The Myth of New Atheism
1/30/2008 – 1:03 amIt began with a high-profile Wired article describing a “new band of intellectual brothers” in 2006 entitled The Church of the Non-believers. This article heralded Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett as being the figureheads of a new mounting crusade against theism. These new renegade atheists, according to the author, are calling us all out and are shocking in that “they condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God.” And he takes it obnoxiously far in Wired fashion calling atheists lonely fundamentalists who do not doubt their own beliefs. In this article Gary Wolf wrote: “The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But, so far, their provocation has failed to take hold.”
Well that was 2006. It seems that the provocation is taking hold. Shortly after in early 2007 the Wall Street Journal ran the editorial Without God, Gall Is Permitted which disparages “shallow” modern-day atheists for not being charming enough. Sam Schulman writes “Modern atheists have no new arguments, and they lack their forebears’ charm.” Articles like this cast atheism as a group in society that has nefarious goals against the mainstream. Writers call the new atheists intolerant and angry. And they denounce the new atheists for not having any new ideas, but just recycling old philosophical arguments. A recent blog article written by Rev. Marty Fields, pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church, continues the public charge against angry atheists and describes atheists as inept, gasping for air, and desperate.
Recently, a book was released by Vox Day on the subject of New Atheism called The Irrational Atheist which devotes most of its pages to specifically discrediting Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins (notably absent from the harangue is Dennett). This book attempts to discredit Atheism with logic, moral arguments, and statistical evidence (such as the mind-bogglingly useless assertion that “Sexually abused girls are 55 times more likely to commit suicide than girls raised Catholic”). As though Atheism promotes the sexual abuse of girls. Overall the theme of this book is to make the case that decent moral and ethical behavior requires religious belief. Arguments of this sort attempt to make belief in Christian God an ethical issue, which it isn’t.
At the end of what Gary Wolf makes sound like a journey to the core of his being, he concludes these trivialities on the subject of New Atheism: “Myself, I’ve decided to refuse the call. The irony of the New Atheism - this prophetic attack on prophecy, this extremism in opposition to extremism - is too much for me.” Wolf makes New Atheism into something it’s not. A belief system. New Atheism is to me the same as old atheism. Since the Enlightenment some people have spoken up for the fact that they themselves have not found evidence of nor have experience with gods and superstition in the world. If New Atheism comes down purely to attitude, then even attitude is nothing new. Look at the passionate and eloquently outspoken Robert Ingersoll. Meet the New Atheists. Same as the old Atheists.
I contend New Atheism is a myth. Atheists are people who — for whatever reason — do not have belief in a deity. It would be identical to placing a label on people who do not collect butterflies. The idea that atheists are insincere or unethical because they do not see what theists see is immoral in itself. Atheism is and always has been a reaction to theism. The louder theism becomes, the louder atheism will need to become. If the government suddenly promoted a political agenda based around collecting stamps then those who disagreed would be cast as or identified as aphilatelists. The rise of so-called New Atheism can only be a result of a rise in religious fervor. In other words, there is no New Atheism. There is actually New Theism. And that is the real problem and should be the real focus. The label New Atheism is another smear campaign against people who simply say they do not see the invisible monster in the room. People like Gary Wolf are their enablers.
18 Responses to “The Myth of New Atheism”
“If the government suddenly promoted a political agenda based around collecting stamps then those who disagreed would be cast as or identified as aphilatelists.”
That’s it in a nutshell. This is a well-written article, a cogent answer to the strident cries of unfairness from the likes of Wolf.
By mkg on Jan 30, 2008
This article fails to answer the question of the severe lack of evidence in the fossil record. Oh, um I mean how can you say there is not God when we marvel at the human eye? Er, I mean where did life come from?…dang it. Nevermind.
By Jester on Jan 30, 2008
“If the government suddenly promoted a political agenda based around collecting stamps then those who disagreed would be cast as or identified as aphilatelists.”
How many people would label themselves as aphilatelists? How many would form aphilatelist clubs and go to aphilatelist retreats. How many would invade the philatelist channels in various chat rooms discussing their disgust and dislike for stamps in all their 42 cent wickedness? How many books each year would be written on the topic of aphilatelism?
