Every couple of days now, it seems some columnist or public thinker decides to cast their lot with the anti-New Atheist crowd. It's sadly quite predictable: a new, exciting public debate has emerged over the past few years about religion and its magical force field of unquestionability, and for a while, it was beginning to look like the instigator position of the New Atheists was gaining a foothold--there seemed to be a genuine hunger to debate religion on its merits.
The first examples of backlash were as one would expect, tirades against the alleged "arrogance" or "militance" of folks like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, but they came mainly from the religious. Fellow skeptics and nonbelievers, it seemed, were waiting on the sidelines to see how things might shake out.
Recent months have led me to believe that the trend among those less-than-religious luminaries seems to be in the direction of opposition. They have licked their fingers, held them to the wind, and decided that zeitgeist was happier with the "old atheism" that kept its mouth shut. The let's-get-along-for-the-sake-of-getting-along form of mushy liberalism is in vogue, and the New Atheists are decidedly out of that particular fashion.
Sadly, the vast majority of this opposition tends to be based on misrepresentations or flat out lies about what the New Atheists have written or said. Quotes are mined from books, positions are inferred rather than supported by facts, and harsh characterizations are made based on a presumed attitude rather than actual data. And all too often this is being passed off as the "reasonable" side of the debate. New Atheists? Crazy fundamentalists. The squishy accomodationist quasi-religious? Now they have the right idea.
Which is of course nonsense.
As I have found myself writing time and time again, I am flabbergasted that anyone who has actually read the books of the New Atheists or heard them speak could still believe them to be "militant" or comparable to religious fanatics or fundamentalists. It's simply not a reasonable conclusion to reach, yet countless supposedly wise men and women have done so. Certainly, the New Atheists say things that challenge, and they do so unapologetically. I often hedge a bit when I bring Christoper Hitchens into the mix, because his whole public persona is built around being something of a boor. But then watch him debate a panel full of devout theists, and see how polite and deferential he is to them. The charges simply don't stick.
So once again I find myself unable to explain the backlash among the intelligentsia against the New Atheists except to guess that opposition seems to be the flavor of the week. People seem to be generally uncomfortable with the message of the New Atheists, so let's just go with that flow, the path of least resistance, and join the chorus of those tsk-tsking and finger-wagging at this unpopular group of scientists and thinkers.
It's the safe position to take, much like centrist Democrats being against gay marriage but for gay rights more generally. You can't say I'm anti-gay! But you can't say I'm pro-gay either! Likewise, these opponents get to maintain their ivory tower cred by being skeptical of religion in its more fundamentalist or literalist forms, but still publicly exhibit a soft spot for "faith" and "the mystery"--as Daniel Dennett would put it, a belief in belief. It's silly, but it's good PR, and no one at the cocktail party has to feel uncomfortable.
I am spurred to write on this topic this evening by yet another such attack on the New Atheists, coming not surprisingly from a blog on BeliefNet run by the BioLogos Foundation, a group that explicitly wished to bridge the gap between religion and science, founded by the incoming NIH chief, Francis Collins. (But let's be clear, on their blog and on their website, the symbols are of a DNA strand and an Ichthys, so let's not confuse ourselves into thinking that it's all forms of religion they're building bridges to. Just the one with the Jesus fish.) I don't wish to spend too much time on it, but the post in question is particularly wrathful, first entitled "Why I Think the New Atheists are a Disaster" (as it originally showed in my browser before a refresh this evening and in Google searches), it has since been enhanced to "Why I Think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster." The piece is a guest post by Michael Ruse, and he wants you to know that he really, really is a skeptic/non-believer/agnostic, so you can be sure that he knows what he's talking about (three paragraphs are spent backing this up). He then engages in a vague harangue against the New Atheists, distorting their positions, making weird inferences, and pounding his chest at how "proud" he is to be on "the front lines" opposing them. He calls the New Atheists' rhetoric "violent" without providing examples. Heartfelt, assertive, confident, surely, but there is nothing about, say, being put to the sword, or smote, or damned, or any such thing in their words. Ruse accuses the New Atheists of showing "hatred" to Francis Collins. Criticism? Yes. Bemusement? Possibly. Principled opposition to his appointment in a well-reasoned argument? You bet. I fail to see where hatred is being spouted other than simple disagreement and disappointment.
