Some readers either didn't know what I meant by pop atheism or didn't like the label.
I guess more academic types are calling it new atheism, although I don't believe that designation gets across its populism, mass appeal, and superficiality. Today it's part of pop culture, showing up in best-selling books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and others.
It's a simplistic religious movement. That statement should drive new free-thinkers wild, but it has long been recognized that unproved and unprovable assumptions about reality are, at bottom, religious assertions. It takes as much faith to say there is no god as to claim that there is, nevermind claiming that he talks to you.
Claims that atheism is evidence-based and provable is a misunderstanding of science. Actually, it's scientism, the reductionist view that all reality is natural and subject to scientific verification. However, people have long known that basic scientific assumptions (like believing reality is subject to similar laws throughout the universe) are as unprovable as any religious assumptions.
It's important to point out, as many investigators have, that new or pop atheism is basically a reaction to one brand of religiosity, literalistic fundamentalism.. As James Wood has written, "Atheism is structually related to the belief it negates, and is necessarily a kind of rival belief." Terry Eagleton describes the new atheism as a kind of secular counter-fundamentalism, with an unrefined notion of God.
I always wondered why atheists reject a "personal God" so vehemently, until I realized they were mirroring the language of fundamentalists/evangelicals. I suspect if you scratch many atheists you'll find underlying biographies of lives begun in rigid faith communities. Michael Schermer, who's written about his experiences, is surely not the only skeptic with this history.
This is what makes pop atheism new. Classical atheists had well thought-out understandings of theology, and frequently conversed with theists and deists. Sigmund Freud, who saw religion as an illusion, carried on a lifelong correspondence with Oskar Pfister, a Swiss clergyman with whom he discussed religious issues. Classical atheists were familiar with theology and presented their views with an awareness of Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Acquinas, and more recent thinkers from Luther and Nietzsche to Karl Barth and Paul Tillich.
Looking through writings of new atheists you do not find any wrestling with serious religious issues. By contrast there is an arrogent rejection of literalistic, fundamentalistic and ignorant understandings of religion by the pop fundamentalists they consider their adversaries. Naturally, the see themselves as bright in comparison with this competition. And they view the god of these believers as the source of evil in the world.
Because of their fixation on fundamentalism, pop atheists feel it necessary to ignore and destroy theology. They seem to reject the concept of religious tolerance, viewing it as an opening for those who would drag the public down the slippery slope to fundamentalism. Mainline theologians are dismissed by Harris as irrelevant, since his protests are "aimed at the majority of the faithful, not at Tillich's blameless parish of one."
The alleged conflict between religion and science exists primarily for fundamentalists and atheists. Thinkers from Maimomides, Augustine of Hippo and Galileo to John Polkinghorne and other mainline theologians have always stated that when science and belief give contradictory evidence, it is necessary to go with rationality. Only religious literalists either are unaware of or reject this view.
The basic problem with atheism is the belief that all of reality can be explained by the scientific method and that other explanations are superflous. Scientific naturalists accept a form of explanatory monism, claiming there is only one way to explain phenomena. Thus, morality may be considered adaptive in an evolutionary sense, and that's the end of the story. But on another level, might it not reflect our awareness of what some call the divine, the holy or the ground of being? Which is it, or could it be both? Prayer and meditation affect certain regions of the brain, and seem to calm feelings of fear and anger (even among the non-religious). Does that explain away the phenomenon of prayer or merely explain how it works?
When I read atheists' rejections of what they consider religion I'm always tempted to tell them to go pick on someone their own size. And there are many more people than Tillich in that parish. Sure, you can be the brightest person in the room when you're in a nursery. Contrary to some beliefs, the number of scientists who acknowledge a creator or some higher power has not changed since the 1920s. A new Pew study found that 30 to 40 percent made this acknowledgment, while 41 percent did not (versus four percent for the public at large).
This discussion started with a criticism of President Obama's naming of Dr. Francis Collins, a leading scientist and evangelical, to head the National Institutes of Health. Sam Harris felt this was an outrageous choice. Incidentally, the only people who seem to agree with him include some religious conservatives who dislike Collins's affirmation of the theory of evolution and support of embryonic stem cell research.
When you offend single-minded extremists of whatever variety you can count on being criticized.
For more info: See John F. Haught, God and the new atheism: a critical response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (2008). See also, James Wood. God in the quad. The New Yorker, August 31, 2009, pp. 75 - 79. For a serious consideration of the worldviews of atheism versus "mere Christianity" see the simulated debate between Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis, in Armand M. Nicholi, Jr. The question of God (2002).