We may have to wait for Wired to publish “The New Aphilatelism” to find out.
By eris on Jan 30, 2008
On a more serious note. Let me give my opinion on the last paragraph
“I contend New Atheism is a myth. Atheists are people who — for whatever reason — do not have belief in a deity. It would be identical to placing a label on people who do not collect butterflies.”
* I disagree, it wouldn’t be identical. There isn’t a new strain of the not-butterfly taking a militant stance against butterfly collecting.
“The idea that atheists are insincere or unethical because they do not see what theists see is immoral in itself.”
* This is more of a wooogism than anything else. Sane people don’t think that way.
“Atheism is and always has been a reaction to theism.”
* This conflicts directly with the point you make in your first and second sentences.
“The louder theism becomes, the louder atheism will need to become. If the government suddenly promoted a political agenda based around collecting stamps then those who disagreed would be cast as or identified as aphilatelists. The rise of so-called New Atheism can only be a result of a rise in religious fervor. In other words, there is no New Atheism. There is actually New Theism.”
* I more or less agree with this. “The New Atheism” as the wired article calls it is a reaction to the more militant theism thats arisen in the US in the past century, and according to Dawkins, a reactionary phobia of theists due to 9/11 fears. These are the same fears that brought us gems like The Dept of Homeland Security and the Warantless Wiretapping Program.
I’m not really sure how behaving like a fundie nut (but for atheism) is really a good solution to any problem.
The fact that “The New Atheism,” is a reactionary movement does not nullify its existence however.
“The label New Atheism is another smear campaign against people who simply say they do not see the invisible monster in the room. People like Gary Wolf are their enablers.”
* I don’t really see it that way. The label “New Atheism” just gives us a way to talk about the more militant, fundy-christian style atheism that’s taken off since 9/11.
_____________________________
By eris on Jan 30, 2008
well…I think your heart is in the right place….but this fails to be persuasive…because you put forth as basic suppot concepts which are quite debatable themselves.
the real core of the issue is not whether or not athiesm is a belief system. You can say it is or it isnt, thanks to the ambiguity of what it means for something to be a belief system. Athiests have a certain way of determineing what they would accept as true or false, which really is exsctly the same as most theists of civilized nations, the only difference is that theists pretend otherwise…
this is the core of the issue, dishonesty…
Nobody actually thinks athiests are inherently immoral or support sexual abuse. you dont even have to address this. Nobody thinks that. But they say it.
And they say that they will not die when they die, but will ascend to heaven and everything will be wonderful. But they fear death.
They say that the bible is True, and where science disagrees with the bible science lies. But they dont set their clocks on the assumption that the sun makes a circular orbit around the earth.
So you dont even need to say these things to the enemies of athiesm. They know you are right. Most theists are just pretending, lying…and truth is not their goal. You could only persuade them by convincing them of the beauty of a society with a little more honesty.
By crepuscular on Jan 31, 2008
The mistake still being made here is equating atheism with a form of religious intolerance. People seeking to call anti-theism the “New Atheism” are simply smearing atheists. New atheists are the same as old atheists. And intolerance is a problem not unique to either atheists or theists.
Case in point, an opinion piece from a theist makes the point: “Intolerance is not restricted to new atheism. The same might be said of various forms of fundamentalist religion, and there is a sense in which the two extremes deserve each other.” - Robert Leiter, Literary Editor, Jewish Exponent
So I still contend New Atheism is a myth. In fact, it’s a complete misnomer. What if intolerant Christian Fundamentalists received the label “The New Christians.” I think there would be huge objection to this label.
By ElDorko on Jan 31, 2008
“So I still contend New Atheism is a myth. In fact, it’s a complete misnomer. What if intolerant Christian Fundamentalists received the label “The New Christians.” I think there would be huge objection to this label.”
The name for intolerant Christians is already “Christian Fundamentalists.” I don’t see a problem with having an equivalent label for the nuttier fringe element of the atheist movement.
By eris on Jan 31, 2008
So call them Atheist Fundamentalists. New Atheism is broad and makes it sound like atheism has become anti-theism which is flat out incorrect. How would you feel about Christian Fundamentalists being called “New Christians?”
By ElDorko on Jan 31, 2008
I think “New Christians” would describe them very accurately.
