The Demonization of New Atheism and the Relative Desensitization to Religious Extremism

[Augustus]

To me, new atheism is a set of values, pretty closely aligned with secular humanism. By your definition, are either of those "ideologies"? I bring this up because it strikes me that the term "ideology" has come to have a negative connotation.

Both are ideologies.

An ideology is a system of thought and belief by which you explain to yourself how a social system works and what values it should exemplify.

There is nothing negative about the term, we all have ideologies and can't function without them. Religions are also ideologies.

 

[icehorse]

Both are ideologies.

An ideology is a system of thought and belief by which you explain to yourself how a social system works and what values it should exemplify.

There is nothing negative about the term, we all have ideologies and can't function without them. Religions are also ideologies.

Personally, I agree with what you just said. But it strikes me that in "common parlance", the term has come be have a negative connotation. It's used as a rhetorical device.

 

[PureX]

To me, new atheism is a set of values, pretty closely aligned with secular humanism. By your definition, are either of those "ideologies"? I bring this up because it strikes me that the term "ideology" has come to have a negative connotation.

You make a couple of interesting points, here. I am a 'secular humanist', even though I'm also a theist. As are many atheists I know. And I think people on both sides forget to notice this as ideology has become a more negative and divisive tool used by certain cultural entities to divide us, and distract us, for their own gain.

 

[icehorse]

You make a couple of interesting points, here. I am a 'secular humanist', even though I'm also a theist. As are many atheists I know. And I think people on both sides forget to notice this as ideology has become a more negative and divisive tool used by certain cultural entities to divide us, and distract us, for their own gain.

Makes sense. And fwiw, personally I would see a theist who is also a SH as an ally. AND I would say that Abrahamic religious fundamentalists cannot really count themselves as SHs.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

A recent thread (Why Arrogant "New Atheists" Annoy Me) inspired the idea to start this one, and I credit that thread with starting an excellent and very interesting discussion despite disagreeing with its core point.

It seems to me that there's significant value in New Atheism and that its biggest flaws—such as sexism among the movement, sweeping generalizations that occur too often, and arrogance among some New Atheists—are neither unique to New Atheism nor criticized equally in the very same religions that New Atheists tend to criticize (Islam and Christianity, primarily).

Islamic and Christian apologists in particular, along with their sympathizers who seem too common at this point among the ranks of liberals, seem to be rather self-serving in their criticism of New Atheism for something like perceived arrogance or "bigotry" when the holy books they promote and/or defend contain verses that make the majority of prominent New Atheists' worst statements appear like an innocent pastime.

I don't recall the last time Richard Dawkins, for example, said that theists were going to suffer eternal punishment for their theism, or the last time Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, or any other prominent New Atheist said something nearly as bigoted as some very common beliefs among Christian and Muslim communities (going into the details of which would easily require its own thread). I'm of the opinion that the extent to which such beliefs are common among many religious communities has desensitized people to them compared to the same issues when they arise in supposedly new movements, such as New Atheism.

Furthermore, a point I find important but too often overlooked in debates about New Atheism is that perceived "condescension" or "arrogance" in the way some arguments are made doesn't necessarily invalidate the core points of the arguments, nor does it mean that the perceived "condescension" isn't actually warranted in some cases.

For example, if someone supported the belief that gravity were a false theory and that "gravitationists" were engaged in some conspiracy theory to advance an anti-truth agenda, would condescension directed at them really be unwarranted? And more importantly, would it discredit the argument that such a belief would be intellectually bankrupt and indeed ridiculous to the point of verging on acceptance of fairy tales?

Yet seemingly because of the extent to which certain religions commonly inspire things like creationism, homophobia, sexism, and violence, vocal critics of those same religions are more widely vilified and demonized than the extremely numerous advocates and preachers of said religions. Imagine if, say, Richard Dawkins said something like this statement from Pope Francis:



(Source.)

And this is relatively mild compared to support for violence against homosexuals, of which there is no shortage among conservative Christian and Islamic circles. The above is not from an unofficially declared "horseman" or "atheist leader" either; it's from a religious figure revered and officially recognized by tens of millions of people worldwide. This goes back to the point I made earlier about desensitization to such harmful beliefs when they are expressed by people in certain circles where these types of beliefs are neither new nor surprising.

