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.

[Jester]

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

-- or is grading myself against the rules?

It is definitely allowed.
Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding your responses. Assuming my points were an accurate description of the New Atheists, I'd grade you an 8/11 (given that two points were not made clear to you).

If you are interested, I'll try my best to clarify.

Number 7 is to say that the New Atheists tend to view themselves as protecting science from anti-scientific thinkers (such as the evolution debate). Not all atheists feel that religion is opposed to science, or - even if they do - are not necessarily inclined to act in defense of science.

As to number 11, many theists claim that the existence of God would be a logical support for objective morality. New Atheists object to this idea, while many other atheists agree with it (though, obviously, disagree with the notion that God exists).

Regarding the second half of number 13, Christopher Hitchens, and many of his fans, has claimed that Martin Luther King should not be considered a religious man because, in spite of his claiming to be religious, he did not believe in a literal Exodus. He has also claimed that Stalin can be said to be religious in much the sense that you mention in your post.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, this is clearly derived from a non-traditional definition of religion that seems to be more a synonym for fanaticism than anything to do with belief in supernatural entities. This definition seems particular to New Atheism.

[Jester]

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.

I suppose this is true.
Personally, I've never liked the term "New Atheist", or the definition you mention for atheism (I prefer to use "non-theist" for that).
As such, I wouldn't put you in the "old school" if this is your position. I'd just refrain from associating you with the writings of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens.

[Jester]

Let me also review these points:

I loved your review!
Mostly, I was surprised at your use of the first person plural. In my own mind, I've never considered you a New Atheist.

Sticking to the point of identifying the group:

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.

In your case, this falls perfectly in line with your behavior on this site.
In the case of those who most frequently quote Dawkins and Hitchens to me, however, I am often told that my understanding of the Bible is incorrect because it is not literal enough.
While not absolute, there does seem to be a correlation between supporting these writers and believing that a literal interpretation of scripture is the most accurate interpretation.

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.

This is a good distinction. Perhaps it is better to write this as a tendency to believe that most or all religious institutions are the enemies of truth and justice.

The religious convictions of the people who follow one of the revealed religions are inherently opposed to scientific thought.

I'm not debating that point here. I'm merely associating it with the New Atheism, which seems to have embraced this idea, unlike many other atheists, who often take Gould's "NOMA" position on the matter.

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.

I definitely have some reservations about this, but am simply pointing out that this is a bigger problem for the New Atheists than for other atheists.
And, for the record, I don't remotely consider this a bigger problem for atheism than it is for Christianity (I definitely cringe at the mention of Fred Phelps).

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.

That is very insightful. Thank you.

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.

I'll admit to not having read Grayling - I'll get around to him eventually.
Dennett is definitely interested in future analysis, please let me alter this one:
I meant to say that I see little to no interest in supporting claims about the "evils of religion" with statistical data. This strikes me as odd, given the ethos science holds within the group.

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.

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.

I'm not arguing these points here, of course. I merely mean that they are characteristic.

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.

I meant to say that New Atheists tend to reject the idea that morality can be logically grounded in God, if existence is granted as a premise. This isn't, however, prerequisite to atheism.

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).

I agree, but that is not unique to New Atheism. Most everyone I know does that.
What is unique is referring to all ideologies which tend to suppress as "religion".

[Oldfarmhouse]

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

-- or is grading myself against the rules?

It is definitely allowed.
Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding your responses. Assuming my points were an accurate description of the New Atheists, I'd grade you an 8/11 (given that two points were not made clear to you).

If you are interested, I'll try my best to clarify.

Number 7 is to say that the New Atheists tend to view themselves as protecting science from anti-scientific thinkers (such as the evolution debate). Not all atheists feel that religion is opposed to science, or - even if they do - are not necessarily inclined to act in defense of science.

As to number 11, many theists claim that the existence of God would be a logical support for objective morality. New Atheists object to this idea, while many other atheists agree with it (though, obviously, disagree with the notion that God exists).

Regarding the second half of number 13, Christopher Hitchens, and many of his fans, has claimed that Martin Luther King should not be considered a religious man because, in spite of his claiming to be religious, he did not believe in a literal Exodus. He has also claimed that Stalin can be said to be religious in much the sense that you mention in your post.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, this is clearly derived from a non-traditional definition of religion that seems to be more a synonym for fanaticism than anything to do with belief in supernatural entities. This definition seems particular to New Atheism.

