(rant alert) "New Atheists"

[JulietEcho]

I'd like to propose a definition for "New Atheist" as I've constantly seen it used. A "New Atheist" is an atheist who has somehow pissed off the person using the term "New Atheist."

There have always been atheists, and there have always been people who are exceptionally vocal/caustic/what-have-you about their views. Atheists - just like every other group of people who've shared an unpopular belief - have caused a ruckus on and off (mostly on) for centuries and centuries. The only "new" thing about atheists today is that, like everyone else, they now have access to the internet and can appear on television. Neato!

No atheist can represent other atheists, period. Someone who's the president of an atheist organization can speak for the atheists who choose to be members of that organization, but that's it. Richard Dawkins speaks for Richard Dawkins. Hemant speaks for Hemant. PZ speaks for PZ. SarahH speaks for SarahH. There is no denomination of "New Atheists" who share views about anything. There are just lots of different people who don't believe in any gods.

Sure, the atheists who are most often called the "New Atheists" are those who are anti-theists, but I think that there are plenty of people out there who would call Hemant a "New Atheist" simply because he has a successful book and fairly popular blog. It seems to be used almost ubiquitously as an insult - a veiled insult, a sneaky insult, but an insult nonetheless.

I'm so sick of hearing it. Let people decry anti-theists if that's what they're trying to do; let them decry atheists who won't shut up, if that's what they're trying to do - but I wish they would stop using the ridiculous label that can mean anything an author/speaker wants it to mean, and which invariably means, "Those atheists I really hate."

[Pseudonym]

Obviously, like Humpty Dumpty, a word can mean whatever you say it means. However, if you want to be understood, it's probably better to stick to definitions that currently exist.

This is Andrew Brown's definition:

1. There is something called "Faith" which can be defined as unjustified belief held in the teeth of the evidence. Faith is primarily a matter of false propositional belief.
2. The cure for faith is science: The existence of God is a scientific question: either he exists or he doesn't.
3. Science is the opposite of religion, and will lead people into the clear sunlit uplands of reason.
4. In this great struggle, religion is doomed. Enlightened common sense is gradually triumphing and at the end of the process, humanity will assume a new and better character, free from the shackles of religion. Without faith, we would be better as well as wiser. Conflict is primarily a result of misunderstanding, of which Faith is the paradigm.
5. Religion exists. It is essentially something like American fundamentalist protestantism, or Islam. More moderate forms are false and treacherous: if anything even more dangerous, because they conceal the raging, homicidal lunacy that is religion's true nature.
6. Faith, as defined above, is the most dangerous and wicked force on earth today and the struggle against it and especially against Islam will define the future of humanity.

And this is Al Mohler's:

1. New Atheism is a celebration of atheism. God's funeral is something to be celebrated, not mourned.
2. Not a rejection of a theism but an unambiguous rejection of the God of Christianity.
3. Explicitly based in scientific arguments. Motivation and structure is considered to be an inevitable result of scientific revolution and method.
4. Accommodation of theism to modern forms of thought is no longer seen as progress so new atheist literature attacks are focused on moderate and liberal forms of theism, at least as strongly as orthodox and conservative forms of theism.
5. Belief in God is not to be tolerated. This contrasts with the older atheism's focus on plurality and freedom of religion.
6. A view that inculcating a belief in God in children is harmful to them.
7. Religion is the greatest threat to world peace.

These are obviously by critics, so are partial caricatures. But as you can see, as most people use the term, "New Atheism" is characterised by a set of positive beliefs about the nature of religion, faith and science, which is a subset of Atheism, which is characterised by a lack of a certain kind of belief about deities.

There are Atheists who piss me off who aren't "New Atheists", and there are "New Atheists" who don't piss me off (Daniel Dennett being the most obvious example of the latter).

But you have a point. Most people aren't clear about what they mean by the term.

[wall0645]

This is Andrew Brown's definition:
...
And this is Al Mohler's:
...

Are you saying these are wrong definitions? Or definitions you agree with? Or are these just examples of proposed definitions?

[Jasen777]

What made them "new atheists" was that they gained mainstream exposure, and a chunk of the mainstream wasn't happy with that.

[Pseudonym]

Are you saying these are wrong definitions? Or definitions you agree with? Or are these just examples of proposed definitions?

I am saying that these are pre-existing characterisations which flatly contradict SarahH's proposed definition. (Though I do realise it was a rant.)