While New Atheism has a number of issues that are too problematic for any movement, much less one that prides itself on promotion of reason, a lot of the criticism of the movement strikes me as disproportionate, self-serving, selective, or otherwise biased in a way stemming from a reaction to the fact that it criticizes religious beliefs and not simply out of supporting tolerance or opposing bigotry, inaccurate generalizations, etc.

It says a lot when fundamentalist Christians of all people attack New Atheism for "bigotry" and overlook or defend their own bigotry, or when liberal ideologues and obscurantists dismiss New Atheists for X or Y issue and then turn around and be apologetic toward religious communities that harbor and sometimes even promote X or Y issue. Such inconsistency is, in my opinion, indicative of ideological bias and selectivity rather than concern for any desirable qualities.

Ultimately, I think the vocal criticism of religion that New Atheism is known for is something that many communities and societies need more of, and my criticism of New Atheism for the issues it has doesn't change my mind on this at all even though I find them disappointing and akin to a noticeable smudge on a beautiful painting.

I would like to hear what others here think, especially since this thread was inspired by another one. Also, sorry for the long OP; I view long OPs as the lesser evil compared to leaving out details that I find to be particularly relevant to the topic.

I fully agree with you, and I think I've made it fairly clear on this forum that I think that the arrogance among most religious "apologists" is considerably worse than that of most "New Atheists." The point of my "Why Arrogant New Atheists Annoy Me" thread was to briefly highlight the problems that I see with the new atheist movement, and the issue I take with many kids becoming atheists simply because they think it makes them cool and smart.

 

[tayla]

I don't recall the last time Richard Dawkins, for example, said that theists were going to suffer eternal punishment for their theism, or the last time Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, or any other prominent New Atheist said something nearly as bigoted as some very common beliefs among Christian and Muslim communities

This is one reason I reject revealed religions in general. It seems to lead to the view that "my revealed view" is superior to anyone else's view. Persecution and genocide is all-too-often the result.

 

[bubbleguppy]

I see what you're getting at, but in my circles there has always been this exact kind of criticism against ALL religions, spiritualities, and religious movements too, with actually little to no criticism about sexism or homophobia or incorrect scientific beliefs among atheists. Maybe it's a California thing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If we were being honest with ourselves and each other, we would all be agnostic, first, and then theists or atheists by faith. Many theists understand this. Few atheists, do, however.

I agree with the agnostic comment - we are all agnostic, and some of us realize it and say so while others claim that they know something that is not knowable - but disagree with being atheist by faith. I'm an atheist because I have good reason to trust in rational skepticism given its fruits, such as science, or rational skepticism applied to studying the natural world, and the modern, liberal, democratic state envisioned by the American founders and the political philosophers before them, which is rational skepticism applied to the problem of governing human societies.

Rational skepticism, as you know, is the idea that we should accept no claim on authority, but instead apply reason to the claim, and believe only that which is supported by reason applied to evidence. Rational skepticism when applied to the problem. The evidence doesn't support a god belief, so what option does the rational skeptic have but to reject such claims, which makes him an atheist.

There is no faith involved there, by which I mean insufficiently supported belief.

I am agnostic by intellect, but theist by choice. I find no contradiction here because the first is based on what I can or can't know, and the second is based on what I can reasonably and effectively hope for. Atheists do the same thing, but can't allow themselves to acknowledge it for some reason.

I agree that you can be an agnostic and a theist without contradiction just as one can be an agnostic and an atheist without contradiction.

What you can "reasonably and effectively hope for"? To me, hope and belief are different things. Theism is the belief a god, not just the hope that one exists. I hope America will get its act together, but I don't believe it will.

I don't know what you want atheists to acknowledge. That our atheism is based on hope like your theism?

The problem here is that so many atheists never question their own conception of what their "facts" are, or what their "evidence" is, or what it means to "exist",

How is that a problem? Atheism requires no evidence. Theism does, at least for the rational skeptic, which may explain why most if not all rational skeptic are atheists.

Nor does one need to contemplate existential problems to be an atheist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And those who think they have "debunked" the myths, while not looking to what they point to, have only succeeded in fixating on the flaws of the finger, utterly missing what it was trying to say all along.

Why is what a myth is trying to say important? If it's important, say it directly. Say it clearly. Say what you mean.

On another thread, a Christian poster was explaining to me what he thought the Garden story, which he considered myth, represented - to illustrate how mankind is fundamentally separated from God by our very natures, and that he original sin wasn't biting an apple, but our human nature of selfishness.

Selfishness? First time I ever heard that.

