Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia

[DonViejo]

A Twitter rant by Richard Dawkins re-exposes a disturbing Islamophobic streak among the New Atheists

BY NATHAN LEAN


Richard Dawkins, the preppy septuagenarian and professional atheist whose work in the field of evolutionary biology informs his godless worldview, has always been a prickly fellow. The British scientist and former Oxford University professor has expended considerable ink and precious breath rationalizing away the possibility of cosmic forces and explaining in scientific terms why those who believe in a divine creator are, well, stupid.

It appears, however, that some of those believers are stupider than others. At least according to a recent series of tweets by Dawkins, who served up a hostile helping of snark this week aimed at followers of the Muslim faith. It’s a group that has come to occupy a special place in his line of fire — and in the minds of a growing club of no-God naysayers who have fast rebranded atheism into a popular, cerebral and more bellicose version of its former self.

The New Atheists, they are called, offer a departure from the theologically based arguments of the past, which claimed that science wasn’t all that important in disproving the existence of God. Instead, Dawkins and other public intellectuals like Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens suffocate their opponents with scientific hypotheses, statistics and data about the physical universe — their weapons of choice in a battle to settle the scores in a debate that has raged since the days of Aristotle. They’re atheists with attitudes, as polemical as they are passionate, brash as they are brainy, and while they view anyone who does not share their unholier-than-thou worldview with skepticism and scorn, their cogitations on the creation of the universe have piqued the interest of even many believers. With that popularity, they’ve built lucrative empires. Dawkins and Harris are regulars in major publications like the New York Times and the Economist, and their books — “The Selfish Gene” and “The God Delusion” by Dawkins and “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation” by Harris — top bestseller lists and rake in eye-popping royalties.

The power of these New Atheists’ provocations is their ability to reach popular audiences and move their geeky discussions from lecture halls and libraries (Harris has a degree in philosophy from Stanford and a Ph.D in neuroscience from UCLA) to the sets of “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report,” where hipsters and yuppies alike digest their sardonic sound bites, repeating them to their online networks in 140 characters or less.

-snip-

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/

[longship]

1. Oh dear! This guy really doesn't like Dawkins.

No other comment from me. I am staying away from this one.

R&K anyway.

Responders, please be respectful.

[Trajan]

2. Funny ... Muslims say the "New Atheists" are Christophobes

Atheism, by it's very nature, is 'against' Theism of all types .... take your pick ..

As such, one could pick any faith type, and state " New Atheists are ANTI-___________ ", using a different theism every day ...

I am atheist ... I am as much against Islam as I am against Christianity .... same level of ANTI for each of them...

[SpartanDem]

3. Atheism is not necessarily against theism

merely lacking belief is not the same as being against it.

[Trajan]

6. Not necessarily ...

I would presume, however, that the choice to reject each of the numerous arguments in favor of different theological systems, of one type or another, was a considerate and thoughtful process, and that each was actively rejected, and not simply ignored, passively.

I am atheist because I find the foundational assertions of all theological systems unworthy of acceptance as 'truth', which therefore implies an outright rejection of those assertions. Not only do I lack belief in those theological systems - I reject the very essence of their claims ....

I actively DISbelieve ... I do not passively lack belief ....

But hey - Thats just me ....

I don't find the 'New Atheists' rejecting one specific theological variety to a greater degree than another .... particularly between the 3 so called Abrahamic faiths ...

[SpartanDem]

15. When I said against, I meant actively oppose

I am agnostic and I reject those claims too, but I don't actively oppose all organized religion. New Atheist do not merely seek co-existence with religion, they think society would better without it and they basically evangelize that point. Personally, I'm pretty ambivalent toward organized religion as long as it doesn't effect me.

[rexcat]

4. The article is full of inudeno...

and supposition with little fact. Me thinks the author of this article does not like atheists. There are more than a few on DU who don't like atheists. No big surprise.

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. It's a complicated issue

On one hand, I would argue "Islamophobia" is very real, insofar as we are talking about an irrational fear of Muslims.

On the other, I would also argue "Islamophobia" has become a convenient escape hatch by which apologists deflect rational, objective criticisms of Islam itself.

Where Dawkins and Hitchens are concerned, the bulk of their criticisms fall into the latter category. To the best of my recollection, they concern (or concerned, in Hitchens' case) themselves primarily with the content of Islam and how it is applied politically across the Islamic world. I don't believe either advocated for differential treatment of Muslims under the law, or argued that Muslims in general were a demographic to be feared or ostracized.

Harris, however, is the exception here. While I don't think there is anything wrong with his critique of Islam as a religion, the moment he began advocating profiling and torture, he became an Islamophobe.

[goldent]

7. I'm not sure I would call them "New Atheists"

as I don't fully understand what that term means, but "professional Atheist" fits.

[Act_of_Reparation]

10. "New Atheism" has a rather specific meaning

Simply put, New Atheists maintain that religion should be openly criticized wherever its influence is felt. Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are certainly considered "New Atheists".

[goldent]

12. OK, I thought "New Atheist" was a term that some atheists didn't like too well,

a little too much like militant atheist. People generally don't like being labeled, regardless of how accurate or non-offensive it is - I can understand that.

[Phillip McCleod]

8. maybe dawkins, harris and hitchens *are* islamophobes.

i wouldn't know since i haven't read their works or follow them, at all, as i've mentioned elsewhere. so nor do i have a problem with them. frankly i'm glad they've raised the profile of atheism it has certainly benefited me as i can now be more of myself more often in some circles. like here.

what i *am* sure of is that nathan lean, the author of the salon article, is an unabashed atheo-phobe.

utter garbage. completely empty polemics. 'nathan', if that really is his name, does nothing but rant against them without making even the semblance of a cogent argument. my respect for salon.com just dropped to huffington post levels.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. What, al Qaeda is motivated by Islam? Seriously?

[backscatter712]

11. This article is such horseshit.

Explain how Dawkins or any of the other New Atheist luminaries are any more critical of Islam than of other major religions.

Dawkins, and I, damned well criticize Islam for its authoritarianism, misogyny, homophobia and general intolerance. But I level the same criticism at Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism, and even Buddhism (while the Buddhists I've met, and meditated with were really cool, really chill people, try taking a look in Sri Lanka, where Buddhist extremists are committing acts of violence against people who aren't practitioners of their flavor of Buddhism.)

[cpwm17]

13. Harris, Hitchens definitely are (was) ignorant Islamophobes

They're both war-mongering bigots, with a love of bombing Muslims. Their writings prove their Islamophobia.

I kind of enjoy Dawkins, though perhaps he can be a dick at times. Religion deserves much criticism. I'm inclined to agree with Dawkins concerning religion, except I don't believe religion is the center of evil in this world.

[Apophis]

14. What a bunch of crap.

It's quite obvious the author has an agenda.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. If you mean "people who thing Islam is both false and harmful" then yes, they are.

Now, explain to me why that belief is a bad one. For bonus points, explain to me why it's morally OK to think that the teachings of Islam, as interpreted by the majority (but not all) of it's practitioners, *aren't* grossly immoral.

"Islamophobia" is a wonderful way of avoiding having to explain why a view is wrong by labelling it.

[Gore1FL]

17. I remember a few weeks ago when people were saying he was a coward about Islam.

The article's writer isn't sticking to the script.