What is New Atheism?

[Jester]

How might the beliefs of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and their supporters be defined, as distinct from other forms of atheism?

I'll post some thoughts in the first response for discussion.

[LiamOS]

To be fair, though, it doesn't seem to make objective sense to claim what is allegory and what is not, when the Bible neglects to say so.

[McCulloch]

I think the most distinctive point of New Atheism is that New Atheist writers tend to view that fundamentalistic forms of religion are the only valid way of believing, and that moderate, liberal, modern christians are caught in an untenable position between irrationality and modern reason.

I've noticed that too. The athiests seem to get irritated if the Christian doesn't subscribe to all the beliefs that he wants to point out the errors to.

While I do have some disagreements with the religious liberals, they are significantly less important and less relevant than the disagreements I have with the fundamentalists. The Liberals are far less likely to impose or try to impose their irrational stuff on the rest of society, so there is less reason to oppose them.

They .

[Druijf]

While I do have some disagreements with the religious liberals, they are significantly less important and less relevant than the disagreements I have with the fundamentalists. The Liberals are far less likely to impose or try to impose their irrational stuff on the rest of society, so there is less reason to oppose them.

I can understand that Dawkins and others want to combat fundamentalism, but I wonder if you do liberal or modern christians justice by regarding their religion as a watered-down version of "the real christianity".

[McCulloch]

While I do have some disagreements with the religious liberals, they are significantly less important and less relevant than the disagreements I have with the fundamentalists. The Liberals are far less likely to impose or try to impose their irrational stuff on the rest of society, so there is less reason to oppose them.

I can understand that Dawkins and others want to combat fundamentalism, but I wonder if you do liberal or modern Christians justice by regarding their religion as a watered-down version of "the real Christianity".

Excellent question. This is the representation we get from both the new atheists and the Biblical literalists.

If you don't mind, we should debate this question by itself.

[Goat]

While I do have some disagreements with the religious liberals, they are significantly less important and less relevant than the disagreements I have with the fundamentalists. The Liberals are far less likely to impose or try to impose their irrational stuff on the rest of society, so there is less reason to oppose them.

I can understand that Dawkins and others want to combat fundamentalism, but I wonder if you do liberal or modern christians justice by regarding their religion as a watered-down version of "the real christianity".

I would like to see where anybody say they regard liberal or modern Christianity as a 'watered down version' of the 'real Christianity'.

Could you point where any skeptic makes that claim?

[Jester]

I loved the image.

While I do have some disagreements with the religious liberals, they are significantly less important and less relevant than the disagreements I have with the fundamentalists. The Liberals are far less likely to impose or try to impose their irrational stuff on the rest of society, so there is less reason to oppose them.

I can definitely agree that one who is concerned about the potential social dangers of religion will naturally focus on fundamentalists.
Regarding the topic, the only thing I wanted to add is that one commonly pointed out trait of the New Atheists has been the rejection of liberal theists as a potential ally against fundamentalism.

[Oldfarmhouse]

Some attributes that identify this group (relative to other atheists) for me:

1. A tendency to believe that religion is inherently a negative influence on humanity
2. A tendency to interpret the Bible literally in most cases
3. A tendency to believe that all religion is similar enough to be discussed as an entity.
4. A tendency toward anger at religious institutions
5. A tendency to believe that scientific thought and religious conviction are inherently opposed.
6. A tendency to be hyperbolic about statements regarding religion
7. A tendency to view themselves as the defenders of scientific thought
8. A lack of interest in sociological and psychological research in analyzing the effects of religion
9. A more abrasive (as opposed to diplomatic) approach to engaging theists
10. A tendency to believe that human society will eventually be atheistic
11. A tendency to believe that morality would not be supported by the existence of a deity
12. A tendency to believe that it is possible to achieve a neutrality of belief in the existence or in the non-existence of something (generally, God): that humans are psychologically and practically capable of refraining from drawing conclusions even after heavy consideration and relevance to life.
13. An interesting use of the term "religion" (i.e. a willingness to apply it to communist regimes and refrain from applying it to social progressives that claimed to be religious)


As with any generalization, or group dynamic, not every trait will be applicable to every member. Nor does possessing one or more of these traits automatically make one a New Atheist. I am simply interested in thoughts on whether or not these are genuine tendencies within the group.
Also, I would welcome any speculation about how the movement will change with time.
But, please remember that this is discussion topic, not a debate topic.

