The New Atheist - movement

[Jack of Spades]

I'm not sure where to post this, but this is for all sorts of discussion about the movement. As we all (should) know, the atheism of the 'new' atheism is nothing new, but rather it's the strong stance and the intense anti-religiousness that makes them "new".

As I am not an atheist, and I live in a very secular country and have encountered pretty hostile new atheists in real life personally, I've had fairly negative view of the new atheism - movement, but anyways I went for an exploration mission to get a closer look. I read new atheist blogs, watched their debates and some interviews with Dawkins & co.

Couple of random comments and observations from my journey to the wonderful world of militant non-belief:

- The debates were very entertaining. I can see the appeal.

- I found myself agreeing with more than 90% of what Dawkins & co. said in the debates, and more often sympathizing with them than with their opponents, which sort of surprised me. He is great at articulating philosophical concepts in common sense - way.

- What was new to me is that the new atheism - movement seems to have been sparked at least partly by 9/11, and this crew is much more critical of Islam than of Christianity. It's the Christian- dominated culture in the west that has created the wrong impression of them being somehow fundamentally anti-Christian.

- Dawkins occasionally got pretty rude with religious audience members, but when thinking objectively, he calling someone "hallucinating" or "ignorant" is not even as bad as Christian pastors calling someone being "of satan" or "going to hell". We're just more used to the Christian insults.

- I became enlightened of what I had exactly so much disliked in the wannabe-Dawkinses I've met in the past. They had copied the hostile anti-religious rhetoric, without having his articulate and intellectual skills to make a point. It was an enlightening discovery. While Dawkins spices his arguments with an attitude, he does have the skills to make good points which was pretty different impression than the one I used to have.

 

[cloudyday2]

I like Daniel Dennett. He is the only new atheist intellectual that I know, but he seems to be polite and bright.

 

[inquiring mind]

Apparently, Satan was pretty convincing too; other angels were cast out of Heaven with him... use caution.

 

[John Hyperspace]

What I wouldn't give just to be able to step out on a stage with these guys. Just once. Just to see the looks on everyone's faces. Just to sit there smiling while the others tried to comprehend what was happening. Just to see how they would cope with the information.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Apparently, Satan was pretty convincing too; other angels were cast out of Heaven with him... use caution.

Use caution? Who do you mean?

You can't have an open mind without risking of being influenced in the process. To be against risking of being influenced by what you read and explore, is in fact to be against reading and exploring. Can't have it both ways.

If living the way I want to live, by exploring different beliefs and ideas, would end up making me an atheist, then I would welcome that change, if it brings me closer to the truth and having a healthy relationship with the reality. So far, though, it has not done so.

 

[inquiring mind]

Use caution? Who do you mean?

Any advice I give is only intended for those who choose to use it.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The early Christians were accused (falsely) of being atheists because they rejected the pagan "gods." So maybe that's why the atheism of today is called "the new atheism."

 

[CrystalDragon]

Apparently, Satan was pretty convincing too; other angels were cast out of Heaven with him... use caution.

Satan was never said to be thrown out of heaven with a third of the angels. That was only implied in Revelation, which according to many (who don't see it as symbolic of Nero and the Roman Empire) is meant to take place in the future.

 

[archer75]

The new atheism as I understand it is practically a "fundamentalist" (in the negative sense, no offense to any actual fundamentalists here) religion. You see the same fervor, the same hero worship of their "pastor". I totally accept atheism as a belief / take / whatever, absolutely no problem with it, none at all. But Dawkins is an embarrassment.

Some ostensibly Christian public speakers are embarrassments, too, but this thread isn't about them, I guess.

I don't even really take it as an intellectual thing in most of its forms. Just a social cluster.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I have never liked Dawkins, even when I was an atheist. His arguments betray a profound ignorance of philosophy and a deep faith in a narrow naturalistic interpretation. He covers this by rudeness and attacking speakers instead of their arguments, which is a poor debate tactic in my opinion.

I guess this is what comes from the over-specialisation in intellegentsia today, that experts in one field think they can pontificate on subjects that they are novices in. Biologists know nothing of philosophical proof or metaphysics and really should know better than to wander out of their cozy little corners where they are comfortable. They largely parade their ignorance, but general philosophic education is so poor nowadays that they get away with it. Dawkins works best with teenagers, I think.

No, Bertrand Russell was a much better Atheist thinker. His arguments had the bite and coherence that Dawkins lacks with the knowledge to back it up.