But that's what you get with indirect forms of communication. If that is what was meant, that is what should have been written.

This brings to mind that wonderful quote from Albert Einstein:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

Experiences such as these are not limited to the religious. This is from an email I sent out this week

• "Of course, unbelievers have similar inspirational experiences to those called spiritual by believers, but we don't interpret them as a god experience. Assuming that this is what is meant by inspiration, I don't mind calling the moments when one experiences a sense of connection, mystery, awe, and gratitude spiritual - If I recall correctly, you (Ken) do - but the word carries baggage subliminally suggesting spirits. Where some feel that they are experiencing God, others interpret the experience as something created by the brain and mind - like a sense of value, or love, or beauty."

"What else is there but logic and reason?", is to me that, "being as good as dead"

Who says that? Mr. Spock?

Reason alone is empty. It's drab, colorless.

Emotion is the color. It's where we live and what makes life worth living. When people lose the ability to feel, as in major depression, they want to die. In that sense, I agree with your "good as dead" comment.

But just who are you describing with that? Do any of the atheists posting here on RF ask you what else is there but logic and reason?

I'll give you this atheist's perspective on the matter : The role of reason is to determine what is true so that one may more effectively manage the emotions, keeping them as pleasant and satisfying as possible for as long as possible while mitigating unpleasant experiences, like the rider holding the reins on the horse.

Many theists don't seem understand what the inner life of the atheist / secular humanist can be and often is. We're perceived as robotic empty shells. In this thread, we're seen as people unable to understand human spirit, people trying to avoid considering the mysteries of life, and as people experiencing cognitive dissonance.

 

[Apologes]

Whenever I see people try to address bigotry and condescension in an effort to pave the path to a more civilized discussion I can't help but applaud the effort. Having said that, I appreciate both this thread and the one that inspired it. In that spirit, I will give my thoughts on new atheism as well as religious extremism and the bigotry that fuels both.

First of all, new atheism is a movement within pop-culture. It's not an independent school of thought, it's not even a separate world-view. It is merely a repackaging of old (long outdated) arguments in favor of atheism coupled with social activism and a plethora of anti-religion militant sentiments that started in the backdrop of intense religious extremism such as the 9/11 attacks. Given this, most of the things that the new atheists write and talk about actually has a lot less to do with theism as a metaphysical commitment and a lot more with problems caused by organised religion. The only particularly new thing that this movement resulted in was the wide-spread acceptability of being non-religious and openly atheist. It gave the "nones" a loud and clear voice that was much needed to the layman at that time. All of this isn't to say that the four horsemen were prophets who talked about that which was concealed until they came along. Atheism was always a topic, but they arrived at the right place and at the right time and provided a boom in the interest in the topic.

Social activism aside, it offered very little new in the case of argument. Most of the arguments against God were either classical atheistic arguments that have been discussed in the academia (and more importantly either refuted or significantly modified so as to become more formidable) for ages or just straight-up caricatures of some wide-spread religious beliefs. Neither are particularly useful for advancement of the discussion on the subject but the work has resulted in one thing for sure and that is a lot greater engagement with these issues by the general public. While the shallow arguments along with biased and uncharitable presentations of religious beliefs resulted in a naive and equally fundamentalist tribal mentality as you'd find in your typical christian fundamentalists, the scale at which young people started talking about this issue has been in a strange way beneficial for honest believers.

In order to explain this last statement I would first have to acknowledge the passivity and ignorance that most religious people tend to have when it comes to their own faith. A lot of believers don't even read their holy scriptures and are completely disinterested in the theology they're supposedly following which was partly a result of a string of bad decisions by the religious representatives responsible for religious education (be it accepting postmodernism in theology, dumbing-down religious ideas or refusing to present the theological tradition to the common people instead reserving it for academics) and as such they weren't taking their faith very seriously. The need to change came from the fact that now such shallow and naive beliefs are being challenged by (supposedly superior) arguments from the non-religious new atheist side.

The state of religious fundamentalism nowadays can be clearly seen as such views are on a rapid decline and the resistance that has formed in the cultural war (just look at the Bible Belt) is fighting a desperate losing battle. Just as it was the case in the past, beliefs which refuse to align themselves with reason and honest inquiry, instead taking refuge in ignorance will die out, especially in an age of information technology where isolation and fear-mongering are a lot less likely to work. This is not to say religion is on it's death-bed for there has also been a great number of religious people who, pressured by the criticism coming from the new atheists, felt compelled to step back and take a closer, more critical look at their beliefs. While the theologians and philosophers may have wrestled with complicated issues such as the rationality of religious belief their work has been largely off radar for the average Joe.

