Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[gsa]

Last Spring, a blogger posted an interesting and thoughtful piece about why he does not identify himself as an atheist. Writing as a British national from the Netherlands, he identified several problems with the "new atheism" of Dawkins et al:

1. Too much God. It makes no sense, he says, to be "defined" by one's lack of a belief in God or gods. Presumably, acting too much like they have found the "Good News" of atheism and are trying to spread it.

2. Too much science. Or rather, scientism: The universal application of the scientific method to truth claims, thereby excluding human endeavors that give the world and life meaning.

3. Political misdirection. The "New Atheists," baptized in the American culture wars over religion in politics, mistake atheism for secularism and mistake the promotion of atheism for the promotion of secularism.

So what do you think about the article? I think that there are some valid points being made here, but I also think the case is overstated. Which I will share as the discussion is generated.

 

[lovemuffin]

I remember reading that blog at some point. I agree with (2), and (3) to some extent. I think (1) probably depends quite a bit on where you are sitting, and I can understand why "new atheists" in parts of the US would disagree. Actually, even beyond so-called new atheism, I can understand the desire to create cultural change, and that desire isn't really captured by apathetic naturalism, as he calls it.

 

[gsa]

I remember reading that blog at some point. I agree with (2), and (3) to some extent. I think (1) probably depends quite a bit on where you are sitting, and I can understand why "new atheists" in parts of the US would disagree. Actually, even beyond so-called new atheism, I can understand the desire to create cultural change, and that desire isn't really captured by apathetic naturalism, as he calls it.

Right.

I agree with point 3, because I think that the focus should be on the promotion of secular humanism and liberalism. I think that religious "moderate" is a kind of useless phrase, at least in the context of Islam, but I do think it makes more sense to work for liberalism in general to correct the excesses of fundamentalism, at a political level.

On point 1, I have seen that atheists in the American South, in particular, have strong reasons for supporting a more general shift in culture. I also think that coming from a society where over a quarter of the population is atheist skews your perspective on how important this is, and it does a disservice to people who live in more traditional societies where religious claims are taken seriously.

As for point 2, I think he understates somewhat the enthusiasm for incorporation of free thought and similar ideas into literature, film and other non-supernatural, non-religious sources of meaning. No surprise that science fiction fans tend towards atheism, for example.

 

[catch22]

There's atheist "churches" popping up these days, even.

I dig the perspective you posted here, because if I were an atheist, I would think conversations about God would be asinine and superfluous. To me, it'd seem like a waste of time. I would think it'd be akin to disproving the tooth fairy, or a unicorn, or some such. Why spend so much time considering, arguing, and talking about something you have no belief in? It'd be like entertaining the idea that middle earth is around somewhere, and I was somehow obligated to disprove elves and hobbits weren't out there somewhere. Really?

I think (honestly due to my own theological bias mind you) people are hung up on it because there is a void in their heart concerning this stuff. Existence, God, who, why, when, where. My brethren often say atheists are just as religious, which is rather antagonizing (but I get the point; some really are). It's more like "religion without divinity" or religion without a god or gods. Similarly why there are conventions, why there are meetings now that they happen to call church (to be tongue in cheek, most likely), best selling novels, authors, bloggers, youtube channels (cult of dusty is hilarious btw), etc. It's like it's own cultural phenom.

It is, in a way, like a new religion, or church, or... lack of a better way to frame it, movement.

I talked to, what I'd consider, a bonafied atheist about the concept of atheist church and he was rather befuddled, but agreed the whole hanging out with people of similar like-mindedness is a cool concept. It's like all the things religions have are kind of cool, socially, but unnecessary for those who literally have no believe about the divine or a higher power.

But I consider him rare. He's not like most atheists I encounter at all.

It's an us-against-them mindset, ultimately. But going back to what I said about the void in one's heart... there is a clear distinction between god-deniers and people who genuinely are atheist (like my aforementioned friend). The guy just doesn't get it. He just shrugs and says he has no reason to believe, maybe if there were proof of anything at all, he might consider it. But he just doesn't see it, so, what's the point? He can't make fiction be reality, so he doesn't seem interested in trying. He's literally an uncrackable shell in that regard. He's just an atheist.

On the other hand, the people I try to talk to like I do with him have more fire and brimstone in their eyes than the most die hard evangelical I've experienced. Maybe not Westboro hatred, but not very far from it.

And that really just makes me wonder.

 

[JRMcC]

The section called "Scientism isn't rational" is fantastic.

 

[Revoltingest]

I voted <other> cuz I don't know what a "new atheist" is.
Do they have that "new atheist" smell just like a new car?

 

[lovemuffin]

For a slightly different perspective on (2), there's a 2013 article by Stephen Pinker, in the New Republic, Science is not your enemy, that addresses the criticism of "scientism", which I think is also worth reading.

 

[gsa]

You make some points I think are worth addressing here:

There's atheist "churches" popping up these days, even.