It's undeniable that there is a relatively new anti-theist movement, composed largely of Atheists (though not entirely of non-religious people; Sam Harris, for example, is more or less an atheistic Buddhist) which are characterised by a mostly unprecedented combination of positive beliefs about the nature of religion, faith and science.

I don't think that either definition quite nails it. Brown's definition seems more tongue-in-cheek and satirical, and in doing so he misses a few points. Molher tries to be more fair (e.g. point 1), but comes out as being flatly wrong in other respects (e.g. point 2, though compare with Andrew Brown's point 5 which is not entirely inaccurate).

For what it's worth, Hemant is definitely not a "New Atheist". He clearly believes wholeheartedly, for instance, that religious and non-religious people can work together towards common goals. This is something that "New Atheists" seem to only be able to do grudgingly if at all.

There's a reason the scientific community sent people like Ken Miller and Robert Pennock to the Dover trial rather than people like PZ Myers. It's because they actually wanted to win.

[JulietEcho]

It's undeniable that there is a relatively new anti-theist movement, composed largely of Atheists (though not entirely of non-religious people; Sam Harris, for example, is more or less an atheistic Buddhist) which are characterised by a mostly unprecedented combination of positive beliefs about the nature of religion, faith and science.

Then people should be calling them "anti-theists" and criticizing them outright if they don't like them, instead of lumping them into a blurry group called "New Atheists." I understand that the definitions you point out are *trying* to standardize the term, but in practice, I've always seen it used as a derogatory way to lump "offensive" atheists together.

Often, it's in the context of, "Oh, I don't mind atheists - I even like some! But those New Atheists go too far!" The speaker's/author's own definition of "too far" is exactly what, for them, defines who is a New Atheist and who isn't.

What mostly bothers me, I think, is that many of Dawkins' and Myers' and Hitchens' beliefs (etc.) are shared by atheists who aren't anti-theists. I share Hemant's opinions about religion, by and large, but I also largely agree with Dawkins' argument that indoctrination (especially in certain forms) constitutes child abuse. In fact, I think that Hemant has expressed agreement to an extent about that same point. The result of stigmatizing the most outspoken and well-known atheists of our time is that everyday atheists are either painted with the same brush or pressured to denounce such "New Atheists" completely as too radical, too confrontational, too offensive, etc.

No one's going to force me to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak (and really, what kind of atheist would I be if I wasted a perfectly good baby!?), but I very much resent what I've come to believe is essentially name-calling on the part of those who are always talking about the "New Atheists." I'd be interested to see any definition that's *not* by a critic, BTW. It seems as if my feelings on this topic are only backed up by the two examples of definitions so far - they're by those who dislike the "New Atheists" and not by someone sympathetic or even moderately neutral.

[wall0645]

I'd be interested to see any definition that's *not* by a critic, BTW.

I've been keeping up with the "New Atheists" since I was a young lad, and I have only recently (this year) started seeing a lot of anti-atheism articles in the press. I think this is a reaction to the semi-recent series of articles on how nonreligious people now constitute 15% of the population, a number which has grown (and has continued to grow) immensely.

That being said, I had always taken the term "New Atheists" to mean: a sort of nonreligious movement, beginning with Sam Harris' The End of Faith, that usually highlights religion as the problem, rather than part of a solution or only a small part of the problem. The "New Atheists" seem to highlight religion as part of a root problem in society, as in cases where Hitchens, talking about the Middle East, always seems to bring up Islam although it may not necessarily always be the "root issue". The "New Atheists" also see coming (or hope to see coming) a new enlightenment in which religion has not taken a more "submissive" role, but rather no role at all, giving way completely to science and reason.

This is often taken to mean that the "New Atheists" hate religion and want to ban religion, which "hate" is probably a strong word, and NO atheist wants to ban religion, no matter if you're a "New Atheist" or not.

I find what I always assumed the "definition" to be not at all insulting, or overreaching. Those people that seek to use "New Atheist" as a sort of derogatory term meaning "jerk atheist" are the same people that seek to make "atheist" analagous to "immoral".

The point that "most atheists agree with what the New Atheists are saying" is completely right. It's quite easy to sort of jump on the "all religion is bad" bandwagon. At the very least, it's refreshing to see some atheists taking a more aggressive role against what is viewed by many as a very entrenched system (religion).

