you are, and you don't like it.<<

"Better"? That is moot, woot.

Is it the size of the audience that determines "better"? Is it the number of books they write that determines "better"? How can the projection by one person of the concept "I do not believe in the existence of a deity" be in any way different from mine? Ten words, that's all it takes. How are those words "better" when articulated in front of 4,000 people?

>>I would also point out many of those you term 'new atheists' don't take the stance there is no god<<

Then what does the word "atheist" mean, in this new construction?

>>One only has to have gone to an event like the GAC<<

You have just underlined my point, very effectively. If the "A" in GAC now does not mean "atheist" in the sense that an atheist "takes the stance that there is no god", you have now drained it of all meaning.

The battle lines have clearly been drawn between 2 vehemently opposed parties. This inevitably means thinking people must look for a third alternative:
I strongly avoid calling no thinking people to not join the New Agnostics. You must not swear to not believe or disbelieve in the existence or non existence of any God or Gods, but even more importantly;
DON'T TELL ANYONE;
as it has been clearly established (by Dawkins &co) that it isn't religion or religions or anti religions which cause war and conflict, but rather
Proselytisers;
as the New Atheists become the Jehovah's Witnesses (and 7th day Adventists, and Mormons) of Atheists even to other atheists.
Now we find out who's really the most anal in sorting out double negatives.

Houellebecq,
>> Now (Nor?) s the exercise in itself really enjoyable, as I don't perceive that … I seriously think you'd all get more out of a good walk in the park. It’s reminiscent of what my mind goes through when I have a high fever…<<
Then why do you read these discussions, even throw in the spanner if you feel like that? There are many topics/threads on this OLO that I cannot follow, don't understand, lack sufficient information, find futile etc. However, I don’t feel the need to react like this - I simply don’t read them and if I do, I don't parade my disinterest or ignorance.

Poirot,
>> Einstein reckoned that once the mathematicians "invaded" the theory of relativity, he no longer understood it himself.<<
That is understandable. Newton would probably not have understood what Lagrange, Hamilton etc made of his original insights into mechanics, and we used to joke that neither Newton nor Leibniz would pass our first year exams on calculus.

I appreciate your second Einstein quote. The exact wording is “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” (Geometry and Experience, 1921). I used to have it displayed on the door of my room at the University, since I saw it as a kind of raison d’être for the need to distinguish between pure and applied mathematics.

It inspired not only my preference for the language of models to describe how mathematics and physics see (physical) reality, but also my formulation in another context: “As far as religious symbols (and norms) refer to observable reality (and rules that can be enforced) they are not certain; as far as they are certain they do not refer to observable reality (and rules that can be enforced)”.

Bugsy,

I actually think you are right that science can give rise to wonder and, therefore, is poetic in its revelation.

I suppose I was thinking of its transmission between humans, and the kind of rhetoric used to convey scientific thought. In order to transmit the awe of discovery and realisation (or even to get to get to that point), intuition, imagination and emotion are necessary to complete "meaning".

Our humanity is the point from which everything else resonates.

Every part of Eiseley's passage about the dead dog led back to a human core - this is why it moves us.
If he had simply elaborated on the materiality of a decaying carcass on the shore, it would have been hollow of the ability to render "poetic meaning".

Squeers,
Thanks for continuing in these discussions.
>>The preceding context of this little riff (addiction for models and patterns) was my thinking on the validity of a universal ethics <<
Apology, I apparently erroneously concluded that the context was science, or more precisely philosophy of science, where I (and apparently also Hawking) like to use the term “model”. Hence my curiosity. I did not know that the word was also used in the context of ethics, universal or not, which I don't want to go into not only because I do not feel sufficiently competent, but also because I don't want to open another can of worms.

>>when I’ve said before that I left school at 14 and am in all honesty self-taught, <<
Well, you certainly did not say that in a debate with me. Now I am completely surprised, since I sincerely thought you were a professional philosopher, or at least a PhD student of philosophy. If that requires that I apologise again, so be it, however I really mean this as a compliment.

>>Not sure if this is sarcasm or not<<
If you feel that I treat your expositions - that I wish to understand because I feel I cannot dismiss them offhand - with sarcasm then I really failed to communicate with you.
ctd