But of course, I converted to Christianity. For I discovered CS Lewis and eventually Christ and rapidly could re-evaluate Kant, Paschal, Plato etc. in light thereof. Atheism is just too light in the intellectual department as almost all the great thinkers of history were theists of one sort or another.

 

[hedrick]

I think what's new about the new atheism is to a large extent its assessment of religion. It's not really new. In France there was for a period a similar anti-religion. But in the US until recently, atheists tended to see religion as OK, but false. That is, they couldn't believe it, but it wasn't seen as a evil force.

Today, as in France around the French Revolution, religion as seen as actively evil, because it's making people worse. It's seen as justifying hatred of various groups, and as preventing stem cell research and other useful developments. (In my opinion the new atheism got a serious boost during arguments over stem cells, because it was the first time that many scientists saw religion as directly preventing them from doing something.) While it's not 100% true, religious people also tend to be associated with denying climate change, and holding other false beliefs that can damage us in the long run.

It's pretty easy to go from there to see religion as a truly damaging force. From these points of view, Islam is clearly more of a threat in principle. But in the US it doesn't have as much political clout as Christianity, so at the moment it may not be as much of a practical threat. In Europe it's not so clear.

 

[archer75]

I guess this is what comes from the over-specialisation in intellegentsia today, that experts in one field think they can pontificate on subjects that they are novices in. Biologists know nothing of philosophical proof or metaphysics and really should know better than to wander out of their cozy little corners where they are comfortable.

I'd bet at least a dollar that most atheist biologists (not that they all are atheists) know better than to make fools out of themselves talking about stuff they have never studied and aren't oriented in at all. He's just the noisiest of the ones who don't know better.

People that act like that just look like fools. I'm generally familiar with cars and their function, but if I started preaching to a professional mechanic -- or even strong amateurs -- about this and that, I'd be considered a fool.

It's just unfortunate that there's so much weaksauce political junk masquerading as Christianity or "religion" that there are all these people who have seen through the junk and want something to believe in. Then they see Dawkins and some of them become rabid followers. Even if we took religion out of the whole thing, it would just be sad. Dawkins is a self-promoter and I guess he's good at that. As a "thinker" he's nothing.

 

[inquiring mind]

Satan was never said to be thrown out of heaven with a third of the angels. That was only implied in Revelation, which according to many (who don't see it as symbolic of Nero and the Roman Empire) is meant to take place in the future.

Believing it was implied in Revelation is one thing, but Jesus saying it in Luke 10:18 is another.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I think what's new about the new atheism is to a large extent its assessment of religion. It's not really new. In France there was for a period a similar anti-religion. But in the US until recently, atheists tended to see religion as OK, but false. That is, they couldn't believe it, but it wasn't seen as a evil force.

Yep, they're not just secular, but anti-religious.

What makes new atheists different from French revolutionaries, or communist atheism for that matter, is that new atheists tend to not support legal measures against religion. They're more for simply ideological influencing and promotion. French revolutionaries and communists were both for active violence and legal measures against religion. So far, I have seen nothing to suggest that the new atheists are even interested to go that far. They can be fine with bullying and ridiculing religious people, as a byproduct of a perceived good cause, though.

Today, as in France around the French Revolution, religion as seen as actively evil, because it's making people worse. It's seen as justifying hatred of various groups, and as preventing stem cell research and other useful developments. (In my opinion the new atheism got a serious boost during arguments over stem cells, because it was the first time that many scientists saw religion as directly preventing them from doing something.) While it's not 100% true, religious people also tend to be associated with denying climate change, and holding other false beliefs that can damage us in the long run.

It's pretty easy to go from there to see religion as a truly damaging force. From these points of view, Islam is clearly more of a threat in principle.

While the new atheist view of religion corrupting science and thinking is exarrogated, there is truth to it. In Eurobarameter (European equivalent for Pew) there is a correlation of having less positive view on science and having religious beliefs, for example.

It's actually a logical phenomenon, if teachings of a religion conflict the findings of science, there will always be a number of people who will choose to reject science and develop anti-scientific attitudes to solve the conflict.

But in the US it doesn't have as much political clout as Christianity, so at the moment it may not be as much of a practical threat. In Europe it's not so clear.

It's worth to note that Dawkins is British, and in Europe there still exists lots of legal remnants of the old entanglement of state and church from the Christian millennium in the continent. Those entanglements are of course but a shadow of what they used to be, and are in decline.

