Understanding Newer Atheists

[rug]

June 19, 2013
By Richard Haynes

Almost weekly, an article or YouTube video pops up from a Christian (usually a minister) who has discovered some new-fangled revelation about those desolate and destitute whom they label “new atheists.” They assert to have uncovered some clandestine impulse that causes one to reject Christ’s love. This is often followed by a list (there’s usually seven) of ways to communicate the truth and inerrancy of Scripture to those without “ears to hear or eyes to see.”

While I “have faith” that these individuals are sincerely motivated by genuine compassion, I believe their prose does more to expose their distorted vision obtained from observing the world through their rose colored “stain glass” spectacles (hat tip to Petra). With this article, it is not my goal to discourage proselytizing (from either side), but to foster and cultivate honest dialogue between theists and nontheists alike. To do so, I will first explain a little of my own background, and then clarify what I believe to be common misconceptions many believers have about those I will refer to not as new atheists, but “newer atheists.”

First, let’s clarify what I mean by “newer atheists”. A few have protested that there is no such thing as new atheism. They argue that atheistic philosophies were formulated in ancient Greece, and assure us that as long as there has been god(s) belief, there have been those who denied them. However, I consider the term “new atheist” to be used correctly when differentiating between the atheists of antiquity and those of the modern movement which was spawned by the writings of the “Four Horsemen of Atheism” (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens).

However, for the purpose of this article, I feel it is important to distinguish these new atheists further. It will soon be ten years since the new atheist movement began with the publishing of The End of Faith. Since then, thousands (if not millions) of people have abandoned the faith of their youth, and have endeavored to replace it with the awe-inspiring wonder of reality. It is these people, these “newer atheists” who are now at the forefront of atheism. While their predecessors may have attended churches or synagogues associated with a traditional denomination (if at all); these “newer atheists” were once very devout believers, and were involved in nontraditional evangelical churches. These are the churches that serve coffee in their atriums, feature theater seating, and are led by Hawaiian shirt wearing pastors.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/brotherrichard/2013/06/understanding-newer-atheists/

[Goblinmonger]

1. "New Atheism" is just marketing

There is nothing different in approach toward religion between Dawkins and Russell. OK, Dawkins is a biologist and brings that to the table, but this ain't nothing new. What we should be asking is why people want to create this label? Makes it easier to reject?

[longship]

2. Wow! Thank you, rug.

You always post thoughtful articles. Don't think that because I disagree with them that I don't deeply appreciate what you do here.

But this article characterizes my philosophy fairly well, with some notable exceptions, which I shall elucidate here.

I buy into everything this guy says. Everything!

Except the following:

1. Not all atheists came from a former religious belief. For instance, although I attended church weekly for the first 13 years of my life, including Sunday School and confirmation and all that, I really never believed it. Nor was it important within my family that I do so. We went to church because that was what one did in the 40's and 50's in Detroit.

About the time I turned 13 my family were all in the car on our way home from church and my mother turned around and said, "Your father and I have decided not to go to church anymore. If you still want to do so, we will take you there, but we will no longer be attending ourselves." (Or something to that effect.)

Here's the deal. My two sisters and I all three said, "That's okay with us. We don't need to go either."

And here's what else happened. There were no more prayers at meals, and no more "Say your prayers and go to bed" in the evening. It was like the whole family had shed something, like a snake sheds its skin.

Apparently none of us had ever believed it, but we all kept up appearances anyway. I think this may be more common than people think, or will admit. It speaks to the cultural hold religion has on so many. It also speaks volumes about The Clergy Project which assists clergy who are in the same position, not believing. But for them, it may be the only thing they know, and they need help to break free, to stop lying to their congregations about their beliefs.

2. The "militant" atheist ploy, usually used in context with Richard Dawkins' name, or Christopher Hitchens'.

Sorry, I call myself a militant atheist. Why? Because there are too damned many religious people who are much more militant than I could ever be, or Dawkins, or Harris, or certainly Dennett. (As to the latter, who doesn't like a guy who looks just like Santa Claus?)

But atheists really are in a huge political battle in the USA. We are one of the most reviled demographic in the country. Nobody professing non-belief in gods would stand a chance for all but the most local of offices. Candidates go out of their way, tripping over each other, to express their belief. The Republican Party is a de facto religious cabal and no Democrat dares oppose belief for fear of the "base" of the apparent US electorate.

So within this milieux, why would anybody not stand up and fight? Why aren't atheists allowed what the LGBT community has done and is doing? What is it about religion that puts rational discussion about the freedom to not believe off the table.