But it is all, sadly, familiar material. 'The New Atheists are too mean and give us semi-atheists a bad name.' If he had written that the New Atheists opposed Collins, we could talk about it. But he says they "hate" him, so now the discourse is in the toilet. He could say that he doesn't agree with the New Atheists' opinions about religious belief, and those opinions could be dissected. But he says that they are "violently anti-religion of all kinds," ignoring their more nuanced positions, and again, we hear that flushing sound.
I am worried. I grow almost weary of writing in defense of the New Atheists so often. While I admire them greatly and certainly think that their contribution to public discussion has been an overwhelming net positive, I know that there are examples in which it is not the case. They are not infallible saints, and the instigator approach to public atheism is not always best in all circumstances. But interested parties inside and outside the atheist community can't reasonably engage in those debates unless we discuss things as they actually are, not in gross caricatures or misrepresentations. Before I can really debate whether Sam Harris's explorations of the relative morality of torture is worth serious consideration, I must waste time and energy saying, "no, actually, Sam Harris is not pro-torture," because some fools have decided that it's a good way to kneecap Harris and end the discussion. We can't have rational discourse about the impact of the New Atheists unless the irrational nonsense is put away.
It's a debate worth having--indeed, it's a series of debates that we need to have. The New Atheists' influence in the nonbelief community is such that their impact must be examined and understood, their positions must be clarified and criticized and tested. But, as with the debate about religion, it must be done on the merits, based on the facts, not on the ham-fisted broadsides of uncomfortable scientists, thinkers, and writers who wish to remain popular.
Related Posts:
- Opposing Francis Collins for NIH is not evidence of bigotry
- Why I'm All Sub-Zero on Mr. Non-Zero
- Andrew Sullivan on American atheism's intellectual ascendance
- I'm an atheist, no matter what Beliefnet says
Comments
When any of the "New Atheists"* begin advocating or engaging in things like shooting people, flying planes into buildings, engaging in suicide bombings or any other such behavior in the name of No God I'll be prepared to call them "Militant Atheists". Until then I just roll my eyes every time I hear either term since I know it's being spouted by a fool.
*(always code-speak for "those atheists who don't stay in the closet and let religious people run things like they always did and would like to continue doing")
Don't give up! This is one of the most important moments for us in history! Use the technology of the information age wisely! Long live Atheism!
After a recent trip to the Vatican, I am thoroughly convinced that any possible original intent of these "holy men" to follow the principles of Jesus were quickly forsaken in exchange for running an extremely powerful city-state who, at one point, threatened to wage war with the Medici family in Florence because Michelangelo had left over artistic differences over Pope Julius' tomb.
Yet I, as a well-behaved, non-muckraking athiest, am expected to nod quietly in agreement that both Christianity and Islam are religions of peace.
I'm with Buffy. Until atheists start demanding the return of artists from their hometowns or face the wrath of the "warrior atheist," I think we're safe to dismiss these unfounded claims.
Well reasoned arguments. As person who was brought up to be a pious Hindu, I am getting an inferiority complex that nobody is attacking Hinduism.
MILITANT? AREN'T CHRISTIANS THE ONES WITH THE HYMN THAT GOES, "ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS, MARCHING AS TO WAR"?
Nicely put. To borrow the old feminist quote: "I don't know what a New Atheist is, but I'm called one whenever I distinguish myself from a doormat."
As irritating as this debate can be, it is a sign of a healthy atheist movement. After all, it seems we've reached a phase experienced by any successful civil rights movement: those who state their case are resented by those who survived by keeping their heads low. I see the "faitheists" as parallels to the quietly closeted gays who cringed at the tactics of Act Up or the sit-in counter veterans who shook their heads at Malcolm X. I just wish the faitheists (I'm tempted to call them "Uncle Chrises") would use more intellectually honest approach to the debate about atheist tactics.
Can't they acknowledge, for example, that Dawkins' goal of "consciousness raising" is valuable and enlightening? If they must group the "New Atheists," shouldn't they also include Julia Sweeney and her gentle, respectful, but forceful approac
Good article. And the comments reiterate it exactly. We are at a watershed moment, where new communications technologies can be used for good, or to reinforce old, tribal habits. I'm glad to see Paul write this but I don't see it as a waste of time. The only power we really have is to agree that others can write their views so long as we can write ours. I think Ruse and others can be seen for what they are by most, and Paul's work provides a little more light for those that don't get it themselves.
