Was the New Atheism Movement a Failed Crisis Cult

[outhouse]

It is a compound noun, not simply atheism with a modifying adjective.

Who cares what it is. Its title from fantasy, a made up biased term from the media

The “New Atheist” label for these critics of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books.

 

[LuisDantas]

New atheism is a name given to a particular ideology espoused by the likes of Dawkins and Harris that is basically a strongly anti-theistic form of secular humanism.

That is wishful thinking, or perhaps a full blown conspiracy theory. There is little if anything ideological in what Harris and particularly Dawkins say.

In some ways it is frustrating. Dawkins should have a lot more to say than he does. But for whatever reasons he is actually nearly mute far as personal ideology goes.

It could have been called chob or mosscat, but the term used was new atheism. It is a compound noun, not simply atheism with a modifying adjective.



The reasonable criteria are the grammar and usage of the English language.

A compound noun does not necessarily have the same meaning as its individual constituents suggest (greenhouse, ladybird, etc).

In this case it has no meaning whatsoever.

Dawkins and Harris are not even particularly similar in their stances beyond the simple fact that both criticize theism. Harris has some slightly higher ambitions, more in the ethical than the ideological sense. Dawkins has nearly none.

But to the extent that they are ideological, they are bringing very little that is new to the table. And when they do, they are no longer talking about atheism, "new" or otherwise - if such a distinction could make sense in the first place, which it does not.

People just want to see a direction and a purpose to be challenged in a few voices that they find troublesome, even and perhaps specially when they are not there.

 

[Augustus]

That is wishful thinking, or perhaps a full blown conspiracy theory. There is little if anything ideological in what Harris and particularly Dawkins say.

Conspiracy theory? It's just a term for a recognisable ideology; it isn't even polemical.

Of course it is ideological, very much so. There's nothing wrong with this. Ideological can be used as a pejorative, but also only means related to 'ideology' and an ideology is just how we explain to ourselves the way the world works.

We all have ideologies and promote things that match them and argue against things that contradict them.

When Dawkins argues against god and in favour of the humanistic application of science and reason he is promoting an ideology. There is nothing wrong with that; absolutely nothing negative should be inferred.

Dawkins and Harris are not even particularly similar in their stances beyond the simple fact that both criticize theism. Harris has some slightly higher ambitions, more in the ethical than the ideological sense. Dawkins has nearly none.

But to the extent that they are ideological, they are bringing very little that is new to the table. And when they do, they are no longer talking about atheism, "new" or otherwise - if such a distinction could make sense in the first place, which it does not.

They are pretty similar in many things. They are outspoken anti-theists and secular humanists for example.

There are more differences between schools of thought identified as Marxist or libertarian than there are between new atheists. Very few ideologies are uniform, they just share some broad characteristics.

And again, it doesn't matter if they bring anything new, new is not functioning as an adjective (although it gained traction after 9/11 so new would make some sense if it was). New atheism is a compound noun that relates to a strongly anti-theistic form of secular humanism. If you say 'new atheism' to people, they can broadly understand what it means.

We could call them strongly anti-theistic secular humanists, but that's a bit of a mouthful so some term was bound to be invented sooner or later to describe this particular ideology that gained prominence after 9/11. That term happened to be new atheism, but could have been anything else. That's just what stuck. A bit like a podcast could have been called an e-broadcast or an intercast, but just happened to become podcast.

As I said, you can dislike the term, but you can't argue that it doesn't exist or that it doesn't convey any meaningful information. Many people understand who new atheists are, and what new atheism is (including you).

 

[LuisDantas]

To the extent that "new" atheism even exists as its own thing, it seems to me that it is the acknowledgement that is new, not the movement or the ideas.

Of course outspoken atheism will oppose theism. We all oppose the spread of ideas that we understand to be wrong.

Of course it will also be secularist. Secularism is the opposition to undue religious influence, and we exist in societies that have allowed theistic religion to gain a lot more influence than it deserves.

To the extent that it qualifies as ideology, it is centuries old at least.

 

[LuisDantas]

As I said, you can dislike the term, but you can't argue that it doesn't exist or that it doesn't convey any meaningful information. Many people understand who new atheists are, and what new atheism is (including you).

No, I actually do not.

If there is a difference between "old" and "new" atheism, I am truly unaware of what it would be.

I very much doubt there is any.

Of course, once it is acknowledged as something to be understood and as a starting point for expressing one's views, some views will arise. But calling it "new" implies some sort of innovation and a discernible contrast with "plain vanilla" atheism, and that is not only odd, but also insubstantiated.