This is the spell that Dennett and Dawkins, and Harris, and Stenger, and Hitchens, and Myers, and all the rest speak of that atheists are trying to break. The cultural spell that puts religion beyond rational discourse, and which puts those who do not believe to great disadvantage.

This especially in politics, which should be a big warning sign to believers as non-believers. As an example, I could not come up with anything better than Jefferson's use of "wall of separation" when describing the First Amendment, not to atheists, but to the Danbury Baptists! And just who were the Danbury Baptists complaining about? The Congregationalists!!! (The latter is the church I attended for 13 years.)

So the First Amendment protects everybody, whether they believe or not.

And fucking damned right I am militant about that, especially for my atheist brethren. But also for those believers who would stand next to me for their right to worship as they please, or not. Just as I would be proud to stand next to them.

That's how I am proud to be a militant atheist.

[rug]

5. I agree with you on the first point.

Atheism is rarely the result of a traumatic religious experience. Your analogy of a snake shedding its skin is exactly right. I recall that as the Vietnam war escalated, the notions I was taught in elementary school about the nobility of America, respect for the flag, and the destiny of the country just dropped from me, as you say, like dead skin. It was certainly a turbulent, if not traumatic, time but the lasting impression I have is that what I was taught about those things was simply nonsense.

My argument with a perpetual, universal militant stance is that it's indiscriminate and, therefore, ultimately ineffective. It absolutely is necessary but when its focus is primarily on belief itself as the primary source of wrong, rather than its political influence, it becomes ugly, repellent and stupid.

Not that it could ever happen here.

[struggle4progress]

3. Dunno. If people find the views of Dawkins or Harris (say) about religioninteresting or informative,

that's fine with me, but I personally find them childish and boring

On the other hand, I think I learned decades ago that I don't really need to know anything about the metaphysical views of people to work with them. People who actually agree about many things may find themselves in loud arguments if they decide they need to sort out metaphysical issues, and people with quite different views about the world and our responsibilities in the world may think they are in complete agreement if they confine themselves to metaphysical discussion. So perhaps we should not approach metaphysical discussion as a way of finding out anything at all, except our own peculiar and personal linguistic inconsistencies

In particular, I rather suspect that the attempt to foment "understanding" between "thists" and "atheists" is a cul-de-sac: if folk want to work (say) to save the environment or teach reading to the illiterate or build houses for the working poor, I don't much care whetherthey call themselves an adherent of this religion or that religion or no religion. The metaphysical arguments aren't contributing anything, and perhaps there's not much reason to engage in them

[LostOne4Ever]

4. Atheism is not a movement

While the author makes many great points, atheism (itself) is not a movement. There are political and philosophical movements based on atheism, or characterized by it, but atheism itself is not a movement.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god(s). Other than that we have nothing in common. Some of us see religion as a great evil to society and do all they can to expose this evil to society. Those the article calls "militant." Others simply want the religious to leave us alone, and if it weren't for the constant attacks on our religious beliefs would be completely content.

Some of us miss the community of church, others of us could not be happier to see it gone. Some of us are from evangelical or fundamental backgrounds others are from liberal (insert religion) communities. Some of us are liberal, some of us are libertarians, and there is a wild unsupported hypothesis that there may be some conservative atheists...though I think a flying invisible pink pony circling the earth is more statistically possible.

I think this effort to define atheist as belonging to one movement or another only keeps us from uniting when something affects our religious liberty. We end up spending more time attacking one another rather than the people trying to force their beliefs on us or our children.

Maybe im being overly sensitive, but im sick of people trying to force their own definitions upon me, every other atheist, and society in general to suit their own purposes. Society already has terms and definitions for us, and they fit us much better than the one the author is using. This article would have been so much better had he just left the stuff about new atheist vs newer atheist vs antiquity atheist out.

[cbayer]

7. If not a movement, what would you call those organizations that are both

growing in number and in size that represent atheists to one degree or another.

I often see rejection here of this notion that atheism is in some way a growing movement and I don't really get it. When people are part of a group that has been marginalized, discriminated against and really misunderstood, movements can be critical in righting those wrongs.

I disagree that atheists don't have anything in common except lack of belief. Many share experiences of having been shunned within their communities. Many share the trials of having come to this place and the painful roads it took to get there. Many share the experience of being closeted for long periods of time.

There are certainly growing pains within the "movement", but that's not unexpected.