New atheism marked a definitive entrance of issues regarding religious beliefs into the consciousness of the general public and as such gave an average believer a reason to look into their own faith more seriously. Richard Swinburne, a noted philosopher of religion and a Christian, has said the following:

"The new atheists are, in some way, a good thing because they are beginning to cause Christians to think about these matters in greater detail and maybe, in the end, much good will come of it."

While I don't hold the actual work of new atheists in high regard, I do agree with Swinburne that they have (unintentionally) pushed the believers and people in general really to think about these things more than before and it is not at all uncommon now to see far more sophisticated arguments being presented on both sides by laymen who have developed an interest in the subject to the point that they're willing to read higher quality material written on it which is definitely a good thing.

I am, therefore, very much in favor of discussing these issues and moving past the arrogant and condescending attitudes present on both sides which I believe to be the result of precisely those poor dumbed-down versions of opposing positions you could find both in the new atheist advocates and the christian fundamentalists. As a final comment, though, I do want to point out one thing that many people seem to think and you yourself seem to echo and that is the notion that believing only your view to be correct and everyone else's wrong is somehow arrogant and condescending. This sentiment, no doubt caused by the forced political correctness and the skewed idea of tolerance brought with it, is seriously misguided.

According to it, unless you're a total relativist you're going to be labeled as arrogant and condescending. It effectively kills any discussion if taken to it's logical (or rather illogical) end and what's worse, it is actually hypocritical for it itself claims all those who aren't relativist and affirm that a certain position is true and another is wrong are actually wrong while only those who embrace it are correct. Talk about pulling the rug under one's feet. Your statements of religious particularism being somewhat bigoted, arrogant and condescending for the mere fact that it considers those who disagree with it wrong is misguided. We're talking metaphysical commitments and multiple opposing options. Obviously they can't all be right.

Disagreement is not bigotry. Anyone who isn't a total relativist is going to consider great many people deluded or wrong. The whole problem is all the greater for the new atheists who funnily enough accuse all religions as stupid or bigoted and their adherents as deluded and ignorant. It is always funny, then, to see those same people look with disgust at the notion of religious particularism. Having said that, whatever desentizaton there is with regards to religious statements, I don't think it has anything to do with particularism itself. Further more, I don't think there really is any desentization to intolerant attitudes such as homophobia as those seem to be receive quite a lot of backlash.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Theism is the belief a god, not just the hope that one exists.

I think theism is more than that...

Theism is a specific kind of god claim, it's more than just a god claim. Theism says that there is a god who created and rules this universe as a king rules his kingdom issuing decrees and edicts to his creations (subjects), employing certain persons to act as his prophets, etc...

The way I see things is you have god theory at the top of the slide. Below that you have all of the philosophies about god theory such as theism, deism, pantheism, panentheism, et al. Now below theism you have monotheism and polytheism, and these are where most religions exist.

The vast majority of religions today are based off theistic gods such as the god of Abraham, etc.

So, while theism is a belief in god, it's much more than that, it has specificity.

The negation of theism is atheism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

New Atheism is really an ideology rather than mere disbelief, ...

Nicely said.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Whataboutery.



There's a whole discipline: 'the cognitive science of religion', not to mention relevant areas of history, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, etc.

I'm sure there is but how much of it is entirely independent from the particular religion? How much independent evidence is there for any of the religious origins and/or the things postulated as happening?

 

[Mock Turtle]

A concept is "just a concept," so I guess it doesn't count either.

Go ahead and define 'spirit' for us then and see how much agreement we get.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I fully agree with you, and I think I've made it fairly clear on this forum that I think that the arrogance among most religious "apologists" is considerably worse than that of most "New Atheists." The point of my "Why Arrogant New Atheists Annoy Me" thread was to briefly highlight the problems that I see with the new atheist movement, and the issue I take with many kids becoming atheists simply because they think it makes them cool and smart.

And you know these people and their ages?

 

[David T]

A recent thread (Why Arrogant "New Atheists" Annoy Me) inspired the idea to start this one, and I credit that thread with starting an excellent and very interesting discussion despite disagreeing with its core point.