It also creates an injustified perception of mutual allegiance and of ideological precepts of some kind. That is very misleading when it comes to atheism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even the young wineskins I know practice that old timey atheism.

I just ran across this old post of mine, & I have no idea what it means.

But once again, there is no "new atheism".
The annoying wags supposedly embodying it are just the latest lightning rods in the
tradition of Ayn Rand & Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
The one big difference is that it used to be women tweaking the noses of believers.

 

[Sapiens]

serious?


David Silverman (activist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My bad, he is the president of the non stamp collectors of america :sorry1:

What is peoples problems?
He is in fact the president of an organization called AMERICAN ATHEISTS.
What part of that does not compute?

Hell, Obama is the president of the USA and its safe to say that 100% of the US population does not like him, nor agree with his actions, but he is still the speaker for US in general.

I don't care if you agree with Silverman or not, he is the speaker for atheists and when he is on TV, he represents atheists and (Anti)Theism
You liking it or not is not plausible, its a fact.
Same with the Pope, he represents the Catholic faith, not ones individual ideals.

Lets even use the WBC for example, even though they do not represent religious people in general, when people hear them, it gives us a bad name.
Same with priests that molest kids and such

First, let's try and look a little less foolish and get the name of the organization correct: "Atheists of America." Then let's try to get real and not pretend that some dinky nothing of an organization that has all of 2,200 members represents anything except, perhaps, 1,100 people.

I am a life-long atheist. I had not heard tell of Atheists of American since the Madalyn Murray O'Hair days, (Murray vs. Curlett, 1963). Before today I had never heard of David Silverman, the current organization president. I have never been to and feel no need to attend, an "atheist meeting," I can't imagine why anyone else would.

 

[Augustus]

If there is a difference between "old" and "new" atheism, I am truly unaware of what it would be.

Old atheism isn't really a term though. New atheism is. You are still treating old and new as adjectives. The new in new atheism is not an adjective, it is part of the noun 'new atheism'. The meaning of the noun 'new atheism' is different from new (adj) + atheism (noun), just like greenhouse or ladybird.

I could use new atheism in conversation with my friends and they would have a very good idea of what I was referring to.

If someone used 'new atheism' in conversation are you really saying this would mean absolutely nothing to you?

 

[Revoltingest]

Old atheism isn't really a term though. New atheism is. You are still treating old and new as adjectives. The new in new atheism is not an adjective, it is part of the noun 'new atheism'. The meaning of the noun 'new atheism' is different from new (adj) + atheism (noun), just like greenhouse or ladybird.

I could use new atheism in conversation with my friends and they would have a very good idea of what I was referring to.

If someone used 'new atheism' in conversation are you really saying this would mean absolutely nothing to you?

I surveyed some fellow heathens about the meaning of "new atheism".
I saw only quizzical looks meaning...."What, we're now new?"

 

[Augustus]

I surveyed some fellow heathens about the meaning of "new atheism".
I saw only quizzical looks meaning...."What, we're now new?"

The term doesn't apply to atheists in general, just a particular ideology. It no more applies to atheists in general than Leninist does.

It is in common enough usage to be meaningful though, Google it and check for yourself.

Half of the terms for belief you see on here wouldn't mean much to many people, doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Old atheism isn't really a term though. New atheism is. You are still treating old and new as adjectives. The new in new atheism is not an adjective, it is part of the noun 'new atheism'. The meaning of the noun 'new atheism' is different from new (adj) + atheism (noun), just like greenhouse or ladybird.

I could use new atheism in conversation with my friends and they would have a very good idea of what I was referring to.

Good for them.

If someone used 'new atheism' in conversation are you really saying this would mean absolutely nothing to you?

That would imply that people are projecting ideological goals in atheism, I suppose. And hint strongly of some degree of lack of acceptance of atheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

The term doesn't apply to atheists in general, just a particular ideology. It no more applies to atheists in general than Leninist does.

Then... what is the difference? I am still unaware of any.

What would that particular ideology be, while we are at it?

It is in common enough usage to be meaningful though, Google it and check for yourself.

The expression is used, no doubt.

That does not make it meaningful, let alone giving it a clear, coherent meaning.

Half of the terms for belief you see on here wouldn't mean much to many people, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Terms such as "god" and "religion" are to some extent meant to have ambiguous meaning. "New Atheism" is supposed to have a clear meaning, apparently. It is at least meant to be contrasted with plain vanilla atheism. On what grounds is anyone's guess.