Hey -- you docked me three points and only two were not clear to me. And just the second half of a third -- so you should only dock 2-1/2 points.

Anyway,

7. I do think that the opposition to creationism being inflicted on students is a large part of the new atheists. Although there are, of course, many religious defenders of science, Ken Miller being a prominent example, and there are some creationist type atheists, the Raelians being one example. I do not believe that a religious mindset must be anti-science. Anti-intellectualism and anti-science are a major component of some religious organizations. I see this as being a control tactic used to keep the members of such groups ignorant and distrustful of any ideas that may expose the inadequacies of the doctrine.

I also think that there has been a stereotype that has been ingrained in our culture in the Scopes trial because Clarance Darrow was not a religious man and William Jennings Bryan was.

But, no, a defender of science need not be an atheist and v-v.

11. No. Morality is about trying to implement the fair treatment of all humans, attempting to come as close as we can to create a society where everyone is given the maximum quality of life, personal freedoms, and the right not to be subjugated by others. Religious doctrine has been tested, is being tested, and has demonstrably failed to achieve this goal. So has everything else, but we know that belief in a deity is not the answer.

13. I must have missed Hitchens or anyone saying that MLK was not religious. Obviously, he was, he was a member of the American Baptist denomination of Christianity. He did expressly claim his religious devotion as an inspiration for the tactic of non-violence in pursuit of civil rights.

If some of the new atheists claim that MLK was not religious -- they're wrong. and I think that is just as bad as mambers of religious groups claiming that a person is not a true ______, when they do something that they disagree with.

[Jester]

Hey -- you docked me three points and only two were not clear to me. And just the second half of a third -- so you should only dock 2-1/2 points.

Anyway,

7. I do think that the opposition to creationism being inflicted on students is a large part of the new atheists. Although there are, of course, many religious defenders of science, Ken Miller being a prominent example, and there are some creationist type atheists, the Raelians being one example. I do not believe that a religious mindset must be anti-science. Anti-intellectualism and anti-science are a major component of some religious organizations. I see this as being a control tactic used to keep the members of such groups ignorant and distrustful of any ideas that may expose the inadequacies of the doctrine.

I also think that there has been a stereotype that has been ingrained in our culture in the Scopes trial because Clarance Darrow was not a religious man and William Jennings Bryan was.

But, no, a defender of science need not be an atheist and v-v.

11. No. Morality is about trying to implement the fair treatment of all humans, attempting to come as close as we can to create a society where everyone is given the maximum quality of life, personal freedoms, and the right not to be subjugated by others. Religious doctrine has been tested, is being tested, and has demonstrably failed to achieve this goal. So has everything else, but we know that belief in a deity is not the answer.

13. I must have missed Hitchens or anyone saying that MLK was not religious. Obviously, he was, he was a member of the American Baptist denomination of Christianity. He did expressly claim his religious devotion as an inspiration for the tactic of non-violence in pursuit of civil rights.

If some of the new atheists claim that MLK was not religious -- they're wrong. and I think that is just as bad as mambers of religious groups claiming that a person is not a true ______, when they do something that they disagree with.

I loved the commentary.

I'd say that you get a point for number eleven, then. Number thirteen is definitely more in the "old atheist" category (for which I am glad - I've always found that group easy to respect). If you're curious about Hitchens, he defends that position here (starting at about 1:50).
Beyond that, I agree with you that the No True Scotsman approach in defending religion is both silly and irritating.

[McCulloch]

Mostly, I was surprised at your use of the first person plural. In my own mind, I've never considered you a New Atheist.

I consider myself one. But, it does depend on your definition.

In the case of those who most frequently quote Dawkins and Hitchens to me, however, I am often told that my understanding of the Bible is incorrect because it is not literal enough.
While not absolute, there does seem to be a correlation between supporting these writers and believing that a literal interpretation of scripture is the most accurate interpretation.

This is perhaps where I may differ from the other new atheists. I used to hold this view, but that may have been a lingering effect of my own literalist Christianity. It was drummed into us that not believing what the writers of the Bible seemed to believe was equivalent to disbelieving in God. Since that time, I have come to respect the progressive branches of Christianity more than other new atheists like Hitchens does.