For the new Pew Study, see CathNewsUSA, July 21, 2009. For Andrew Newberg, How God changes your brain. see CathNews USA August 18, 2009.
See Adelle M. Banks, NIH and surgeon general nominees combine faith, biomedical achievement. The Christian Century, August 25, 2009, p. 15.
Although Richard Dawkins seems to be fighting demons of his own when he turns to writing about religion, his role as an eminent evolutionary biologist cannot be overlooked. I was particularly impressed by The ancestor's tale: a pilgrimage to the dawn of evolution (2004).
Comments
I would just like to correct you on one point an Atheist is not someone how states that there is no god. Some may make that statement but all an Atheist realy is, is someone who does not believe there is a god i.e. I don't except your clam you have no evidence.
"...it has long been recognized that unproved and unprovable assumptions about reality are, at bottom, religious assertions."
That's a pretty ridiculous statement.
Denying the existance of invisible unicorns and Zeus an unproved and unprovable assumption, does that make it an religious assertion also?
It is not the atheist that has to prove God (or invisible unicorns/Zeus) does *not* exist, but for theist to proven he does. Something that theists have utterly failed to do.
For God, "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence should be there and is not." -Dr. Victor Stenger
"However, people have long known that basic scientific assumptions (like believing reality is subject to similar laws throughout the universe) are as unprovable as any religious assumptions."
You are ignorant of science. This question has been addressed scientifically:
www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/public/pr/pr-munh3-en.html
"The laws of nature are the same in the distant Universe as they are here on Earth, according to new research conducted by an international team of astronomers, including Christian Henkel from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy (MPIfR) in Bonn. Their research, published today in Science, shows that one of the most important numbers in physics theory, the proton-electron mass ratio, is almost exactly the same in a galaxy 6 billion light years away as it is in Earth's laboratories - approximately 1836.15."
"I always wondered why atheists reject a "personal God" so vehemently, until I realized they were mirroring the language of fundamentalists/evangelicals."
Do you think it could have something to do with the theocratical imposition of religious beliefs and practices on the general populace by such fundamentists/evengelicals, while the alleged "liberal" believers look away and twiddle their thumbs?
"The basic problem with atheism is the belief that all of reality can be explained by the scientific method and that other explanations are superflous."
NO, atheism does not include an insistence that the scientific method can explain everything.
But it's hard to make the case that religious explanations are not superfluous. Religious claims fall into two categories: those that make claims about the natural world, which end up clashing with science, and those that do not make any claims about the natural world, which are untestable and frequently are contradicted by competing religious claims. Rather than attack atheism, you need to make a case that religion answers anything.
You might want to actually READ what "pop" atheists have to say before strawmaning them into positions they do not hold.
"Prayer and meditation affect certain regions of the brain, and seem to calm feelings of fear and anger (even among the non-religious). Does that explain away the phenomenon of prayer or merely explain how it works?"
Before you bother looking into _how_ prayer works, you should first ask _whether_ it works. Intercessory prayer to heal sick people has consistently failed in controlled clinical trials, except in a few cases of outright fraud. As for any calming effect, this hardly rises above placebo effect. It would be up to you to show that prayer is any more effective for this purpose than playing soothing music.
"The basic problem with atheism is the belief that all of reality can be explained by the scientific method and that other explanations are superflous."
The basic problem with theism is the belief that all of reality can be explained by "God did it" and that other explanations are superfluous.
"When you offend single-minded extremists of whatever variety you can count on being criticized."
Oh, get over yourself. "Will you look into Galileo's telescope or not?" could also have been construed as a simplistic, black-and-white, prosaic and non-philosphical (and non-theological) question. But waxing poetic about wavering between the telescope and the celestial spheres does not make one erudite, and neither does occupying the mush-minded area of what "neither with God nor without Him." Good luck with that. All these self-styled critics of the "new atheists" are heirs to irrelevance and historic anonymity.
Enjoy your fifteen minutes of criticism. Believe me, it won't last, but not for the reasons you envision.
Ron, Your comments invite a lot of reflections. I was reminded of a seminar I attended a couple of years ago of theologians and scientists. During our dialogue several scientists pointed out, simiular to your comment, that they could explain how a forumula worked, cause to effect, but not why. That was an assumption, an act of faith/trust, if you wish. In other words, at least these scientists had "to make an act of faith" that some how reality made sense as they pursued their research using the scientific method.
"As James Wood has written, "Atheism is structually related to the belief it negates, and is necessarily a kind of rival belief."
Thank you, Ron. I think that summed it up nicely.
