HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary - Aug 5, 2008 - Printable Version
- The New Atheism is Balderdash
by S. K. Eleton - Theocracy Watch
I’ve been hearing a lot about the “new atheism”, following the popularity of a recent spate of books dealing with the atheist point of view. The new atheism is getting a good deal of press, and believers of all stripes are jumping on the bandwagon to sell books, t-shirts, and bumper stickers denouncing the new atheism. Some of them might go so far as to say the new atheism is balderdash (or some other similar word that has equivalent meaning, but is less mentionable in polite company). On this last point, I would agree. The new atheism is, indeed, balderdash. For those who say it is not new atheism, it is just the same old atheism, I applaud you. Stand up in front of the crowd, and say it loud. I will not debate you on that topic, because I agree with you 100%. The so-called “new atheism” is really just the same proud tradition of non-belief, doubt, and skepticism that has co-existed alongside the world’s best (and least) known religions for as much of human history as we have written records. It is the same proud tradition that spoke its mind in public forums all over the country in the latter part of the 19th century, with Robert Ingersoll and other infidel orators delivering stirring lectures to overflow crowds. It is the same atheism that dared to speak up for abolition of slavery when abolition was a dirty word. It is the same atheism that took a stand for women’s rights long before women were able to win suffrage and earn the same rights as their male counterparts. It is the same atheism that was burned at the stake, hung from the gallows, scourged in the streets, tortured in the iron maiden, and jailed for long periods of time for the crime of blasphemy. It is the same atheism that has published in underground presses and held meetings in back rooms. It is not a new atheism, and anybody who says it is simply manages to display their ignorance of history, philosophy, and religion. The main thing that leads people to call this a “new atheism” is its new outspokenness. For the life time of most of the people in the United States today, atheism has been a relatively quiet philosophy, co-existing alongside all manner of belief systems without too much fuss, except when the believers attempted to introduce their own deity into the classroom or the political arena. Occasional skirmishes reminded complacent believers from time to time that there was a different point of view out there, and sometimes managed to make them squirm a little in their seats, but most of the time believers were able to ignore or accommodate non-belief, preferring to assume that those few people they knew who were openly non-believers were all “agnostics” or “deists”. Now, in the face of five recent books on atheism hitting the best-selling list, and one, “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, remaining on the bestseller list for a year, atheism is a little harder to ignore. Once again our orators are speaking eloquently from their podia, and once again overflow crowds are listening. And man, are they listening! According to several recent surveys of faith in America, non-belief is the fastest growing branch of religious thought. The number of individuals professing no faith on recent surveys has risen as high as 18%, an all-time high in the United States. In the rest of the industrialized world, of course, that number is paltry, with fewer than half of all Europeans having any belief in God or gods at all. In Japan, the numbers are even lower, down to almost zero for religious belief. This makes it a little disingenuous when our commentators (both religious and non-religious) say, as they invariably do, that religious belief is here to stay, that there will be some form of religious belief always, because it is too strongly embedded in the human psyche. Unless there has been some strange alien invasion in Europe and parts of Asia that has gone unnoticed, and has replaced the human population with non-human humanoid creatures, I think the statement that religion will always be part of our lives is a little premature.
In the face of all this “new atheism”, there is a great deal of “old agnosticism” and “moderate to liberal Christianity” that is feeling very uncomfortable and out of sorts. Rarely a day goes by that I don’t see some article, or get invited to some conference, where the main subject is “the new atheism”, where the speaker is going to explain to all who are willing to plop down the $150+ registration fee why the “new atheists” are approaching things the wrong way, why this up front outspokenness and lack of “proper respect” for religious sensitivities is causing terrible problems for non-belief as a whole. I guess if you regard the explosive growth of our numbers a terrible problem, you might be able to make this argument – perhaps we’ve suffered from “catastrophic success”? I don’t begrudge them their little seminars, and their inflated registration fees. Mostly, I find it terribly amusing.