Perhaps it is better to write this as a tendency to believe that most or all religious institutions are the enemies of truth and justice.

There is a human tendency to lump like organizations together. However, to me, those institutions which promote the revealed religions are methodologically enemies of truth. Truth cannot be discovered while there any propositions which cannot be questioned. The revealed religions all have in common the unquestioned proposition that there is a god and that god has revealed this or that bit of truth to humanity.

I'm merely associating it with the New Atheism, which seems to have embraced this idea, unlike many other atheists, who often take Gould's "NOMA" position on the matter.

I do think that this is a very important point. One thing which does distinguish the New Atheists from those who came before, is our rejection of Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria. We do tend to believe that some of the areas that Gould had put into the magisteria of religion, such as moral value, do, in fact, belong to the empirical realm. I would not count Stephen Jay Gould as one of the New Atheists.

I meant to say that New Atheists tend to reject the idea that morality can be logically grounded in God, if existence is granted as a premise. This isn't, however, prerequisite to atheism.

You may be right on this one. More than one of the New Atheists have expressed the idea that most of the traditional theisms negate true morality. Being good, so as to not piss off an all powerful being who may torture you forever is not morality, it is self-serving.

[Keef]

I was delighted to find this debate (yes, I just got here).

Druijf makes a point that chimes with my experience. I have (in another place) been involved in long debates with atheists and a few Christians. While these have been generally courteous (and stimulating) I find myself very frustrated with what I would call "fundamentalist atheists" - folk who put up a strawman argument, based on a very fundamentalist (or just plain misinterpreted) view of a particular topic.

They then tell me I must defend it, and get angry with me for declining to do so or (worse) for saying sorry, but that's not what I believe. There is a certain irony in being told by an atheist that I've got my Christianity all wrong

Another comment made (quite often) was that the "howling screaming" attitude of some of the debunkers of religion made the Christian viewpoint seem positively attractive in comparison. I think accusations of "child molesting" because I brought my children up in the Christian faith were one of the usual causes of that.

I'm not sure if the "new atheism" includes such as Dawkins and Hitchens, or if they are "old atheists". My first tussles with atheists were with the like of Nietzsche and Feuerbach - who certainly didn't take prisoners, and who must by definition be "old".

I shall watch from the sidelines for a while...

[Jester]

Greetings once again.

This is perhaps where I may differ from the other new atheists. I used to hold this view, but that may have been a lingering effect of my own literalist Christianity. It was drummed into us that not believing what the writers of the Bible seemed to believe was equivalent to disbelieving in God. Since that time, I have come to respect the progressive branches of Christianity more than other new atheists like Hitchens does.

While I can empathize with those atheists who demand a literal interpretation, it is no secret that I wish more would follow your example.
Quite apart from the debate on which is correct, it strikes me as both unfair and pernicious to attack all religious individuals on the grounds of a controversial method of interpretation.

There is a human tendency to lump like organizations together. However, to me, those institutions which promote the revealed religions are methodologically enemies of truth. Truth cannot be discovered while there any propositions which cannot be questioned. The revealed religions all have in common the unquestioned proposition that there is a god and that god has revealed this or that bit of truth to humanity.

This would definitely be a more "New Atheist" position, I would think. I've known other atheists who would agree that revealed religion doesn't necessarily forbid the questioning of any specific proposition. I myself believe that honest questioning is vital to any serious practice of my religion.
With regard to New Atheism, however, I'd say that there is often a conflation of questioning and rejecting a claim. The group often dismisses the possibility of theists who have done merely the former, or of atheists who have done merely the latter (rejecting an idea without understanding it well enough to seriously or deeply question it).

I meant to say that New Atheists tend to reject the idea that morality can be logically grounded in God, if existence is granted as a premise. This isn't, however, prerequisite to atheism.

You may be right on this one. More than one of the New Atheists have expressed the idea that most of the traditional theisms negate true morality. Being good, so as to not piss off an all powerful being who may torture you forever is not morality, it is self-serving.

