New Atheism?
On my way to drop my two boys off at school this morning I was listening to Morning Edition on NPR. The story entitled, “A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists“, gave me a profound sense of frustration, pity, and dark amusement. I want to be clear from the outset that Atheism does not bother me. I will fight just as hard for someone’s right *not* to believe as much as I would fight for someones right to worship a plate of spaghetti. What I disagree with is intolerance and bigotry, the source or target of that bigotry and intolerance really is not relevant to me. Hence, my great frustration with what has come to be known as “New Atheism“. Give the show a listen if you have a few minutes, here.
I find this neo-atheist approach to be historically ignorant and capable of inciting just as much hatred and intolerance as the fundamentalist religions they so vehemently oppose. It is a sad but oft repeated human characteristic that those who crusade against a belief system end up becoming exactly what they hate. And, unfortunately, New Atheism is well on it’s way to becoming exactly what they claim to fight against. How ironic. And how sad. A quote that really struck me from the story was from Christopher Hitchens who said:
I think it should be religion, treated with ridicule and hatred, and contempt, and I claim that right!
What is so sadly ironic about this is how easily this kind of language lends itself to violence against religious people, and hatred. How is this different from the same sentence written thus:
I think it should be Muslims, treated with ridicule and hatred, and contempt, and I claim that right!
Quite simply it is not in any way different. What is being defended in these statements is not reason and science in the former, and not holiness and charity in the latter. But instead both positions advocate for greater fear and hatred of those who dare to disagree with you. What a person of fundamentalist mentality (believer and non-believer alike) fails to realize is that the methods they use for change are directly represented in the changes they end up manifesting. Want to use hate to get rid of hate? You will create more hate. It is a very clear and predictable outcome to anyone who is able to put their heated emotions aside and use reason, tolerance, and love.
To be fair many Atheists find this new approach reprehensible. Paul Kurtz, the founder of the Center for Inquiry made a sensible and clear case against the approach of New Atheism by saying:
They are anti-religious, they are mean spirited unfortunately, and I think that does more damage than good. I consider them ‘Atheist Fundamentalists’. Merely to critically attack religious beliefs is not sufficient. What are you for? We know what you are against, but what are you going to defend?
As a polytheist I know that many people in this country ridicule and make fun of my belief system. I simply believe what I believe and relish the challenge of being in a minority faith as it forces me to give real thought and feeling to my beliefs and values. I will never preach for others to believe what I do. Why stand up for the intolerance that drove me away from established religion in the first place? Would that not be the height of hypocrisy? For all of my atheist brothers and sisters out there I declare my public support for your right *not* to believe. In fact, I think many aspects of Atheism can be helpful to questions of morality and social justice. But when individual atheists call for religious people to be treated with ridicule and hatred, you can expect my vociferous opposition. What if Hitchens has said this?
I think it should be blacks, treated with ridicule and hatred, and contempt, and I claim that right!
Rightfully, his career would be over. Intolerance, bigotry, and hatred, these are the real problems we have as a society. Democrats, Republicans, Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Agnostics, and Pagans, are all capable of violence and hatred. Can’t we all be honest and acknowledge that? Only when we stop advocating simply for our pet cause, in a juvenile need to “win”, will we really stand up for tolerance and respect for *all*. But until that time, crusaders of all types walk the same road to Hell hand in hand.
“How is this different from the same sentence written thus:”
Because the first is in reference to a way of thought, and the second is in reference to a group of people.
People generally deserve respect. Ideas do not. They must earn it.
I take a bit from the Christians: I don’t hate the believer, I hate the belief. And I reserve the right to ridicule or mock it if I believe it deserves it.
I have no problem with a little satire and even being mocked. I am used to it and consider it a part of being a polytheist. But your assertion that there is a difference between the two statements because “one is in reference to a way of thought, and the second is in reference to a group of people” is interesting, and, unfortunately, illogical. Muslims have a cosmology and Atheists have a cosmology. How is one not a “way of thought” and the other not “a group of people”? To approve of one and not the other is advocating for intolerance. No matter how you slice it, both conclusions are the same. Use your Occam’s razor *all* the time.