Mr. Bohr, this was really a thought-provoking essay. It has really opened some doors into how to think about the atheism-theism debate and the interesting paradox of 'evangelical' atheism.
I think that you and other commentators are correct in saying that the atheists are really a shallow bunch. Their writings inspire nothing, and their bitter ‘rationalism’ and cold inability to accept that cultures find expression and meaning in religion makes them distasteful at best and disgusting at worst.
Your perspective is much more intellectually satisfying than your atheist comrades, so keep up the good work so I have something interesting to read!
newhumanist.org.uk/2083
There is good reason to assert "there is no god". Dawkins is wrong to use "probably". The new atheists are actually not going far enough in their assertions.
Ron, great article, indeed very thought provoking.
I suppose if you want to call atheism a religion you can if you use a wide definition of religion. But it is a religion without a god. I suppose there are worse things.
But to call simple atheism a religion trivializes religion.
I get the feeling your religion is much greater, to you, than atheism is to any atheist.
The sad attempts by antagonistic atheists to destroy organized religion with only backfire on them.
This article should be read by everyone.
Ron Bohr,
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS: Atheism itself does not claim that God does not exist. It is the lack of belief in a deity, NOT the belief there is no deity. This is an extremely important distinction and you do disservice to all believers and non-believers when you recklessly make claims. So please, use your vocabulary responsibly.
Seth,
You do a disservice to all thinking people by claiming a lack of anything is something that exists. Atheism is the belief there is no god. I am an atheist for the sole reason and the only reason one can become one, I believe there is no god. That does not make it a religion, I also believe the Beatles are better than the stones, that peanut butter tastes better than jam, that the sun will rise tommorow.
Logic itself is based on beliefs called axioms. No axioms, then all of logic must be tossed out the window.
You are a nonatheist if you do not believe there is no god.
You are forcing a religious belief system on atheists like you think it's a bad thing.
I can't speak for other atheists (as you so fallaciously do), but I personally reject religion because I am unable to belief in supernatural ideas. The only thing I publicly reject is when religious people force their supernatural beliefs on me through laws and public policy. My money should not say that I trust in god. And I shouldn't have to lead my public school students in a pledge that says we are under god. My taxes should not go to faith-based initiatives that proselytize.
When religious people stop forcing religion on others, the New Atheism will go away.
newhumanist,
N: "There is good reason to assert "there is no god". Dawkins is wrong to use "probably". The new atheists are actually not going far enough in their assertions."
Dawkins uses probably because that is accurate. It is not impossible there is no god or it would be proven that all proposed gods are P and not P at the same time. The christian god can be proven to be P and not P at the same time (proof of nonexistence). Ditto for Allah of the koran. In the bible god is said to never repent, yet repents, this is a logical contradiction and proof that no such god exists. The koran says god cn do anything, and also that god cannot have a son. Poof. both of them cannot exist. P and not P at the same time cannot be applied to all proposed gods, there isn't one for a deist god for example so to say that god does not exist does rely on belief, faith.
You need faith to assume anyone believes in a god at all or believes there is no god. We cannot read minds.
""The basic problem with atheism is the belief that all of reality can be explained by the scientific method"
False. All of reality is explained by science AND logic. Atheism is not materialism. Obviously your understanding of atheism is skewed by a materialist out there somewhere, lol.
Susan,
"You are forcing a religious belief system on atheists like you think it's a bad thing."
He is a raving loon to say atheism is a religion.
"Because of their fixation on fundamentalism, pop atheists feel it necessary to ignore and destroy theology."
No, they act to oppose theology because they have little to nothing to promote... and that is based on their misunderstanding of atheism itself. Opposing theism is not what atheism is or what it is about. That is anti-theism, not atheism. But because they define atheism as a lack of belief (which isn't anything at all) they have no conclusion to defend so they go on attack mode.
I look at the atheist groups (and I am an atheist) as hate groups. The atheist movement is a hate club. They have nothing else in common, most often are not atheists at all, they are nontheists with a chip on their shoulder and so intellectually dishonest that they have nothing to stand for, they only rip the other side down.
It's pathetic, but it is not religion. They violate formal logic regularly and don't notice it. I find humour in it and so might you.
youtube(dot)com/gklr <---- me
Greg,
Our author is not a "raving loon." He's just wrong.
If you want to accuse people of intellectual dishonesty, you shouldn't do it yourself.
Claims that atheism is provable are only ever made by those arguing against atheism.
An article titled "Pop go the ____ " just shows you lost your ability to be a nice person. If you feel the need to compare atheists to weasels, then I assume it was religion that took away your ability to be a nice person.