Mine is that it is a projection of the desire to believe that atheism is a fad that can be discouraged or forgotten into effective non-existence. The expectation seems to be that "proper" atheism is silent, discreet and clandestine, while "new" atheism is the bothersome noise of those ideologues that have not yet learned what is the "true" atheists' lot.

It is "new" in the sense that 2016 is also a "new" year.

 

[Augustus]

Then... what is the difference? I am still unaware of any.

What would that particular ideology be, while we are at it?

An aggressively anti-thestic form of secular humanism.

New Atheism is a social and political movement that began in the early 2000s in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises".[1] There is uncertainty about how much influence the movement has had on religious demographics worldwide. In England and Wales, as of 2011 the increase in atheist groups, student societies, publications and public appearances coincided with the non-religious being the largest growing demographic, followed by Islam and Evangelicalism.[2]

New Atheism lends itself to and often overlaps with secular humanism and antitheism, particularly in its criticism of what many New Atheists regard as the indoctrination of children and the perpetuation of ideologies.

The expression is used, no doubt. It does not make it meaningful, let alone giving it a clear, coherent meaning.

Of course it is meaningful, otherwise people wouldn't be able to use it to convey meaning. You understand the term and can respond to it. It appears in the media. People use it on RF.

It is a term to describe a loose ideology that is easily identifiable. It is no more unclear or incoherent than all sorts of words in common usage that relate to ideologies. People have multiple ideologies that they believe in, saying new atheism carries meaning doesn't mean that all new atheists are identical.

It is no more imprecise than countless other words used frequently. I'd say it carries a narrower range of meaning than the term Marxist for example.

Terms such as "god" and "religion" are to some extent meant to have ambiguous meaning. "New Atheism" is supposed to have a clear meaning, apparently. It is at least meant to be contrasted with plain vanilla atheism. On what grounds is anyone's guess.

It is only to be contrasted with atheism in that it has a different meaning. It is not to be contrasted in the way that suggests "that was old atheism, and now there is a new version".

It is simply a name for an ideology. You keep treating it as 2 separate words rather than a compound noun, then objecting because it isn't literally a new version of disbelief in god. A ladybird is neither a lady nor a bird, do you object to that as well?

I have an irrational dislike for the term podcast, it's just the word that was used though and I have to live with it.

What term do you suggest we use as a shorthand for the aggressively anti-theistic form of secular humanism promoted by the likes of Dawkins and Harris that would convey more meaning to more people than 'new atheism'?

That would imply that people are projecting ideological goals in atheism, I suppose. And hint strongly of some degree of lack of acceptance of atheism.

No it doesn't. You are the one projecting. Was probably coined by some journalist because he/she needed a convenient shorthand rather than a religious apologist on a polemical mission. These people tend to lump all atheists together, and probably don't use the term. They don't want to let most atheists off the hook after all.

It could have been better selected perhaps, but it is what stuck. You should be happy at least that they are clearly mentioning that it is distinct from 'vanilla' atheism.

I wish they had created another word actually as I strongly dislike my atheism being in any way linked to their ideology. But that's the way the cookie crumbles, no point sulking about it.

 

[LuisDantas]

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

The term doesn't apply to atheists in general, just a particular ideology. It no more applies to atheists in general than Leninist does.
It is in common enough usage to be meaningful though, Google it and check for yourself.
Half of the terms for belief you see on here wouldn't mean much to many people, doesn't mean they don't exist.

What new ideology?
I'd say it's just people who lack a larger view of atheists, & think these guys are any different.
If anything Rand & O'Hair were even stronger examples of what they would label.

Young whippersnappers......they notice something that's been long known by others,
& because they just noticed it, it gets the prefix "new". Now, get off'n me lawn!

 

[Augustus]

What new ideology?
I'd say it's just people who lack a larger view of atheists, & think these guys are any different.
If anything Rand & O'Hair were even stronger examples of what they would label.

Young whippersnappers......they notice something that's been long known by others,
& because they just noticed it, it gets the prefix "new". Now, get off'n me lawn!

New atheism doesn't mean 'a new version of atheism' though, it means aggressively anti-theistic secular humanism.

As a (non-organised) movement that gained publicity and grew in popularity as a specific reaction to 9/11 and it's aftermath, it gained a prominence that led to it needing a shorthand name. That's just what happens when people start taking notice of things, they need words to describe them.

Someone used new atheism and that's what stuck. People needed some name to call it the post 9/11 aggressively anti-theistic secular humanist movement that could be understood by the general public. I've never heard anyone suggest that their ideas were new, just that, post 9/11, 'new atheists' saw combatting religion to take on a higher degree of importance, and the public became more interested in such ideas.