Thanks to everyone who's commented. As for the "waste of time," I think it's analagous to the health care "debate." We want to have a real public discussion about how to make health care better, but instead we have to *waste time* debunking nonsense like death panels and Nazism. Ruse is not nearly the worst of them, but he is typical. I expect this kind of misdirection from religionists who are genuinely threatened by the New Atheists, but real scientists, thinkers, and secularists should know better. Just look at atheist Julian Baggini's recent diatribe against the New Atheists, who boasts in his article that he hasn't read the books! This is *not* how we're supposed to operate!
Great article.
Well done very good article and for those people who just want to stay silent and not upset anyone are people who don't live where Religious nonsense is peddled everywhere. They are people who would just bite their tongue when Religious folk tell you that you're going to Hell if you don't take Jesus into your heart. I am a big Richard Dawkins fan so I like what he does he makes people answer for their bogus claims so as a Atheist from North Carolina keep it up.
"...opposition seems to be the flavor of the week. People seem to be generally uncomfortable with the message of the New Atheists..." These statements may not be related in the cynical way you suggest.
Anecdotally, I've always been a little uncomfortable with the New Atheists, though early on I felt empowered by their outspokenness and I've since taken many of their arguments as my own. And really that's what they were trying to achieve, no? Their arguments were particularly helpful to put the kibosh on proponents of ID, back when that was really an issue.
However, I also felt from time to time that they went too far for my taste. I was much less interested in decrying them (religionists were handling that) than in hearing their arguments, as I imagine many other atheists were. At some point, though, they were bound to hear criticism from their own side. I think it's been a long time coming.
That's not to say I disagree with you re: rules of debate. But I'm out of comment char
Justin:
Actually, the argument usually goes that ID is defeated in *spite* of the New Atheists who allegedly make things more difficult by equating science/evolution with godlessness. So really, your case of discomfort is stronger than you suppose.
And as I'm sure you realize, I'm not against atheists criticizing atheists, but we have to do it based on what is actually being said, not on cartoon versions of them. I think that discomfort, which is fine, is being channeled into an hypertolerance witch hunt of sorts; those who oppose the New Atheists express their opposition not through reason but baseless rant, and I think part of the reason is that it's easy. It's easy to say 'I'm not with that outspoken boor over there' and not have to back up your case.
(continued)
acters. Sure the people you've been reading should actually read the stuff they're writing about, and sure it would help if they provided specifics and backed them up with citations/evidence. And they should most definitely be careful not to caricature, because that doesn't do anything for the debate... though it probably does get them a well-positioned newspaper column...
In any event, there must be people like me out there who've been wondering, "Is it ok for me to criticize you yet, Mr. Dawkins?" Perhaps that's the zeitgeist on the wind.
You're too fast for me.
Hehe.
And I say to you that it is and always will be time to weigh in for or against. If you pull any of this distortion crap, though, you can end up the focus of my BlogWrath (tm).
I just banned belief net. I thought I was going to help by weighing in against a Christian host that was running a forum on where Atheists get their morality. The basic premise was that they either borrow from the Christian morality or they don't have any.
The final straw was when a woman accused me (& all Atheists) of not being able to avoid eating babies. Although I explained why this was not true, I also called her stupid. And my post was deleted.
Apparently it's okay to tell someone you think they are going to be burned & tortured in Hell for having no morality/ethics and eating babies...but it's not okay to call them stupid for believing this; after all, that's intolerant.
Stupid faithhead pricks.
For the first half of my life I was content to be a freethinker and keep it to myself. Now that the fundy christians have been forcing their way into government, I am quite offended and have been more vocal about it when they get in my face. The whole prop 8 things here in California disgusted me the way the mormans came in to fund it from out of state. And the black vote was really disappointing the way they did not support civil rights for gay and lesbian people. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, than just don't. But don't force your bronze-age mythological drivel on me. I ask people if they have read the old testament, of course they haven't, it's mostly unreadable blather. So I tell them to read the Sparks Notes synopsis (about 60 pages) and come back and tell me you believe in yahweh over baal, or magog, or poseidon or.. or... or...
I am not militant, I am simply sick of religious people having a tax-free political pulpit.
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!