Yes, and I'd personally agree on the point that this is a selfish position. But this is not quite what I had meant.
Rather, I'd say the characteristic thing is the position that this is the only support for ethics within theism, followed by pointing out that it is an invalid one.
To clarify the point further, then:
The New Atheists almost universally seem to reject (or ignore) the idea that this was never the traditional theistic argument for ethics. Nor is it valid Christian theology (much as some teach it in spite of this).
Some atheists I've known quite happily accept that God's existence can ground a logical source of objective ethics quite apart from any doctrine of Hell, and that Christian motivation for moral behavior is properly understood as rooted in gratitude for what we have been given.
I've personally found it very difficult, however, to find New Atheists who accept this as valid Christian theology - or even that many Christians believe it to be.

[McCulloch]

While I can empathize with those atheists who demand a literal interpretation, it is no secret that I wish more would follow your example.
Quite apart from the debate on which is correct, it strikes me as both unfair and pernicious to attack all religious individuals on the grounds of a controversial method of interpretation.

You neglected to mention that the literal approach, while controversial is also very wide-spread and influential. Sadly, public interest in any more balanced, moderate and thoughtful approach to Christian theology and doctrine seems to be waning.

This would definitely be a more "New Atheist" position, I would think. I've known other atheists who would agree that revealed religion doesn't necessarily forbid the questioning of any specific proposition. I myself believe that honest questioning is vital to any serious practice of my religion.
With regard to New Atheism, however, I'd say that there is often a conflation of questioning and rejecting a claim. The group often dismisses the possibility of theists who have done merely the former, or of atheists who have done merely the latter (rejecting an idea without understanding it well enough to seriously or deeply question it).

To many Christians, there is a line beyond which they are not allowed to question. To some, that line is the Bible itself. They may question the validity of the interpretation what the writers of the Bible intended the message to be, but you may not question the validity of the Bible itself. To others, the line is God. To them, the text of the Bible may be questioned and challenged, but whether there is a god and whether he acts in our lives is beyond any questioning. But fundamentally, all revealed religions suffer from the same malady. Each of them have a book of wisdom, which according to them has been presented to humanity by our divine creator. To challenge this book is to challenge God. I have less problems with those religious movements that do not claim to be directly speaking for the god.

Some atheists I've known quite happily accept that God's existence can ground a logical source of objective ethics quite apart from any doctrine of Hell, and that Christian motivation for moral behavior is properly understood as rooted in gratitude for what we have been given.
I've personally found it very difficult, however, to find New Atheists who accept this as valid Christian theology - or even that many Christians believe it to be.

Are your ethics rooted in gratitude rather than fear? I suppose that is a step forward. But it is still centered on self. "I have been given so much by the god, so in gratitude, I will behave as he desires me to." To me, ethics is the art of transcending self. "I don't matter any more than the others, so I will behave as if what is good for us is more important that what is good for me."

[Jester]

You neglected to mention that the literal approach, while controversial is also very wide-spread and influential. Sadly, public interest in any more balanced, moderate and thoughtful approach to Christian theology and doctrine seems to be waning.

That is important, I agree. My comments apply only to those atheists who demand that this is the only way to interpret the Bible (which, in my experience, is the bulk of the New Atheists).

I've known other atheists who would agree that revealed religion doesn't necessarily forbid the questioning of any specific proposition. I myself believe that honest questioning is vital to any serious practice of my religion.

To many Christians, there is a line beyond which they are not allowed to question.

I completely agree. What is particular to the New Atheists, however, is the belief that this is true of all Christians - or even all religious individuals.
While I completely agree that a refusal to question is very negative, a stereotyping all theists as refusing to question - or of all atheists as willing to question themselves - strikes me negatively as well.

Are your ethics rooted in gratitude rather than fear? I suppose that is a step forward. But it is still centered on self. "I have been given so much by the god, so in gratitude, I will behave as he desires me to." To me, ethics is the art of transcending self. "I don't matter any more than the others, so I will behave as if what is good for us is more important that what is good for me."

You are certainly free to whatever position you'd like, but I don't see that gratitude is a selfish motivator.
First, I don't see why it entails in the slightest that one matters more than others - or has even been given more than others. Personally, the more grateful I feel, the less interested I am in such comparisons.
Second, any fair interpretation of gratitude isn't "I have been given", but "I/we have been given". Gratitude is, by its very nature, a focusing on someone else; it is anything but selfish. I don't see any reason why your statement of ethics can't fit perfectly well within my concept of gratitude.
In fact, I personally don't see what motivation you intend here. A sense of duty, if one is not grateful, tends to be rooted in pride (which is much more selfish).