The Decline of Dawkins and the Dawn of Deliberative Doubt

[cbayer]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/fareforward/2013/04/the-decline-of-dawkins-and-the-dawn-of-deliberative-doubt/

April 16, 2013 By Justin Hawkins



In March 2012, a crowd of atheists flocked to the National Mall in Washington, DC for the first “Reason Rally.” Billed as the “Woodstock for atheists and skeptics,” the rally, headlined by Richard Dawkins, seemed to signal a new resurgence of popularity and influence for the New Atheism.

But while atheism is still strong, the New Atheism is rapidly becoming the Old Atheism, and Richard Dawkins is in danger of becoming irrelevant. So argues Theo Hobson in an article this week in the UK’s Spectator magazine entitled “Richard Dawkins has Lost: Meet the New New Atheists.” The article describes a generation of thoughtful and amicable atheists who share Dawkins’ secular humanism but reject his acerbic tone.

You don’t need to look far for examples of this tone. In a 2012 opinion piece for the Washington Post advertising his Reason Rally, Dawkins indulges in creating fictional people who will not attend the rally, and speculates as to their reasons for living their lives as they do: “If I can’t trust the school to shield [my children] from science, I’ll home-school them instead.” He then dismisses them as too irredeemably unenlightened to participate in his panegyric to secular humanism. Yet in closing he issues an invitation – an altar call, one might say:

“Even if you are unaccustomed to living by reason, if you are one of those, perhaps, who actively distrust reason, why not give it a try? Cast aside the prejudices of upbringing and habit, and come along anyway. If you come with open ears and open curiosity you will learn something, will probably be entertained and may even change your mind. And that, you will find, is a liberating and refreshing experience.”

I took his invitation (being homeschooled through high school, it was too direct an invitation not to take) and was in the audience that day, surrounded by 20,000 atheists. But instead of receiving evenly measured propositional attacks upon religion, we were regaled with a less-than-sophisticated diatribe as Dawkins took the tone of a hired polemicist. Of his regard for theists he knew, he confessed “I don’t despise religious people; I despise what they stand for.” Of faithful Catholics believing in the doctrine of transubstantiation, he instructs his listeners to “Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!”

more at link

[Trajan]

1. phhhhht

The "new atheism" is a construct of those who are offended by ANY AND ALL atheism ...

Dawkins is no God, and atheism lives on ... We are growing, like it or not, DU theists ....

[cbayer]

2. Actually, I read this as a positive testament to the growth.

I don't know any DU theists who would object to that, do you?

[okasha]

3. So moderate and liberal atheists are offended by their own atheism?

Is this the newest riff off the "self-hating homosexual?"

And that's no Woodstock. (I knew Woodstock, Senator. . ...) Look at all that short hair!

[Trajan]

6. I have no idea what the FUCK you are talking about

Your comment makes no sense whatsoever ... There is no phrase or clause that would indicate self loathing or self hatred ... That is just the crap you have in your mind ...

[okasha]

18. Nope. That's just the crap in your post.

Many of the writers who have called the "New Atheism" into question are themselves atheists. According to you, the "New Atheism" is a construct of those who hate atheists and atheism. Ergo, you seem to be promoting the idea that these non-"New" atheists, or whatever you'd care to call them, hate atheists and atheism.

[Starboard Tack]

9. WTF? I am not offended by my own atheism

But I am offended when folk like Dawkins and Harris pretend to represent atheists in general. The best thing about atheism is, we don't need rallies, or flags, or leaders. Trying to co-opt people into a "movement", based on a lack of belief is absurd and beyond any definition of the word "reason".
These blowhards are a joke.

[okasha]

19. See reply to the

poster above.

[Starboard Tack]

20. ok fair enough

[bananas]

15. The short hair is really conspicuous

The buzzcuts, the flags, the dogtags, ...
it's more like Atheist ROTC than Atheist Woodstock.

[pinto]

4. I don't get the color guard / flag display on stage.

[cbayer]

5. The only flag I recognize is the POW/MIA flag.

Anyway, color guards are not unusual at opening ceremonies.

[Jim__]

7. Aaah, an alliterative announcement of an alternative atheism.

Huzzah!

[cbayer]

8. Good one! It could be a strong statement about a stimulating synthesis.

[Jim__]

10. A stimulating synthesis would be interesting.

We can hope!

[Thats my opinion]

11. There are those of differing persuasions

who state their positions clearly, without rancor or an attempt simply to ridicule and smear those who differ. Theists have much to learn from people or groups like that, particularly atheists. At the same time we have nothing to learn from Dawkins and the diatribes he spouts.
"Interfaith" must include in the conversation those of no religious faith. It is clear that in this group we can welcome these conversations. I think we need to hear these opinions and learn from them. This is no place simply to blast them. They have much to teach and we theists have much to learn. My guess is that now, on the many sides of the conversation, we are at last free from not wanting to hear and only using posts as ridicule.

[cbayer]

14. The problems with Dawkins is that he is a self-describe anti-theist.

Most atheists that I know aren't anti-theists at all and don't identify with him. I am hopeful that we will see participation from a wide variety of people here, both believers and non-believers. We are in the same boat and have the same goals. Those who want to form alliances and make progress will win the day, imo.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

16. For a man who is against dogmatism, Dawkins is remarkably dogmatic

From the thread header, "Of faithful Catholics believing in the doctrine of transubstantiation, he instructs his listeners to 'Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!'" One of my main complaints about Dawkins is that he does not know very much about theology. Now, one can debate transubstantiation, which is an explanation of how Christ becomes present in the Eucharist -- I suspect that Dawkins is actually inveighing against belief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Another problem I have with Dawkins is that he believes -- rightly -- that creationist ignorance of evolution is inexcusable in when discussing evolution; but ignorance of theology is acceptable in discussing religion. In other words, your ignorance of subject <A> is bad; my ignorance of subject <B> is OK. It's called "having it both ways".

I could post on P. Z. Myers' "Courtier's Reply" if anyone is interested.

[cbayer]

17. I wish he would tone down the rhetoric and anti-theism a bit.

What's the point? If a question is by it's very nature not able to be answered definitively, what is the point of taking a hard stand on it.

[goldent]

12. I recently saw Dawkins described as a professional atheist

which I think was a good description of him - his career is based on his brand of atheism. It has made its mark, but I think it will fade over time.

[cbayer]

13. I think he's accomplished some good, but it may be time for him to step aside

and let some new blood take the stage.

He has increased recognition and acceptance of atheism. He has made the case for atheism as a legitimate POV that should be accepted and understood.