I'm not a great fan of the term, but then again I'm not arguing that nothing better could have been created. It's just that once a term gets popularised then it's easier to use the term that other people understand. I irrationally hate the word podcast, but there's no point in saying 'something similar to a radio programme that I downloaded from the internet' cos it's longer and less readily understandable.

People who are interested in these issues understand new atheism whether they like the term or not. But disliking the word is very different from the word carrying no meaning.

 

[LuisDantas]

New atheism doesn't mean 'a new version of atheism' though, it means aggressively anti-theistic secular humanism.

Define "aggressive" in this context. Is it any different than "outspoken"?

For that matter, what does secular humanism have to do with it? I can see Harris, but Dawkins does not seem to be interested in Humanism as such.

As a (non-organised) movement that gained publicity and grew in popularity as a specific reaction to 9/11 and it's aftermath, it gained a prominence that led to it needing a shorthand name. That's just what happens when people start taking notice of things, they need words to describe them.

Someone used new atheism and that's what stuck. People needed some name to call it the post 9/11 aggressively anti-theistic secular humanist movement that could be understood by the general public. I've never heard anyone suggest that their ideas were new, just that, post 9/11, 'new atheists' saw combatting religion to take on a higher degree of importance, and the public became more interested in such ideas.

They are often perceived with more attention than previously. That is all.

I'm not a great fan of the term, but then again I'm not arguing that nothing better could have been created. It's just that once a term gets popularised then it's easier to use the term that other people understand. I irrationally hate the word podcast, but there's no point in saying 'something similar to a radio programme that I downloaded from the internet' cos it's longer and less readily understandable.

People who are interested in these issues understand new atheism whether they like the term or not. But disliking the word is very different from the word carrying no meaning.

Yes, but it turns out that it HAS no meaning.

 

[Augustus]

Define "aggressive" in this context. Is it any different than "outspoken"?

Not really.

For that matter, what does secular humanism have to do with it? I can see Harris, but Dawkins does not seem to be interested in Humanism as such.

He's a signatory on the Amsterdam declaration of humanism and promotes it actively so I'll assume he is interested.

They are often perceived with more attention than previously. That is all.

The word was coined to describe something visible in society. That's why a word was needed. When things are visible and people wish to discuss them, new words frequently appear to act as a shorthand. New atheism is just the term that stuck.

What would you call it?

Yes, but it turns out that it HAS no meaning.

Yet people manage to use it in conversation, in the media, on forums and there are countless websites that define and discuss it. These definitions also tend to be pretty similar to my definition and to each other's.

It has as much meaning as many terms used to describe other ideologies, ones that people don't complain endlessly about being 'meaningless'. Define Marxist, it's a hell of a lot harder than defining new atheist. If someone says 'I'm a new atheist' I have a better idea about certain aspects of their ideological belief system than if someone says 'I'm a libertarian'.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not really.



He's a signatory on the Amsterdam declaration of humanism and promotes it actively so I'll assume he is interested.



The word was coined to describe something visible in society. That's why a word was needed. When things are visible and people wish to discuss them, new words frequently appear to act as a shorthand. New atheism is just the term that stuck.

What would you call it?



Yet people manage to use it in conversation, in the media, on forums and there are countless websites that define and discuss it. These definitions also tend to be pretty similar to my definition and to each other's.

It has as much meaning as many terms used to describe other ideologies, ones that people don't complain endlessly about being 'meaningless'. Define Marxist, it's a hell of a lot harder than defining new atheist. If someone says 'I'm a new atheist' I have a better idea about certain aspects of their ideological belief system than if someone says 'I'm a libertarian'.

Atheism.

 

[columbus]

As a (non-organised) movement that gained publicity and grew in popularity as a specific reaction to 9/11 and it's aftermath, it gained a prominence that led to it needing a shorthand name.

This is not really the case. New Atheism is primarily a result of communication technology expansion. 9/11 gave focus, but the Internet made New Atheism a phenomenon. All that was new was the ability to reach a huge and interactive audience.
Before the Internet all the ideas of New Atheism existed. But all the activists had to spread them was print and speeches. Mainly, they could only preach to the choir.
Well, kiss that **** good bye. Religious people can't shut us up and marginalize us the way they had been able to for all of history. So while I have no more in common with P Z Myers than the Pope, in fact I find them both a little obnoxious sometimes, atheists now have a more level playing field in terms of access to communication. That is what is New. Not the Atheism.
Tom