By eris on Jan 31, 2008
ElDorko is right. The entire notion of “atheism” would make no sense without religions.
Are atheists intolerant?
Well, something like 40 million Americans are “nonreligious.” About one in seven. How often are you confronted on the street by one of these people, and made to feel … not tolerated??
Please.
By frentz on Jan 31, 2008
Well im not religious, and I would say that im quite intolerant of religious people…and this IS a growing trend among athiests.
Of course athiests are not persecuted in developed nations…we are all basically equal in the eyes of the law regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof.
But there is a growing number, myself included, of people do judge a persons character rather harshly when this person is known to ascribe to some religion. And I think there is perfectly good, logical reasons to make this judgement. Lets be frank here…although athiests arent militant or violent or whatever,the people protesting this ‘new athiesm’ movement are simply observing a trend which does, in fact, exist.
By crepuscular on Feb 1, 2008
A trend does exist. I think the growing trend is that an atheist is no longer completely ostracized if they express a lack of belief in God or question the rationality of theism. Not long ago, the opinions of atheists were verboten, and could lead to someone losing a job or ending a career or worse. This trend among atheists in my opinion is that they can finally speak their mind without complete social persecution and contempt. So to call this “new atheism” is again a total misnomer. Atheism hasn’t changed. Society has changed.
There have always been intolerant judgmental atheists and intolerant judgmental theists. And neither represents the mainstream in my opinion. And neither deserves a prefix “new” before it.
By ElDorko on Feb 3, 2008
We athiests need to remember 1) the famous quote of Thomas Payne “Time takes more converts than reason!”, that of Dale Carnegie “noone ever wants to admit that they are wrong, if you can prove they are you are worse off” and my own (Chris Goldthorpe) “It is easier to change you mind if you don’t have to eat crow to do so!” We athiests can actually win hearts and minds by showing that we can love those persons we disagree with and be compassionate. People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. The hard core thiest IS generally closed-minded, but people appear more closed minded than they are. You can make some progress by asking questions ( and being willing to leave the subject, without being obcsessed with bombing their head wide open and exorsizing those demons of ignorance)after a breif comment designed to make them question. Do not allow it to become a debate, and be sure they recognize that you respect their general intelligence ( or why would you care ) and want to get their opinion or rsponse to your question. Intelligent rational people WILL cometo your point of view if they can appear to save face and appear that they DECIDED to do so. Then, we welcome them to the “brights!” : )
By JOHNGALT on Feb 16, 2008
It is rather interesting that Christians in particular are talking about so-called “New Atheism.” For we atheists, this is a good sign. It recognizes that books by Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens (yes, Dennett is missing) are having an impact on popular thought.
I assess that it’s okay to call it “New Atheism”, even if it’s almost entirely simply new languaging put to older ideas. I myself have been energized for the subject and a number of my arguments have been tightened, challeged and redone.
It’s okay if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really just Russell’s Teapot again. It uses new, provocative, modern language that many in America can relate to, get angry with, rally around, poke fun of, etc. If the only thing “New Atheism” does is to help raise awareness among us (for we are larger in number than most of us imagine) and to remind us that it’s truly important not to give religion AND other ungrounded dogma a free pass, then that’s enough for another label.
Having said the above, I cringe at later seeing “Modern New Atheism” or “Newer Atheism”.
By squidfeet on Mar 14, 2008
I’m one of those who despise any and all labels (for instance, agnostic-I disagree with that because a wee human states that they have the mental capacity to decide on major truths about the universe.)even theist-a belief that there’s ’something’ that might be defined as a cosmic intelligence-c’mon! That’s murky thinking to hedge one’s bets.
But atheism, I dislike, on a personal level-I can’t prove, nor disprove, anything about the supposed true nature of universe and life, and as it is, such arguments can go back and forth forever, with nary a resolution, except violence-which both sides, believers and non-believers, are highly adept at using. Both. Not either one or the other, and certainly not Dawkin’s pathetic argument that stalin ‘just happened’ to be an athiest. My disagreement with athiesm? very simple, and not at all scientific. What have you athiests got to offer (other than being mostly a disagreement with believers, and not having much of any kind of a rational system of philosophy-you seem more a position, than anything)? Case in point, catholicism offers a sort of freedom from responsibility-love god, say yer hail Mary’s, give some bucks to the church, off to heaven you go. Buddhism, not a belief system, more a way of thinking, offers a kind of freedom from the horrors of the world. and so on, and so forth.