(This subject is apparently super interesting to me, and I'm going to write a blog post expanding on what I've written here when I get home )

[hoverFrog]

What I hate is that whenever a discussion takes place that is over critical of religion or religious thinking (in whatever form it takes in the particular discussion) one reaction is to label the atheist critic as "one of those New Atheists" as if we're part of some cult of gods haters. It is a "shut up, that's why" tactic and an ad hominem attack. By criticising the group as something negative and hyper critical the emphasis is shifted from the discussion point to the person as a member of the group.

Besides which atheism is as old as the gods so there really is nothing new about it.

[wall0645]

Besides which atheism is as old as the gods so there really is nothing new about it.

True, but I do think there's something distinct about Harris, Hitchens, and somewhat Dawkins and Dennet that makes them not quite "anti-theists" but also not just "regular atheists". I think "New Atheist" is a valid term, but not in any way a negative term. (Or, at least, it shouldn't be.)

[Kaylya]

This is often taken to mean that the "New Atheists" hate religion and want to ban religion, which "hate" is probably a strong word, and NO atheist wants to ban religion, no matter if you're a "New Atheist" or not.

I'm not sure I'd be so emphatic about that. There's probably at least a few out there who feel it should be banned, and a lot more who would except that they realize that banning or boycotting something just draws more attention to it and tends to make it even more popular. And that latter line of reasoning is brought up in at least one of the Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris books.

[wall0645]

There's probably at least a few out there who feel it should be banned, and a lot more who would except that they realize that banning or boycotting something just draws more attention to it and tends to make it even more popular. And that latter line of reasoning is brought up in at least one of the Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris books.

Atheists are very rarely hypocrites, and I've never met one who would ban religion given the chance. Perhaps some want religion banned, but that's a little different.

As for the latter line of reasoning you talk about, it was probably in Dawkins' The God Delusion, because I've read all of Dawkins'/Hichens'/Harris' books, and I don't remember that being mentioned, but I read The God Delusion the longest time ago.

[Jasen777]

I haven't heard any of the big names (or anyone for that matter) saying the want religion banned. Saying they want religion to die out isn't the same thing.

[Chal]

Atheists are very rarely hypocrites

Atheists don't believe in a God or gods, dunno how that correlates with hypocrisy.
This is exactly the sort of thing that Pseudonym loves to pounce on.

[wall0645]

Mod edit: Attribution fixed.

Atheists don't believe in a God or gods, dunno how that correlates with hypocrisy.
This is exactly the sort of thing that Pseudonym loves to pounce on.

I was more referring to the banning (or not banning) of religion. I think many Christians would love to make Christianity the state religion and force kids to pray in schools. I don't think there are any atheists hypocritical enough to want to ban an opposing viewpoint (when they themselves have the viewpoint everybody seems to want to ban).

Christians are very hypocritical when it comes to "freedom of religion vs. freedom from religion". Atheists want everybody treated fairly (and, perhaps, for people to grow out of their religions on their own) while many Christians want Christianity to have immense privilege and get mad when they don't.

Maybe "hypocrite" is a bad word. Anyway, it's off-topic and if Pseudonym wants to jump on it, he can do so in another thread

[Pseudonym]

Atheists don't believe in a God or gods, dunno how that correlates with hypocrisy.
This is exactly the sort of thing that Pseudonym loves to pounce on.

Actually, I'm going to pounce on a different detail. What, exactly, is wrong with being a hypocrite?

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with having ideals that you can't, in practice, fully live up to. (Indeed, it's a central tenet of Christianity, but that's another topic.)

[Pseudonym]

Then people should be calling them "anti-theists" and criticizing them outright if they don't like them, instead of lumping them into a blurry group called "New Atheists."

For what it's worth, I absolutely agree. Each person with an opinion should be criticised for what they espouse, not what people like them espouse. This goes for religious people too.

There's a lot of variety amongst the four most prominent "New Atheists". As I have noted previously, there's very little for any open-minded person to disagree with in Breaking the Spell, but God is not Great has can stretch everyone's credulity.

I understand that the definitions you point out are *trying* to standardize the term, but in practice, I've always seen it used as a derogatory way to lump "offensive" atheists together.

Yes, I agree. Part of the problem is that we only have a small number of representative samples, so it's hard to find the salient common features.

I'd be interested to see any definition that's *not* by a critic, BTW.

Me too, but the problem is that most of those who are identifiably "New Atheists" refuse to concede that there is anything different about them.