I think a lot of people are sick of others trying to force their own definitions on them. This is true both of non-believers and believers. I'm a big fan of letting people define themselves, finding the common ground and working together for the good of the whole.

[LostOne4Ever]

8. Those are Political and philosophical movements based on atheism, or characterized by it.

But, again, atheism itself is not a movement, or a religion.

There are many anti-choice or anti-gay movements based or characterized by Christianity, but does that mean Christianity is a anti-choice or an anti-gay movement in and of itself?

I disagree that atheists don't have anything in common except lack of belief. Many share experiences of having been shunned within their communities. Many share the trials of having come to this place and the painful roads it took to get there. Many share the experience of being closeted for long periods of time.

Do you think they experience this in China? The example I see alot on here is characterizing us as not stamp collecting. Would you call not stamp collecting a movement? Now supposed EVERYONE was forced to stamp collect and a movement is formed to say people have a right not to have to collect stamps? Does stamp collecting become a movement in and of itself?

Some of us do experience many things in common, but the only one that is universal is a lack of belief in god(s). This was a definition created by society (not someone with some political goal) that actually characterizes me.

I see this "new atheists" vs "newer atheists" stuff as a tactic to divide us. I have read none of Dawkins books on atheism. So I neither agree or disagree with him, I am just me. Yet I am supposed to take a side? Why can't I just be me? There are many labels society has defined that I agree describe me. Liberal, civil libertarian, non-believer, agnostic, atheist, secularist, humanist, and so forth.

But neither of the movements describe me but there are people who try to include me in them. These are not proper definitions created by society, but rather movements that don't characterize me trying to say they speak on my behalf and who spend a great part of their time either trying to divide us on divisions that don't exist, or are trying to feel superior to one another.

I ask you, could this article have had the exact same message without bringing up new and newer atheists? The part about evangelical backgrounds, and Points 2, 5, and 7 would have needed only minor changes. 2 would have become not all atheists are militant and 5 & 7 would have become many atheists.

Again, maybe i am being overly sensitive, but I dislike how it tries to label me as a newer atheist and then completely mis-characterize me.

[cbayer]

9. So what shall we call it?

If a political or philosophical movement based in atheism is not an atheist movement, what is it?

I do not think atheists have the kinds of experiences in countries that are generally secular. However, in a country like the US where religion is so dominant, I think it's fair to say that there are (or can be) shared experiences. That gets reiterated by some of the atheists who post here pretty frequently.

Sorry, I find the non-stamp collector argument, well, not very convincing at all. If people were discriminated against or marginalized for not collecting stamps, it might be different. If the vast majority of the population collected stamps, it might also be different. But that's just not the case here.

I am really unclear on why some atheists insist that there is nothing there but lack of belief. It's these same atheists who tend to use the first person plural more that any believers that I see posting here. I find this very curious.

I can make some of the same arguments about, say, christians, that you are making. I think lumping all christians together is a *tactic* used to attack, divide or dismiss them. The only thing they have in common is some belief in christ and christ teachings. But there are groups within the bigger group that have other things in common. Some of those are actively involved in movements within the believing community.

I absolutely agree with your thoughts about not being labeled and having to choose sides. I also found the "new" and "newer" distinctions confusing and probably unnecessary.

But then I'm much more about building coalitions and finding commonalities than choosing teams and trying to beat the others. That's why I have a relatively hard position on those who smear with the religious or the non-religious.

[rug]

10. David Silverman calls it one.

Admittedly, he has no mandate to speak for anyone else but he's certainly organizing as if it's one.

Silverman: First of all, we’re thrilled to be at Netroots. One of the things we’re seeing is that the atheist presence in America is really exploding. And as atheists explode, as the atheist movement grows, we’ve had better and bigger conventions and we’ve started tabling at each other’s conventions, but one of the things we’ve noticed is that there’s a lot of navel-gazing. There’s a lot of the movement looking at itself and not going outside.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/american-atheists-david-silverman-at-netroots-why-do-we-talk-about-god-when-we-talk-about-politics/

[cbayer]

6. What a fascinating history this guy has.

I really enjoyed this article.

He appears to be talking only about a sub-group - those who were involved in christian churches of the "mega" variety that left - but even with that narrowing of the definition, his generalizations seem a bit broad.

As he states, atheists, like theists, come in many flavors. While he makes some good points, he misses the opportunity to talk to both theists and atheists about improving communication and puts on the responsibility squarely on the theists.

IMHO, that's not very helpful.

Nonetheless, he makes some good points.