True, but not many. I think that the general approach is something along the lines of meet ups. And I doubt most atheists feel any inclination to attend.

I dig the perspective you posted here, because if I were an atheist, I would think conversations about God would be asinine and superfluous. To me, it'd seem like a waste of time. I would think it'd be akin to disproving the tooth fairy, or a unicorn, or some such. Why spend so much time considering, arguing, and talking about something you have no belief in? It'd be like entertaining the idea that middle earth is around somewhere, and I was somehow obligated to disprove elves and hobbits weren't out there somewhere. Really?

Which brings us back to the issue of the culture wars. Atheists, agnostics and secular humanists are also hyper conscious of evangelical Christians and traditional Catholics as political adversaries. The feeling is reciprocated no doubt. So why spend time opposing them in the public square? Because it undermines a very real, material opposition, in the form of LGBT rights, access to birth control including abortion, religious conversion efforts, creationism and moral panics like the "Satanic panic" nonsense.

I mean to most nonbelievers, Yahweh is clearly a fictional deity that is as plausible as Zeus. It just so happens that he has a couple hundred million adherents, some of whom take him quite seriously. The criticism serves pragmatic ends, with the ultimate aim to create a culture of secularism where religion is the minority position.

I think (honestly due to my own theological bias mind you) people are hung up on it because there is a void in their heart concerning this stuff. Existence, God, who, why, when, where. My brethren often say atheists are just as religious, which is rather antagonizing (but I get the point; some really are). It's more like "religion without divinity" or religion without a god or gods. Similarly why there are conventions, why there are meetings now that they happen to call church (to be tongue in cheek, most likely), best selling novels, authors, bloggers, youtube channels (cult of dusty is hilarious btw), etc. It's like it's own cultural phenom.

Absolutely. I don't think that the reasons are at all hidden, though, and void in the heart is not cited at all. Quite the opposite: Liberation of the mind, liberation of the body. If most Christians in the United States behaved like Episcopalians they wouldn't be making this push.

It's an us-against-them mindset, ultimately. But going back to what I said about the void in one's heart... there is a clear distinction between god-deniers and people who genuinely are atheist (like my aforementioned friend). The guy just doesn't get it. He just shrugs and says he has no reason to believe, maybe if there were proof of anything at all, he might consider it. But he just doesn't see it, so, what's the point? He can't make fiction be reality, so he doesn't seem interested in trying. He's literally an uncrackable shell in that regard. He's just an atheist.

What are god deniers? I think most atheists tend to be "weak," as in they allow for evidence that could refute the God hypothesis, and they're not discussing the "god" of pantheism or even necessarily the deistic one. Just the (clearly, from an atheist perspective) fictional god Yahweh and similar ones.

 

[LuisDantas]

I voted "Other", because I don't think the concept of New Atheism is justified or useful.

Atheism is just atheism.

 

[gsa]

I voted "Other", because I don't think the concept of New Atheism is justified or useful.

Atheism is just atheism.

How would one describe New Atheism? I guess a kind of overlapping set of prominent atheists and nontheists who promote closely related ideas, coupled with the outlets they promote them in and the like-minded people who have an interest in them. It is, of course, rather amorphous but in practice, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens, their arguments and their enthusiasts.

 

[LuisDantas]

How would one describe New Atheism?

"It is that group of ill-mannered atheists that insist on making inconvenient statements and questions" seems to be about right.

I guess a kind of overlapping set of prominent atheists and nontheists who promote closely related ideas, coupled with the outlets they promote them in and the like-minded people who have an interest in them. It is, of course, rather amorphous but in practice, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens, their arguments and their enthusiasts.

And most any other atheist, apparently. Past or present.

 

[gsa]

"It is that group of ill-mannered atheists that insist on making inconvenient statements and questions" seems to be about right.




And most any other atheist, apparently. Past or present.

Right. When I solidified as an atheist I was reading Richard Dawkins before the label, along with others who were just as critical (i..e, Carl Sagan). At most there is a methodological approach that is different.

 

[LuisDantas]

Right. When I solidified as an atheist I was reading Richard Dawkins before the label, along with others who were just as critical (i..e, Carl Sagan). At most there is a methodological approach that is different.

I wonder how many people atheists used to be significantly different in the past, before the so-called "New Atheists". I sure doubt it.

As a matter of fact, I think the Four Horsemen are if anything not very inovative.

 

[gsa]

I wonder how many people atheists used to be significantly different in the past, before the so-called "New Atheists". I sure doubt it.

As a matter of fact, I think the Four Horsemen are if anything not very inovative.

I think what people don't like is the aggressiveness, and perhaps a perception that it is reductionist and conflated with logical positivism (as this author implies). But I really don't know how you can read or listen to Sam Harris and walk away with that impression.

 

[JRMcC]

What are god deniers? I think most atheists tend to be "weak," as in they allow for evidence that could refute the God hypothesis, and they're not discussing the "god" of pantheism or even necessarily the deistic one. Just the (clearly, from an atheist perspective) fictional god Yahweh and similar ones.