The religious beliefs and scientific opinions (modulo the fact that they worked in different fields) of Richard Dawkins and the late Carl Sagan are/were extremely similar, but there is a world of difference in their beliefs about the nature and role of religion and faith. Could you ever see Richard Dawkins consulting the Dalai Lama as to what role Buddhism could play in helping raise awareness about climate change? No, me neither.

[Chal]

Actually, I'm going to pounce on a different detail. What, exactly, is wrong with being a hypocrite?

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with having ideals that you can't, in practice, fully live up to. (Indeed, it's a central tenet of Christianity, but that's another topic.)

Definition conflicts as usual, I guess.

There's nothing wrong with trying and failing. My understanding is that the hypocrite doesn't even try.

[wall0645]

I'd be interested to see any definition that's *not* by a critic, BTW.

Okay, I've given it some thought, and here's my definition for "New Atheist" (as outlined on my blog). I welcome comments/criticisms!

New Atheists view religion as the root of most, if not all, problems plaguing the world today. Aside from straight religious conflict, other often-cited problems, such as Nationalism, also have roots in religion, according to them. For example, Christopher Hitchens makes a compelling argument that Communism only flourished in Russia because of years of brain-rot caused by serfdom under Orthodox Christianity.

New Atheists do not see moderate/liberal religion as a solution, or as part of the solution, but rather as an annoying obstacle to real progress. While many atheists seek to spread "positive atheism", showing that "atheists are good people too", building coalitions among moderate/liberal religious groups with sympathetic views, New Atheists feel all religion is bad religion.

Contrary to what many Christians may think, the New Atheists fear Islam much more than Christianity. Harris specifically highlights Islam in "The End of Faith", and the book was actually written in response to 9/11. Christopher Hitchens often writes about the Middle East and Islam for Slate and other magazines, though his book "God is Not Great" was more broad in scope. Christianity is thought of as more of an opposing player with an unfair advantage than a dangerous enemy.

The New Atheists stress that they do not want religious tolerance (and religious privilege) to blind people to Islam's advances on the Western world and other religiously-motivated injustices. In this manner, the New Atheists are often incredibly harsh and aggressive in their comments toward most religions. (Nobody really has a problem with, say, Jainism or Buddhism.)

The New Atheists feel ridicule is one of the stronger tools in the battle against religion. Religious beliefs are to be made fun of, just as any other equally "crazy" belief would be. Here's a quote from Sam Harris: ""The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive."

[hoverFrog]

Atheism only exists as a counter to theism. I think what the relabelling of atheism as New Atheism is attempting is to invest the idea with certain negative characteristics beyond a lack of belief in gods. Does anyone know where the phrase originated? Which "side" first penned it and was it a reactionary attack on the opposition to religion or an embracing of a central idea?

By Andrew Brown, Al Mohler and wall0645's definition I am a New Atheist or at least mostly New in my Atheism but I don't feel like I'm part of some great movement or group that seeks the downfall of all things godly. I'm just some bloke who doesn't think that the claims that there are gods are valid and who thinks that magical thinking is dangerous for everyone.

Perhaps the New Atheism idea has come about as a reaction to the rise in evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Islam in this decade. These can certainly be seen as violent, anti-science movements that seek to impose their views on others. New Atheists react by attacking the ideas inherent in fundamentalism and defending reason. It's a little unfair on those Christians who have well thought out and nuanced approaches to faith but there you go. No-one ever said life was fair.

[wall0645]

Perhaps the New Atheism idea has come about as a reaction to the rise in evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Islam in this decade. These can certainly be seen as violent, anti-science movements that seek to impose their views on others. New Atheists react by attacking the ideas inherent in fundamentalism and defending reason. It's a little unfair on those Christians who have well thought out and nuanced approaches to faith but there you go. No-one ever said life was fair.

I think it's a reaction to that, and also a sort of "wake up" moment after 9/11. As Sam Harris sort of put it, before religious people weren't really a danger, just a hindrance to progress. Today, there are nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, as well as... planes. The religious beliefs of the Bronze Age are very dangerous in the 21st century.

As for where the term "New Atheists" originated, I don't ever remember hearing the term used in a negative light until recently, so I am leaning toward the atheists coining it. However, it could have been that I just didn't "get the joke" until recently. I'm not sure!