For example, in Finland the two state churches still have a right to tax their members, via the government taxation system to collect the money, while other religions don't have that right. The church tax is collected alongside all the other taxes and because it's so invisible, it's entirely possible to pay the ~1% church tax and not even be aware of doing so. Atheist organizations here have campaigned to make it public knowledge and as a result, increasingly people have signed off their membership of the state church to avoid that tax.

Issues like that serve as rallying issues for anti-religious people in Europe, to not just push a political agenda, but also to promote their ideology in the process of addressing those issues.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I'd bet at least a dollar that most atheist biologists (not that they all are atheists) know better than to make fools out of themselves talking about stuff they have never studied and aren't oriented in at all. He's just the noisiest of the ones who don't know better.

People that act like that just look like fools. I'm generally familiar with cars and their function, but if I started preaching to a professional mechanic -- or even strong amateurs -- about this and that, I'd be considered a fool.

This is partly true, but there is other side to it. The New atheist argument is that they don't address religion as it exists in the minds of philosophers and theologians but as it is actually practiced by the average members of the religion. Because the version of how it's actually practiced, is the actual cultural force that impacts people's lives, even if it's different from the version that is presented by the religious 'experts'.

Which imo is a valid point.

It's just unfortunate that there's so much weaksauce political junk masquerading as Christianity or "religion" that there are all these people who have seen through the junk and want something to believe in. Then they see Dawkins and some of them become rabid followers. Even if we took religion out of the whole thing, it would just be sad. Dawkins is a self-promoter and I guess he's good at that. As a "thinker" he's nothing.

While Dawkins is the big hero of New Atheism, it's not just about him, the most prominent new atheist leading figures are labeled "The four horsemen" Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. There are also plenty of bloggers and thinkers etc. who are just less well known.

And yeah, the "four horsemen" is kind of a lovely label...

 

[archer75]

This is partly true, but there is other side to it. The New atheist argument is that they don't address religion as it exists in the minds of philosophers and theologians but as it is actually practiced by the average members of the religion. Because the version of how it's actually practiced, is the actual cultural force that impacts people's lives, even if it's different from the version that is presented by the religious 'experts'.

Which imo is a valid point.

That may be valid in principle, I agree, but that means they can kind of make up their own target. They "decide" how "average" people practice their religion, although that's extremely varied.

In other words, dealing with an "expert" or a body of thought centuries old would be very difficult, but first you'd have to understand it, which would require years of study, at least.

But saying "Hey, look at these people imagining a bearded man in the sky, isn't that ridiculous" is very easy.

Although you'd think they'd be into clearly defining what they're arguing against, since they're scientists and all.

But, at least to my mind, they're not about arguments or reason at all. Just money.

And the same can be said of a lot of visible "promoters" of Christianity, of course.

At least, that's the sort of thing I've run into with "new atheists".

Edit: And you're right, I mostly think of Dawkins, have less experience with the others. So I admit that what I said may not apply.

 

[Jack of Spades]

That may be valid in principle, I agree, but that means they can kind of make up their own target. They "decide" how "average" people practice their religion, although that's extremely varied.

In other words, dealing with an "expert" or a body of thought centuries old would be very difficult, but first you'd have to understand it, which would require years of study, at least.

But saying "Hey, look at these people imagining a bearded man in the sky, isn't that ridiculous" is very easy.

Although you'd think they'd be into clearly defining what they're arguing against, since they're scientists and all.

I get the sentiment. I used to have the exact same feelings about the new atheists before my journey to actually study it. I recommend watching some of the interviews or debates to find out what these people are actually promoting. You'll find plenty of those in youtube.

Don't blame the new atheism as it's practiced by the average member you know, but find out about the original ideas

But, at least to my mind, they're not about arguments or reason at all. Just money.

I would imagine that money is a factor in the play, but again, I recommend taking a look to have a bit more nuanced view on it.

 

[archer75]

Don't blame the new atheism as it's practiced by the average member you know, but find out about the original ideas

I was going to note this about my own post and didn't. So you got me there.

I'll try to check out the videos and see how ill-informed I was.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I was going to note this about my own post and didn't. So you got me there.

I'll try to check out the videos and see how ill-informed I was.

If you do watch some, let me know here what you thought about what you watched. It'd be interesting to see if your observations are the same as mine, or different. I used the time around Christmas to read and watch stuff about this so the impression is still kind of fresh in my mind.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Believing it was implied in Revelation is one thing, but Jesus saying it in Luke 10:18 is another.

I'll give you that, but it never said he fell from heaven with a third of the angels following him. You're right that Jesus did mention Satan falling though.