I am not a product of the so-called New Atheism. I am a life long atheist. I remember identifying myself as an atheist sometime around 1974. At the time I was one of 27 overtly atheist people in the United States -- well, that's probably an exaggeration.

I remember around 2000 or so, there were internet discussions about how to organize atheists into groups. The analogy often used is that it would be like "herding cats." How does one organize groups of people who generally have little interest in joining groups?

it appears to have worked out better than many, certainly me, had expected. The new atheism has managed to form organizations, brought people out of the closet, and brought discussions to the forefront that were, in the recent past, considered taboo.

I'm still not much of a joiner type but I can appreciate a loose affiliation with some atheist -- more so skeptic -- organizations. I also appreciate that the new atheism has enabled people to openly speak out against religious groups overstepping their bounds legally and ethically to the point of having their special rights questioned. Laws such as those that bar atheists form holding political office, or discriminatory practices against non-believers are being challenged and I can only see this as being a good thing.

I will go over your points one by one as I see them personally -- just one atheist's own take on it:


1. A tendency to believe that religion is inherently a negative influence on humanity

I think that there are certainly circumstances in which religion has a positive influence on culture in general. It gives some people a social group, a motivation to do charitable work, and some religiously inspired art and music is great. So, no, I don't agree with "inherently," but we all know that it can and does have a negative influence on society.

2. A tendency to interpret the Bible literally in most cases

I believe that this is a misunderstanding. Atheists react to the position that some take on the Bible -- that it ought to be taken literally, by the book and to the letter, then point out that if one were to believe that it is literally true then you would have to believe that there really was a global flood, etc. Not that atheists believe that -- just holding some believers to their word.


3. A tendency to believe that all religion is similar enough to be discussed as an entity.

There are profound differences in the belief structures of different religions. But there are also significant similarities in almost all of them and categorical similarities that enable us to look at larger groups than the individual theologies, sects, denominations, offshoots, etc.

4. A tendency toward anger at religious institutions

Yeah some religious institutions do things that one should be angry about. Not all of them but yes, some certainly deserve the anger directed toward them.

5. A tendency to believe that scientific thought and religious conviction are inherently opposed.

Yeah, if something can't be tested then it's not scientific.


6. A tendency to be hyperbolic about statements regarding religion

I would like to see an example. Mass suicides, stoning people to death, going to war over religious differences, fraud, etc. That's not hyperbole, that is reality -- what can one possibly say about religious atrocities that would be hyperbolic?


7. A tendency to view themselves as the defenders of scientific thought

What, exactly do you mean?


8. A lack of interest in sociological and psychological research in analyzing the effects of religion

Not at all, my primary interest in religion is specifically the psychological and sociological aspects of it.

9. A more abrasive (as opposed to diplomatic) approach to engaging theists

Takes two to tango.


10. A tendency to believe that human society will eventually be atheistic

No, I think religion is here to stay. As long as there are opportunistic con artists and gullible needy people there will be religion.


11. A tendency to believe that morality would not be supported by the existence of a deity

I don't understand the statement.


12. A tendency to believe that it is possible to achieve a neutrality of belief in the existence or in the non-existence of something (generally, God): that humans are psychologically and practically capable of refraining from drawing conclusions even after heavy consideration and relevance to life.

I sort of know where you're going with this -- that humans will never, no matter what, be neutral on the subject of the existence of a deity? If that's what you men than I agree in terms of all humans, but many can be and are neutral about it.

13. An interesting use of the term "religion" (i.e. a willingness to apply it to communist regimes and refrain from applying it to social progressives that claimed to be religious)


I can see where a political structure that is dogmatic and authoritarian can be considered religious, because the devotion to the leadership follows that same patterns of behavior that dogmatic and authoritarian religious groups do. The second part -- I don't get -- can you provide an example?



I think I got 13/13 right! Perfect score!

-- or is grading myself against the rules?