Ron, atheism is simplistic, but it in no way rises to the level of a religion. New Atheism is definitely a reaction to religious fundamentalism. I doubt religious fundamentalism or "new" atheism are going away anytime soon.
Just like when religion gets a new convert, the convert to atheism experiences new ways of thinking that may express itself in unbound enthusaism. Reason and moderation may be overcome by enthusiasm, or zeal.
And atheists have no pastors to reign in this zeal.
In fact atheists have no organization, no authority, no standards that come with, or are developed like, a religion.
The atheist is pretty much on their own. Yet somehow "new atheism" has become a movement. Either there is something to it, or someone is just not communicating the antidote to it.
Tim: "[S]omeone is just not communicating the antidote to it."
No, I told you the antidote. The antidote is "When religious people stop forcing religion on others, the New Atheism will go away".
There is no other reason for an atheist to be "vehement" on the subject of religion.
Try keeping it to yourselves, and we will "magically" go away.
Susan, very good, very succinct. When you put it that way it seems new atheism is even more simple than I thought it was. In fact "new atheism" may not have anthing to do with atheism at all.
In your view is new atheism simply an effort to keep religion out of the public square?
Yes.
The proof? Belief in Santa Claus has not yet produced asantaism. Why? Santa Claus believers do not have the power to push around other people.
Reginald: I totally agree with one of your comments. Yes, people are rejecting some forms of Christianity because it has been hijacked, kidnapped, perverted by theocratics eager to impose a new-fangled 19th century literalism on it. While others may have not been twiddling their thumbs, they certinly haven't communicated a reasonable sane view of their faith. If you haven't done so yet, read Jeff Sharlet's truly scary book, The Family to get some perception of how fundamentalism is trying to coopt American Protestantism and become the default faith for America.
Susan, if you think I'm a loony, read about these guys and you'll appreciate what loony means.
I plan to write about this brand of fundamentalism and its political danger soon.
Also, Reginald, willingness to do research does require faith that lawful relationships exist throughout the universe. The recent finding of the proton-electron mass ratio in deep space gives yet another indication this belief was a fruitful hypothesis. No, I reject the "God of the gaps" notion, that things are a mystery until they're not. I'm talking about the underlying assumptions Father Michael mentioned.
I think I misspoke when I said neurobiology did not explain away the phenomenon of prayer. When I said it doesn't explain how it works, I definitely was not talking about its efficacy, ability to change the material world. It has an impact on the attitudes and well-being of believers (and apparently of non-believers). Saying any more about its religious efficacy is not a scientific issue. At least not for me. As a wise man said, it's above my pay grade.
Please lighten up, Susan. No, I was not saying atheists were weasels. I hope I was saying they have gone pop culture. Judging by the number of recent books, I believe that's a statement you'd agree with. Incidentally, I'm just finishing Temple U's John Allen Paulos's new book, Irreligion, which I find somewhat more balanced than some of the others. More about that in a later posting.
Also, religion is not the only human activity that makes us "not nice." Actually anything can do it, but only if we act like arrogent fools.
firstly, to say Atheism is a religion is like saying health is a disease. and also i think your comparing of atheists to fundamentalists illustrates your greater confusion with atheism. as Dawkins said in an interview: "if two opposing arguments are equally as passionate it dose not mean that the truth lays somewhere in the middle. it is one thing to be passionate about something because you have seen the evidence for it and you can't bear the thought of someone depriving themselves of it compared to a person whose passion is derived for arrogant narrow mindedness". and lastly, you are contradicting yourself to say that atheists have an "unrefined understanding of god" and then in the same article suggest that atheists must be the product of a "rigid religious background. your stereotypes and miss understandings of new atheists only illustrate your fears and insecurities. it's interesting that you say that you have respect for the "classic Atheists" could that be because they are dead
Jim, thanks for your recent comments. I love it when readers respond after a while, which gives me hope that postings don't have a life span of 24 hours.
My next posting (not written yet)goes into what I appreciate about real live, current freethinkers. I don't just value the dead because they can't talk back, but because they were smarter, deeper and less defensive than those now on the pop-lit shelves. It's not a contradiction -- the "new" atheists have a simplistic concept of the creation in part because many of them grew up in rigid, fundamentalistic faiths. One of my suggestions to freethinkers is that they learn more theology and act less arrogently. Don't assume others are afraid, when they merely disagree with you. Some of us are potential allies on basic issues
Incidentally, Dawkins is mistaken that anyone disagreeing with him is avoiding evidence. Only scientism holds that philosophical issues are decided by the kind of "evidence" he wants to limit us to.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!