You guys? Well, let’s see-here by blind chance, and nothing after death, simply zip. Okay, not looking, not at all. Oh, but it’s the ‘truth’. Uh huh. But it gets better! No, really-there’s no such thing as free will, or mind, we’re just gene bags, meat robots, and there’s no conciousness. So why even bother living? I can accept the no afterlife thing, I can even accept the blind chance scene, but then, what the hell, take away anything that remotely resembles humanity, take away free will, sense of self, and wow, aint that a heckuva package deal, right there. But it’s the truth. well, yes, that’s nice-and how does said truth help? Does it provide any insights? But it’s the truth, and the truth shall set you free-unless you’re a meat robot…never mind the fallacy of, using athiest logic, a meat robot with no free will, no conciousness, saying that free will, mind and conciousness do not exist…if how you athiests define yourselves, is merely a stance, a position against believers, then you’ve pigeonholed yourselves. and niched systems tend to die out. That, and you offer nothing-at volume, I might add. Not scientific, and but one argument against those who have opted for a self-limiting position, with no foundation whatsoever-because it requires mind, conciousness, to think of a foundation.
By tromatic on Sep 13, 2008
whoops-that should read ‘not looking good, not at all.’
By tromatic on Sep 13, 2008
Re: Tromatic
“such arguments can go back and forth forever, with nary a resolution, except violence-which both sides, believers and non-believers, are highly adept at using.”
Uh, when have non-believers ever used violence against believers? Name one case.
“What have you atheists got to offer (other than being mostly a disagreement with believers, and not having much of any kind of a rational system of philosophy-you seem more a position, than anything)?”
The truth? A healthier lack of self-deception?
Carl Sagan sums up my position the best:
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
In other words, if you’re going to tell me that God exists, you have to have a little more to go by than a nice story. Actually, you can feel free to believe whatever you want- just don’t try and force it on me.
I am not positioned against believers- I feel that believers (some of them, anyway) are positioned against me. I would be fine going through life, never mentioning my agnosticism to anyone if it weren’t for the fact that believers ASSUME THAT THEY ARE CORRECT.
That’s the biggest issue by far: that their “proof” relies on completely non-proveable assertions and that many believers feel that they should have the upper hand in some way because of their blind faith.
Let’s take Santa Claus for a second. It’s a harmless little myth, right? May even make you feel better about the season and give you a reason to feel warm in the cold winter months.
Is it better for me to question your belief in Santa Claus if it means bursting that particular bubble? I personally don’t think so. And I feel much the same about other beliefs.
UNTIL it becomes more than just a harmless belief. Let’s say militants wanted me dead because I personally didn’t believe in Santa. Or they flew a plane into a building because we didn’t appreciate their version of Santa. Or maybe someone overhears me talking to a friend about how I don’t personally understand how a grown man can believe in Santa and they decide to get together and beat the crap out of me.
What if politicians started making actual laws based on the belief of Santa Claus and your tax money was involved?
NOW what if another movement started up talking about how stupid the Santa movement was because the Easter Bunny was the true answer…and these two groups started blowing each other up.
Sure it’s ridiculous to compare God to these two figures, but it illustrates WHY atheists and agnostics feel so frustrated and angry about the world right now. It’s not about positioning yourself against a belief- it’s about not letting blind belief destroy my way of life. Peace will never come without tolerance BY those who are religious. And that means even tolerance of those who cannot believe.
That’s my take, anyway. The truth is the truth whether or not you believe in it, and whether or not it makes you feel better or worse. Besides, there’s plenty of beauty in science if you know where to look.
Daniel
By Daniel on Nov 8, 2008
I am an LVN student trying to do a transcultural project on your beliefs. Not to make fun of or not take serious, but because I am truly intersted. I have a variety of questions that I need answered regarding health, wellness, foods likes/dislikes things of that nature. If anyone is interested in better explaining this to me I am interested in listening. Please get back to me ASAP, tank you.
By Rebecca on Jan 28, 2010