[JulietEcho]

Alright, it's about time Wikipedia had its say here:

New atheism is a form of atheism that takes a positive position on the likely non-existence of God. It is characterized by seeing religion as not just factually false, but also destructive. This is contrasted with Victorian atheism, which mourned that belief was no longer possible. New atheism, like Nietzsche, celebrates freedom from God. It appears the term was coined by Wired magazine in their article "The Church of the Non-Believers."

Apparently a man named Andrew Brown has tried to define New Atheism by outlining six "doctrines" (an unfortunate choice of words, IMO):

1. There is something called "Faith" which can be defined as unjustified belief held in the teeth of the evidence. Faith is primarily a matter of false propositional belief.
2. The cure for faith is science: The existence of God is a scientific question: either he exists or he doesn't.
3. Science is the opposite of religion, and will lead people into the clear sunlit uplands of reason.
4. In this great struggle, religion is doomed. Enlightened common sense is gradually triumphing and at the end of the process, humanity will assume a new and better character, free from the shackles of religion. Without faith, we would be better as well as wiser. Conflict is primarily a result of misunderstanding, of which Faith is the paradigm.
5. Religion exists. It is essentially something like American fundamentalist protestantism, or Islam. More moderate forms are false and treacherous: if anything even more dangerous, because they conceal the raging, homicidal lunacy that is religion's true nature.
6. Faith, as defined above, is the most dangerous and wicked force on earth today and the struggle against it and especially against Islam will define the future of humanity.

What I take issue with in both wall's and Brown's definitions is the claim that New Atheists think that religion is the MOST dangerous/violent/etc. force in the world. I think that, while many of these "New Atheists" think that religion is pretty high on the list of bad influences on humanity, they wouldn't claim that religion is the worst of our problems. I think that political/class struggles, fear of the "Other," nationalism, and several other destructive forces beat, or at least rival, religion for the top spot. Most of these influences also impact each other (often encouraging the others), and so does religion, but it's over-simplifying to say that religion is the WORST and can also be held responsible for these other problems, which can exist outside religion.

[wall0645]

What I take issue with in both wall's and Brown's definitions is the claim that New Atheists think that religion is the MOST dangerous/violent/etc. force in the world. I think that, while many of these "New Atheists" think that religion is pretty high on the list of bad influences on humanity, they wouldn't claim that religion is the worst of our problems. I think that political/class struggles, fear of the "Other," nationalism, and several other destructive forces beat, or at least rival, religion for the top spot.

As I said before, I think New Atheists think religion is the root problem, though not necessarily the most dangerous problem. I also think they think that those other things you mentioned, like nationalism, are thought to be a side effect of religion.

[JulietEcho]

What I take issue with in both wall's and Brown's definitions is the claim that New Atheists think that religion is the MOST dangerous/violent/etc. force in the world. I think that, while many of these "New Atheists" think that religion is pretty high on the list of bad influences on humanity, they wouldn't claim that religion is the worst of our problems. I think that political/class struggles, fear of the "Other," nationalism, and several other destructive forces beat, or at least rival, religion for the top spot.

As I said before, I think New Atheists think religion is the root problem, though not necessarily the most dangerous problem. I also think they think that those other things you mentioned, like nationalism, are thought to be a side effect of religion.

I really don't think they're claiming it's the root of all those problems. Class struggles? Religion thrives in environments where people live in poverty and are politically oppressed, but it's hardly the root of what makes them pissed off.

[hoverFrog]

it's over-simplifying to say that religion is the WORST and can also be held responsible for these other problems, which can exist outside religion.

Certain aspects of certain religions are among the worst forces at work in the world but I wouldn't characterise the nuanced and open minded apets of other parts of other religions in the same way. As Pseudonym is fond of saying religion isn't just one thing. I find some parts of religion to be truly disgusting but other parts I think can be positive forces for social cohesion, even though I still think they are based on faulty premises.

[wall0645]

I really don't think they're claiming it's the root of all those problems. Class struggles? Religion thrives in environments where people live in poverty and are politically oppressed, but it's hardly the root of what makes them pissed off.

I think Christopher Hitchens would find a way to pin class struggles on religion. Caste system? Religious. Also, religious institutions want people in perpetual poverty, so they have an audience. I'm sure there's some quote in the Bible like "blessed is the poor person". How about clergy keeping reading of the Bible out of the hands of laypeople for so long?

I don't know. All I'm saying is, I do think New Atheists feel, at least at some underlying level, that religion is the root cause of all problems. If it isn't a direct cause, then it's a result of the years of religious culture. "All" might be a very strong word (it does tend to be so).