The necessity of combating relativism

"In saying this, we must note that atheists are not immune from unreasoned dogma. Religion is not the only place where one can go to find doctrines that promote death and human suffering.

Europe, though being more 'atheist' than America, also suffers from the influence of atheist dogmas that are as anti-science as any religion. The list of popular philosophies in Europe include post-modernism and cultural relativism, both of which condemn the idea that we can have actual knowledge of the real world. These dogmas have been as effective at holding the European culture back scientifically and economically as creationism has been in America. Focusing on religious dogmas and their harmful effects is just a part of the problem.

In fact, the philosophies of post-modernism and cultural relativism point to an important case of atheist scapegoating. Many 'new atheists' have accused religious moderates of shielding religious extremists by preventing criticism against the harshest forms of their religion. However, they did not mention the fact that these non-religious philosophies are an even greater obstacle to criticizing fundamentalist religions. It's from these philosophies, not from religious moderates, that we get the idea that no culture may criticize another. Religious moderates, in contrast, still held to the possibility of moral and objective truths."

Atheistethicist.blogspot.com, Mar 6, 2008

This is a very important point being raised.

I don't agree with all sentiments. Relativism is not as retarded as creationism after all, and it's nowhere as widespread in Europe as creationism/ID is in USA. The problem is that relativism is more popular among the elite, instead of among the unedumecated. That makes it dangerous, because these are decision makers.

Further, I need to point out that New Atheists do spend some time criticizing relativism. So it's not true that it's not mentioned. For instance, I'll quote some examples from the the New Atheist books:

"The general retort to relativism is simple, because most relativists contradict their thesis in the very act of stating it. Take the case of relativism with respect to morality: moral relativists generally believe that all cultural practices should be respected on their own terms, that the practitioners of the various barbarisms that persist around the globe cannot be judged by the standards of the West, nor can the people of the past be judged by the standards of the present. And yet, implicit in this approach to morality lurks a claim that is not relative but absolute. Most moral relativists believe that tolerance of cultural diversity is better, in some important sense, than outright bigotry. This may be perfectly reasonable, of course, but it amounts to an overarching claim about how all human beings should live. Moral relativism, when used as a rationale for tolerance of diversity, is self-contradictory."

Sam Harris, The End of Faith (Page 179, The Demon of Relativism)

"It is the source of squirming internal conflict in the minds of nice liberal people who, on the one hand, cannot bear suffering and cruelty, but on the other hand have been trained by postmodernists and relativists to respect other cultures no less than their own. Female circumcision is undoubtedly hideously painful, it sabotages sexual pleasure in women (indeed, this is probably its underlying purpose), and one half of the decent liberal mind wants to abolish the practice. The other half, however, 'respects' ethnic cultures and feels that we should not interfere if 'they' want to mutilate 'their' girls."

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Pages 328-9, Childhood Abuse and Religion)

"The more one learns of the different passionately held convictions of peoples around the world, the more tempting it becomes to decide that there really couldn't be a standpoint from which truly universal moral judgments could be constructed and defended. So it is not surprising that cultural anthropologists tend to take one variety of moral relativism or another as one of their enabling assumptions. Moral relativism is also rampant in other groves of academia, but not all. It is decidedly a minority position among ethicists and other philosophers, for example, and it is by no means a necessary presupposition of scientific open-mindedness.
We don't have to assume that there are no moral truths in order to study other cultures fairly and objectively; we just have to set aside, for the time being, the assumption that we already know what they are."

Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking The Spell (Pages 375-6, Some More Questions About Science)

Also Hitchens briefly calls it the "morally lazy practice of relativism" in "God is not Great". He's hardly one to bend over for relativists anyway. And generally, you'll notice when you read Atheist blogs, and in Atheist forums, that most Atheists are firmly rooted in a mixture of common sense and scientific thinking. The Black Sun Journal has made a number of posts on this issue.
Anyway, with relativism this whole New Atheist thing would be meaningless, and no-one would care.

The question is of course: is it enough?

No, I don't think so.

Consider these facts:

1. The Pope in particular, and a lot of other religious conservatives constantly raise the point about relativism, as a disease of modern society. The underlying (or overt) message is that without God, there's not point in being moral, and that secularism will lead to relativism. Their major gripe with modernity is that morality has become a matter of opinion.

(I subscribe to a Google News feed that gives me a note in the Google Reader whenever there's a news item with the word "relativism" mentioned. The Pope crops up regularly, and most of the others tend to be religious conservatives attacking secularism.)

2. Most of the non-religious criticism levelled at the New Atheists come from relativists. We're angry, militant, while there are "other truths", there should be tolerance, dialogue and so on and so on. They may not identify as relativists, or use that word at all, but they usually have that kind of understanding.

New Atheists then are unfairly attacked for leading everyone into relativism while being attacked by relativists at the same time. Also, relativists are the same people who will appease fundamentalists and Islamic conservatives in general.


It's a triple problem and that's why it must be combated. When the Pope attacks secularism for leading us into relativism, we can't simply deny this. Those of us who aren't relativists will shout straw man!, and while that is true - for most of us - there is still some people who are attracted by it. We can't simply dismiss relativism as a non-problem.

In Sweden, Christer Sturmark of the Humanisterna organisation actually joined forces with an Evangelical called Stefan Swärd. Together they wrote a piece in the Expressen paper against cultural relativism in February, stating among other things that cultural relativism undermines the Human Rights. That's a very good move.

This won't make Atheism seem like a viable option for Evangelicals, but it shows that not all Atheists have the intention of lapsing into Barbary. Constantly criticizing relativists from an Atheist perspective, can show that those fears are not warranted and we can invalidate criticism. Some will continue to claim that without God, there's no point in being moral, but it won't seem to stick as well.