It seems to me that there's significant value in New Atheism and that its biggest flaws—such as sexism among the movement, sweeping generalizations that occur too often, and arrogance among some New Atheists—are neither unique to New Atheism nor criticized equally in the very same religions that New Atheists tend to criticize (Islam and Christianity, primarily).

Islamic and Christian apologists in particular, along with their sympathizers who seem too common at this point among the ranks of liberals, seem to be rather self-serving in their criticism of New Atheism for something like perceived arrogance or "bigotry" when the holy books they promote and/or defend contain verses that make the majority of prominent New Atheists' worst statements appear like an innocent pastime.

I don't recall the last time Richard Dawkins, for example, said that theists were going to suffer eternal punishment for their theism, or the last time Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, or any other prominent New Atheist said something nearly as bigoted as some very common beliefs among Christian and Muslim communities (going into the details of which would easily require its own thread). I'm of the opinion that the extent to which such beliefs are common among many religious communities has desensitized people to them compared to the same issues when they arise in supposedly new movements, such as New Atheism.

Furthermore, a point I find important but too often overlooked in debates about New Atheism is that perceived "condescension" or "arrogance" in the way some arguments are made doesn't necessarily invalidate the core points of the arguments, nor does it mean that the perceived "condescension" isn't actually warranted in some cases.

For example, if someone supported the belief that gravity were a false theory and that "gravitationists" were engaged in some conspiracy theory to advance an anti-truth agenda, would condescension directed at them really be unwarranted? And more importantly, would it discredit the argument that such a belief would be intellectually bankrupt and indeed ridiculous to the point of verging on acceptance of fairy tales?

Yet seemingly because of the extent to which certain religions commonly inspire things like creationism, homophobia, sexism, and violence, vocal critics of those same religions are more widely vilified and demonized than the extremely numerous advocates and preachers of said religions. Imagine if, say, Richard Dawkins said something like this statement from Pope Francis:



(Source.)

And this is relatively mild compared to support for violence against homosexuals, of which there is no shortage among conservative Christian and Islamic circles. The above is not from an unofficially declared "horseman" or "atheist leader" either; it's from a religious figure revered and officially recognized by tens of millions of people worldwide. This goes back to the point I made earlier about desensitization to such harmful beliefs when they are expressed by people in certain circles where these types of beliefs are neither new nor surprising.

While New Atheism has a number of issues that are too problematic for any movement, much less one that prides itself on promotion of reason, a lot of the criticism of the movement strikes me as disproportionate, self-serving, selective, or otherwise biased in a way stemming from a reaction to the fact that it criticizes religious beliefs and not simply out of supporting tolerance or opposing bigotry, inaccurate generalizations, etc.

It says a lot when fundamentalist Christians of all people attack New Atheism for "bigotry" and overlook or defend their own bigotry, or when liberal ideologues and obscurantists dismiss New Atheists for X or Y issue and then turn around and be apologetic toward religious communities that harbor and sometimes even promote X or Y issue. Such inconsistency is, in my opinion, indicative of ideological bias and selectivity rather than concern for any desirable qualities.

Ultimately, I think the vocal criticism of religion that New Atheism is known for is something that many communities and societies need more of, and my criticism of New Atheism for the issues it has doesn't change my mind on this at all even though I find them disappointing and akin to a noticeable smudge on a beautiful painting.

I would like to hear what others here think, especially since this thread was inspired by another one. Also, sorry for the long OP; I view long OPs as the lesser evil compared to leaving out details that I find to be particularly relevant to the topic.

ahh yes Frodo vs golum. But each imagines the other as the devil.

I think it's been shown only art deals directly, everything else is the struggle.

Or star trek..

 

[Mock Turtle]

ahh yes Frodo vs golum. But each imagines the other as the devil.

I think it's been shown only art deals directly, everything else is the struggle. View attachment 21049

My precious! I was going to use that for an autobiography or memoir.

 

[David T]

My precious! I was going to use that for an autobiography or memoir.

That's the RF collective slogan especially in the science vs religion forum. I am always unsure which precious is correct.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's the RF collective slogan especially in the science vs religion forum. I am always unsure which precious is correct.

Mine would encompass three meanings but I can't reveal what they are - naughty tease that I am.

 

[David T]

Mine would encompass three meanings but I can't reveal what they are - naughty tease that I am.

It's all about the will to power. Tolkien addressed it symbolically as a ring. But it's old bible stuff as well. Frodo destroys the ring and Gollum at the same time but not as an intended action but as "accidentally" happening.