Most of these speakers lump the “militant” atheists together with “fundamentalist” Christians as extremist groups, and therefore wrongheaded. They urge caution, because for sure you won’t win any converts to your ideas if they are too powerful or strong. You must present a nice, middle-of-the-road, one-size-fits-all inclusive line of thought to attract real growth –this is their thesis. I find it amusing in the same way that I always find it amusing when someone who is failing at accomplishing something lectures someone who is succeeding about what they’re doing wrong. You see, the people who are telling us that doing it their way is the only way to win people over to listen to you are the people who have been losing membership for the past couple of decades. Thus, their thesis runs this way: if we listen to the people who are losing membership, and do things the way they are doing things, we will gain membership. If we, who are gaining membership** doing things our way continue to do things our way, we will lose membership. This script, I suspect, was written at least in part by George Orwell – or by Lewis Carroll.
Meanwhile, blogs all over the Internet testify to the growing interest in the philosophy of freethought. Intellectually stimulating threads are being woven, and friendships are being forged that stretch around the world. Apostate Hindu groups in India, apostate Islam groups in the Middle East, apostate Mormon groups, apostate Catholic groups, apostate Protestant groups – the list goes on and on. Whatever religion you can think of, you can probably find an apostate group for it on the Internet. Music, cartoons, jokes, science facts, philosophy, history – all that and more, just waiting for the intellectually curious to come wandering by. All over the world, “militant” atheists are speaking up, coming out, and standing up proudly to be counted. Wherever repression forces non-believers into hiding, or puts their lives in danger, there is now a vast support network crisscrossing the continents to call on for assistance.
Now, just a little word about that phrase “militant atheist”. This is a phrase that is cropping up repeatedly in recent months. In fact, I rarely see an article about “the new atheists” without the phrase “militant atheist” sooner or later being bandied about. At first, I found this phrase very confusing. I know many of these people, and they are the furthest thing from militant that anyone could imagine. Sam Harris has not been stocking up on semi-automatic weapons. Richard Dawkins has not been lobbing IEDs. Daniel Dennett has not been training suicide bombers. Militant is a little bit (actually, a lot) overwrought and hysterical a phrase to describe these gentle, kindly, good hearted men. Rarely do they even raise their voice. (As Richard Dawkins recently said, it is only necessary to raise your voice when you have nothing of much merit to say – if you wish for an example, just think Jerry Falwell). Militant is a word deliberately chosen for its ability to engender fear and loathing. Fear and loathing can lead to violent retribution from those who claim to have strong faith, but can’t handle having it challenged in the least. Hate mail and death threats are a regular occurrence for groups that exist to protect the interests of non-believers; random acts of violence are perpetrated against individuals who speak up or challenge religious intrusions into governmental functions. This is a situation that can only be made worse by the constant casual coupling of the word “militant” with the word “atheist”. If you find yourself using this phrase, I want you to stop and ask yourself the following things: “When is the last time I read a headline that atheists were killing each other over a matter of dogma? When was the last time atheists rioted because someone printed a cartoon they didn’t like? When was the last time a group of atheists bombed a church or a mosque?” The “new atheists” aren’t militant. They aren’t even new. They are simply the latest in a proud tradition of doubt that stretches back into the mists of deep time.
**Just a little note about semantics. I use the phrase “membership” to describe people who are declaring themselves to be non-believers only for want of a better word. Freethought is an amorphous, non-dogmatic philosophy. We don’t have dues or tithes, we don’t go to masses, we don’t count heads in any systematic way at all, and there is no dogma to which we are expected to adhere. In fact, trying to organize non-believers into any sort of coalition has been referred to as “herding cats”. Independent thinkers will, by the very definition, be difficult to amalgamate into a “membership”. I wish to point this out just in case anyone misunderstands my usage of the word to mean that I am “admitting” that atheism is a religious dogma. There are already too many people out there in cyberspace nitpicking semantics, and I would just like to say, enough already.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).