While I believe firmly that we must criticize both the fundamentalists and the moderates (and the liberals) on their respective issues, we must not merely dismiss accusations of relativism. It must be tackled head-on, because right now it is a legitimate complaint when there are other Atheists who keep spreading the idea (along with many religious liberals it must be noted).

There is one more thing I want to add. Conservative and fundamentalist believers are of course making a false dichotomy where you have to chose between their absolutism or relativism. And also defenders of relativism have been using the same logic.

"Since such relativism is intolerable, in their eyes, imperialist universalism must be endorsed. Either we're right and they're wrong, or "right" and "wrong" have no meaning!" Dennett

So make no mistake, there are things in other cultures that are perfectly fine. It's just that the proponents of relativism seem not to separate between FGM and spicy food.

And also, Christian and Muslims all dabble in relativism:
"God's mysterious ways" = "God's culture" in relativist language.

New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

"What is strange is that, when one actually reads them, one gets the feeling that the real target of the "new atheists" isn't religion at all.
Indeed, they all explicitly say they have little or no problem with deism, or Spinozian pantheism or what Dawkins calls "Einstein-ian religion". Harris, Dennett and Hitchens (and possibly Dawkins) have indicated that they wouldn't necessarily want to see the synagogues, churches and mosques emptied, though they would want to see them abandon their “metaphysical bullshit” (see this video towards the end).
It seems that the new atheists’ real problem is with dogma, and specifically with the dogma of religious faith - with the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without logically sound reasons based on good evidence. They aren't really the “new atheists” at all, but the “new anti-dogmatists”."

Benjamin O'Donnell, Onlineopinion.com.au, 25 January 2008

I think this is a good observation. But it still needs some comments. Why is deism less of a problem than Christianity? Simply, because you can't buy yourself favours from God. There's no reason to act in irrational ways to achieve a special place in Heaven or to avoid Hell. And when you can't explain something, it's kind of pointless to say that a non-interfering god had been interfering. So Deism in itself is not much of a problem.
My only gripe with it is that when you actually accept that some god exists, then the next person can say: "Well, then what's stopping God from interfering in our lives?" And then Deism has fueled religion again, because no Deist would be able to prove to other believers that God never interfers. The best thing is therefore if we somehow can rid the world of this superstition.

"Thankfully, Fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no one believes them any more. This is a development to be celebrated."

This is true, but he unfortunately he didn't explain why they are discredited. Now they had their obvious flaws, but so do religions and they're still alive. But imagine for a second that Marx didn't simply write books. Imagine that the idea about a Communist paradise was apparently given to him by prophecy. (An angel came down to Marx and gave him the Heimlich Maneuver while telling him weird stories.) This would have made Marxism and Communism religions, and therefore not testable. As it were, communism collapsed due to being a crap system, which it was not supposed to be and the superior nazis lost the war. So they failed the tests. Islam and Christianity are also crap, but they're not testable on earth. You have to die to know if they're wrong or not.

So, if Communism and Nazism were religions that people believed in, and which were "outside" the reach of science, then they most likely wouldn't be gone. All sorts of morons would say: "Oh, we have to respect Nazism. It's their faith that they are superior. Hitler gave them faith.". And so on. (Which reminds my of the brilliant parody on Terry Eagleton: The Fascism Delusion.)

So they were indeed testable and lost the fight with democracy. Thanks to not being religions.

Ellen Johnson Responds to "The End of Atheism"

"Mr. Harris cannot see why we need a name for a group of people who are "against" something, or who don't believe in something. Take racism he says. There isn't any term for people who are against racism. We give ourselves a name because we are proud of who we are. A group needs to be identified in some way. And we want to be a "group." We aren't just against something. We are something.
Is the American Cancer Society just "against" something because they fight against cancer? Are they a "negative" organization? Is Greenpeace a negative organization because they are against pollution? Sounds silly doesn't it? Yet we buy into this nonsense when it is said about us.

[...]

From my experience, Christian fundamentalists are more concerned about our "activism" than what we call ourselves. They will attack anyone, Atheist or Theist, who challenges their privileged position in society. Remember Lisa Herdahl in Mississippi? She challenged organized school prayers there and she was a Christian. She was viciously attacked by the religious community for her efforts. Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong has received sixteen death threats in the last 30 years because of his liberal religious views. Trying to distance ourselves from our Atheism is not the answer."

Ellen Johnson, (president of American Atheists), HumanistNetworkNews.org, Oct. 3, 2007

There was another article posted at Sam Harris' site (Caspar Melville, Guardian, October 5, 2007):

"Among the distinguished audience listening to Harris’ speech were all the A-list A-thiests including Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins himself. Asked afterwards what he thought of the speech Dawkins replied: “I think he was making a very interesting point, and I’m still thinking about my reaction to it.” Perhaps he thinking it’s not too late to rebrand the Out project. He could say that the “A” doesn’t stand for “atheist” after all, but for something else entirely. Any suggestions?"

It would have to stand for Anonymous.

Hitchens Book Debunking The Deity Is Surprise Hit

"God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," by Christopher Hitchens, wasn't expected to be a blockbuster. Its publisher, Twelve, a fledgling imprint owned by France's Lagardère SCA, initially printed a modest 40,000 copies. Today, seven weeks after the book went on sale, there are 296,000 copies in print. Demand has been so strong that booksellers and wholesalers were unable to get copies a short time after it hit stores, creating what the publishing industry calls a "dark week." One experienced publishing veteran suggests that Mr. Hitchens will likely earn more than $1 million on this book.

The Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2007 (See also this graphic numbers for naysayers)

I'm a happy owner of the first edition!