[David 2.0]

I'm not making any claims about what atheists must, or must not, respect. I was meant only that some atheists seem to genuinely respect religious beliefs, in spite of not holding them, and that the New Atheists tend not to do so - or even understand why others might.
Personally, I don't find it all that hard to respect certain beliefs and ideas with which I happen to disagree, and certainly don't see why that ability would not be available to an atheist.

I agree with the gist of this statement.

New school, old school?
Perhaps.

It is my thought that perhaps what we have here is more a matter of personality and personal journey.


I do not believe in God.

I do believe Jester and his contribution to society is valuable, and potentially has no limit(s).
Regardless of the fact that I do not personally see his truth.(God)

As such, I respect.

Does that make me old school?
New school?

I'm thinking that "approach" may be outside of the scope of what atheism actually is.

A lack of belief in God.

[McCulloch]

Let me also review these points:

1. A tendency to believe that religion is inherently a negative influence on humanity
   This is indeed a trait common to all of the New Atheists, and many of the old ones. Just read Ingersol! However, this characterization is probably not helpful. We see religious thought as a false form of reasoning, particularly those of the revealed religions. We also, in our belief that truth is a good thing, believe that ultimately false thinking is inherently negative.
2. A tendency to interpret the Bible literally in most cases
   I have to agree with other commentators on this point. We tend to stand more in opposition to the literalist tendency in revealed religions. They tend to be less flexible and less amenable to rational thought, therefore more dangerous to society.
3. A tendency to believe that all religion is similar enough to be discussed as an entity.
   From the Islamic perspective, the differences between the various factions of Baptists seem trivial. From the atheist perspective, the revealed religions differ mainly in details and intensity.
4. A tendency toward anger at religious institutions.
   We take truth and justice seriously. We do sometimes get angry at those institutions which have historically been the enemies of truth and justice.
5. A tendency to believe that scientific thought and religious conviction are inherently opposed.
   The religious convictions of the people who follow one of the revealed religions are inherently opposed to scientific thought.
6. A tendency to be hyperbolic about statements regarding religion.
   I agree, we should not exaggerate the evils of religion. It is not necessary and it weakens the legitimate claims that we make. I shudder when I read Harris or Hitchens overstate their case. In this, we have become most like our worst enemies.
7. A tendency to view themselves as the defenders of scientific thought.
   Here, I think that it may be backwards. Many of the New Atheists were first defenders of scientific thought, before diving into philosophy and theology.
8. A lack of interest in sociological and psychological research in analyzing the effects of religion.
   Here, I must disagree. I believe that Dennet and Grayling have both looked into the sociological and the psychological analyses of religion.
9. A more abrasive (as opposed to diplomatic) approach to engaging theists.
   This may be because the soft pedal approach was not working. We have stopped granting respect to those claims which merit none. Religion should no longer get an academic free pass.
10. A tendency to believe that human society will eventually be atheistic.
    That is our hope. However, our belief is that human society is becoming secular, and that is enough.
11. A tendency to believe that morality would not be supported by the existence of a deity
    I believe that this is a misstatement. No thinking person would deny the historic role that the idea of deity has had in the development of human morality. However, we do believe that human morality does not require a belief in deity and may be better off without the belief in the revelations from the gods.
12. An interesting use of the term "religion" (i.e. a willingness to apply it to communist regimes and refrain from applying it to social progressives that claimed to be religious).
    We do see the common features of ideologies that suppress human freedoms (communism, nationalism and literalist religions) as well as the common features of ideologies that enhance human freedoms (liberal religious thought, freethought, enlightenment and democracy).

[Oldfarmhouse]

I, personally, do find making some distinctions between the old atheists and the new atheists to be an interesting investigation. I do think that we can find some ideological differences between the two groups.

Don't get me wrong -- I have no intention of gathering ammunition so say -- I'm one of the OLD atheists and that makes me sooooo superior. That's not where I'm coming from. The new atheists are a more recently formed and much larger group.

So -- let's put a time frame on this -- those who abandoned religious belief or came out of the closet sometime after 2002 in response to internet groups or the "Four Horsemen" are those I would consider new atheists.

Those who were already decided atheists before 2000 are old atheists.

I do think there are differences.