You’re confused.
Hitchens’ quote references “religion”. Not “people who believe in religion”.
There is a difference.
Now, you as the person whose religion is being mocked might not see the difference. But the difference is there.
“Hitchens’ quote references “religion”. Not “people who believe in religion”.
There is a difference.”
What is the difference?
One is a worldview. The other is the people who believe in that worldview.
You do understand that people and concepts are different things, correct?
“people” and “concepts” are different? They are both features in the powerful perceptual narrative that we call our “lives”. They aren’t as different as some might imagine.
Sure, one seems to be a structure in thought, isolated to memory and a subjective world, and another seems to be a complex entity in the “objective” world, but there’s a major issue here- where is the line between “sub-” and “ob-” -jective? It’s perception. You can’t “find” that line anywhere outside of your awareness that it “seems” to exist “here” or “there”.
People and concepts are different in one respect- one perceptual respect, but not different in another, in the sense that people are also experienced by us in terms of concept, and (pursuant to some animistic belief systems, ancient and modern) even concepts can be “persons”. In our heads, people are not “things out there”- they are, in fact, our conceptual frameworks and understandings of what a “person” is, and whatever sense data we internalize about them when we are near them.
I’m not trying to split hairs on a subtle philosophical point, I’m merely saying this to point out that you can’t neatly and ultimately divide people from concepts, nor concepts from people; you can’t divide Muslims from Islam (to make an example) because Islam is not a free floating entity; it only exists within the people who believe it and remember it and teach it and act on it.
If you hate, hate is destructive within the narrative of perception and experience that includes all forces. You can’t “target” hatred onto something and say that it won’t affect or isn’t intended for something else, when what you are targeting is an innate part of a wholeness- christians love to talk about hating the sin but loving the sinner; it’s funny to watch that argument fall apart on analysis.
A better position would just be to either not hate (unlikely) or accept what hate is and what it does, and strive to integrate it in some healthy way- the work of a lifetime!
Yes I do.
My assertion is that when a Christian says, “Hate the sin, not the sinner.” it displays exactly the same intolerance and hatred as an Atheist saying, “I don’t hate the believer, I hate the belief.”
Both advocate hate. Therefore there is no real difference between their cosmologies.
The phenomenon of the squawking, fanatical atheist is nothing new. When I was young, we used to see them standing on soap boxes and ranting in the park. The only difference is that these days some of them have good agents.
Interestingly, from a psychological standpoint, fanaticism of any kind (including fanatical atheism) is a form of overcompensation for doubt. It would not surprise me if, some years down the road, Hitchens and/or Dawkins turned up in an ashram in India.
Makarios really nails it here.
Fanaticism often hides doubt. From my perspective it is an overcompensation for serious reservations about an ideology or belief structure. Hitchens or Dawkins turning up in an ashram or a monastery is *very* possible given the zealotry they portray. Excellent point!
I would like to point out as a person who knows many atheists, most atheists are not in fact seeking to ridicule religion, like any belief system, there will always be lunatics on the fringe preaching fanatical idiocy which the majority of practitioners do not agree with. The one problem with Atheism, and the reason I identify as an Apatheist, is that Atheism is for all intents and purposes a Universalizing Religion, meaning it is almost meant for the masses. I despise the masses, the masses have managed to turn even the most interesting and fascinating religions (Zoroastrianism, Daoism, Paganism, hell even early Christianity was pretty cool to me) and turn them into the same old sin=bad, prostituting your self to authority=good. And frankly Atheism is going the same way, but this makes it no worse, but the same. For the above reasons, whether phrased that way or not, many people in the 1st world who have far to much time on their hands and wikipedia, search the world for niece Ethnic religions, which better suit our personal beliefs while establishing the community all us poor insecure weirdos are looking for.
Heya i am for the primary time here. I found this board and I in finding It really useful & it helped me out a lot. I am hoping to offer one thing back and help others such as you helped me.