True. And sadly many of them will lazily throw a God concept like pantheism in with the Yaweh-like God. I agree with the blogger that their world view is "philosophically bankrupt. Maybe it's because they're philosophically lazy.

 

[RedDragon94]

Last Spring, a blogger posted an interesting and thoughtful piece about why he does not identify himself as an atheist. Writing as a British national from the Netherlands, he identified several problems with the "new atheism" of Dawkins et al:

1. Too much God. It makes no sense, he says, to be "defined" by one's lack of a belief in God or gods. Presumably, acting too much like they have found the "Good News" of atheism and are trying to spread it.

2. Too much science. Or rather, scientism: The universal application of the scientific method to truth claims, thereby excluding human endeavors that give the world and life meaning.

3. Political misdirection. The "New Atheists," baptized in the American culture wars over religion in politics, mistake atheism for secularism and mistake the promotion of atheism for the promotion of secularism.

So what do you think about the article? I think that there are some valid points being made here, but I also think the case is overstated. Which I will share as the discussion is generated.

I feel like it's because many of the New Atheists come from the religious. The attitude is that they have to prove that their right because they're either trying to prove it to themselves or they think everybody should be in the same boat. They try to make people feel guilty for feeling the way that they do, just like mainstream Christianity. An example of this (although I enjoy her videos) is Jaclyn Glenn.

I've come to the conclusion that we all have our moments where we feel superior to the others around us but the only way we can truly come to a conclusion on things is to realize that we all are seeking the same thing and it doesn't help to blame each other for the ways we suffer, the only way we can overcome together is to put aside our differences and work towards the common goal. Which I believe is to end suffering for all.

 

[Laika]

Voted No. The New Atheists are highly articulate, intelligent and well-educated and I enjoy watching them on videos on YouTube. They can come up with some really interesting, thought-provoking and insightful points. But the goal of Atheism is that of social emancipation- to discover what it means to be free without religion or god. Saying there is no god is the easy bit. Saying how we live without God and religion is really hard.

Give Nietzsche a chance and he'd eat them alive, be put on trail for Cannibalism and win over the jury with a violent denunciation of the rule of law as a remnant of Slavish Judeao-Christian morality. Then he'd finish by walking outside to a crowd of press and announcing his candidacy for US president in 2016 with the slogan "One Nation under God? God is Dead! Now it's my turn!"

The New Atheists are really tame by comparison with what has gone before.

 

[gsa]

True. And sadly many of them will lazily throw a God concept like pantheism in with the Yaweh-like God. I agree with the blogger that their world view is "philosophically bankrupt. Maybe it's because they're philosophically lazy.

I think that they become frustrated with ideas like pantheism because it is vague. With the monotheists, you pretty much know what you are dealing with. Atheism is by necessity a lack of belief as well as a social identity of sorts, because atheists do not exist in a vacuum. An atheist in a Christian (or post-Christian) society is somewhat different, presumably, from one in a Buddhist (or post-Buddhist) society.

The blogger's title is also kind of ridiculous: He is an atheist, after all. He just isn't hip to so-called "New Atheism." But he also lives in a society where atheists may constitute an outright majority of the population, so his perspective is skewed by that I think.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think what people don't like is the aggressiveness, and perhaps a perception that it is reductionist and conflated with logical positivism (as this author implies). But I really don't know how you can read or listen to Sam Harris and walk away with that impression.

Some theists seem to be literally unable of accepting that there is such a thing as rational atheism. They will simply learn enough to fill the blanks in a way that gives them a reasonable conception of Enemy Worth Despising.

Perhaps ironically, there are probably a few literal atheismphobes among them.

 

[gsa]

Voted No. The New Atheists are highly articulate, intelligent and well-educated and I enjoy watching them on videos on YouTube. They can come up with some really interesting, thought-provoking and insightful points. But the goal of Atheism is that of social emancipation- to discover what it means to be free without religion or god. Saying there is no god is the easy bit. Saying how we live without God and religion is really hard.

Give Nietzsche a chance and he'd eat them alive, be put on trail for Cannibalism and win over the jury with a violent denunciation of the rule of law as a remnant of Slavish Judeao-Christian morality. Then he'd finish by walking outside to a crowd of press and announcing his candidacy for US president in 2016 with the slogan "One Nation under God? God is Dead! Now it's my turn!"

The New Atheists are really tame by comparison with what has gone before.

Ha! Well this is actually a point that I think was not fully developed by the blogger: Atheism is the beginning, presumably, and not the end. It is interesting to read Sam Harris for this reason, because I have the sense that he is bored with articulating the case against god and religion and is looking for ways to rescue things like mysticism and spirituality from their clutches. Similar, I suppose, to the concept of "secular Buddhism."

Most of these modern atheists are also skeptics with interests in cosmology, the intersection of science, technology and society, and broader issues of social justice. This is not always clear in the literature of the "New Atheists," unfortunately.