Definitions
The question is, how do we decide what “new atheism” is? What is new atheism, who gets to decide, how do we know?
The answer turns out to be that we simply define it as that which we dislike. Easy. Circular, but easy.
Do the New Atheists really believe that they aren’t being argumentative, aggreessive, and generally dickish in their attacks on religion? Or, are the religious the “other” against whom any sort of rude behavior is justified?
There we go – easy. “The” New Atheists are – always and everywhere – being argumentative, aggreessive, and generally dickish in their attacks on religion. End of story. Simple. “I dislike ‘New Atheism’ because ‘New Atheists’ be dickish and I know this because I dislike them and I dislike them because I know this.”
Thanks Josh – that is a really helpful description of New Atheism. I have a friend who is a New Atheist and I find it really tough to discuss religion rationally with him…. I fail to understand why he feels so strongly that all religion is bad, and also why he feels so strongly that religion undermines science.
I know someone who fits your description therefore all New Atheists fit your description.
The reliable Anthony McCarthy is a stalwart group-definer:
I use the term “new atheist” for atheists who demonstrate that they practice negative stereotyping of religious people, practice bigotry, false characterizations and similar, negative things.
He uses the term that way and then he proceeds to make large sweeping generalizations about “new atheists” plural, thus adding his mite to the bonfire being readied to fry the despised group. (I don’t mean “fry” literally, Joe. Relax.)
There’s the “they all don’t ever read anything” claim:
NA’s often complain that their intemperate approach is a “style.” I disagree. I think it’s a way of casually dismissing all the hard questions that thoughtful people (like Max Weber that I mentioned above) ask. The pose of NA’s isn’t just style, it’s contempt for everything outside of their small circle of nerdly concerns.
There’s the definition by someone called Raging Bee
The only thing “new” about the “New Atheists” is their new wave of often pointless obnoxiousness, and their willingness to say things that are often as insulting as they are dead wrong.
And on and on. You get the idea. The point is – there’s a faction of people who know one big thing, which is that they loathe and detest “the New Atheists,” and they define the group they hate by saying what it is they hate about them.
It’s not a very thoughtful or enlightening way to analyze a subject.
Raging Bee should be familiar to readers of Ed Brayton’s Dispatches. Some NA must have said something disparaging about witches, wicca, or whatever new agey crap Raging Bee subscribes to.
I sometimes wonder how many of the gnu-atheist-critics could just as easily announce that the gnu atheists are not mean, or ignorant, or bigoted, because they are a gnu atheist themselves, and none of these things. Many gnu atheists, therefore, are polite and well-informed.
Unless they’ve been very pushing hard on an accomodationist line or eschew delivering any hard or honest truths at all, I’m not sure why they would be excluded. Their gross insults aren’t part of any of our definitions, as far as I know.
Concise recap of the crap Ophelia.
I’m still trying to figure out what the thoughtful hard questions are that are being dismissed.
My guess it that it’s not the New Atheist’s fault that the discussion is not rational.
Ophelia you are just being argumentative and aggressive :). Q.E.D.
I’ve taken to referring to this whole back-and-forth as the Great Atheist War of 2011. Typically militant gnus, having it out on the intertubes and not in the streets!
I particularly like how attacks on religion suddenly become attacks on the religious.
And worst of all, the New Atheists still haven’t given Kw**k a Leica Rangefinder…
(I find Kw**k and McArthy useful, though, because their presence in any forum is a harbinger of BS and bad modding.)
I always enjoy knee-jerk defensiveness on behalf of the “other.” Sometimes the “other” is the “other” because they are blatantly wrong, presumptuous, incoherent, evasive, malicious or dangerous, not because they are generically and inconsequentially “different.” Often it is because they have alienated and segregated themselves from the candid “us” by rejecting the basic expectations of reason and decency that permit accountable, civil discourse. You tell me you have special, vital information about the ultimate nature and purpose of reality, that my eternal fate hangs on accepting this blindly, that I cannot live righteously without your second-hand revelation? You brush off my request for proof and insist I smilingly respect your view? Then I return the finger of dismissal you have offered, with emphasis. Can we perhaps allow that not every “other” is as worthy of courtesy as every other “other?” There are limits to what we should endure, after all, or ought to be.
You forgot this gem by JJ Ramsey in response to Stephanie Z:
Implying that NAs critiques are misleading, childish, and unfairly maligning of the religious – not religion. All of them. It is the very definition of a NA critique.
@9
That’s quite a good point, Boss. That’s the essence of religious privilege. Indeed, not all “others” are created equal, so to speak.
Quoting Rosenau:
Well now I’m all confused again. Does anybody know where this “moderate religion” is to be found? I haven’t found it in the koran, hadith or bible, where the most immoderate statements and claims are made. Islam doesn’t have it. RCC Inc doesn’t have it. CofE doesn’t have it. Southern Baptist Convention? not! Methodists? Brethren? Mormons? Seventh day adventists? Nowhere where there is dogmatic religion is it moderate. In fact it’s highly immoderate. Where it’s not dogmatic it isn’t religion because it isn’t a set of beliefs that must be subscribed to.. And religions, such as RCC Inc., where the people don’t actually believe much of the rules imposed by the hierarchy don’t count. sorry.
Yes, we as the “serious” atheists think more deeply and profoundly than the “new” atheists that think in unnuanced, simplistic binaries: Us vs. Them, ugly stereotypes, True vs. False, all or nothing thinking.
We, as the all-noble, thoughtful, scholarly, non-stereotyping Serious Atheists, would never set up simplistic binaries like the all-obnoxious, ignorant, unread, stereotyping New Atheists with whom we now contrast ourselves.
Extrapolating current trends, I expect TFK to start hosting guest articles by David Mabus in the coming months.
@hyperdeath.
Sounds about right.
For those who don’t recall “DM”:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/dennis_markuze_exposed.php
I can’t believe Josh lets Kw*k and McCarthy troll around in his moat–well, actually, I do believe it. Eww.
Seems to me that calling people “argumentative, aggreessive, and generally dickish” counts as an attack. Saying that someone engages in “negative stereotyping” counts as an attack. Dishonestly claiming that others are “casually dismissing all the hard questions that thoughtful people ask” is an attack. Saying that people are guilty of “pointless obnoxiousness” is an attack.
So… who is guilty of attacking who? And why should the victims of this attack tolerate it?
I think it’s important to note that there are actually two different types of definitions. One is a linguistic or descriptive definition, and is rather straightforward. An example would be: “the New Atheists are people who believe that religious faith should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.” There isn’t much to argue with there.
However, the other type is a conceptual definition, which is based more on what a person believes rather than what a dictionary would say. This is what I see in most of the definitions in Ophelia’s post: “the New Atheists are people who are really mean.”
To use another example, this would be the difference between defining morality as “beliefs, values, and behaviors concerning right and wrong” and “beliefs, values, and behaviors concerning increasing the welfare of the greatest number of conscious creatures.” Or something like that.
Sure, the usual cranks will be cranky. And Josh’s PowerPoint slide, taken from Vic Stenger, seemed a bit pointless.
But what about the point Josh made in reference to Harris’s speech at an Atheist Alliance conference? Josh argues that New Atheism can’t simply be about increasing the visibility of atheism, because Harris says activists ought to stop being vocal about being atheists. Hence, Josh argues:
This argument seems initially plausible and interesting. So is there a useful analogy there?
I don’t think so, simply because there’s a difference between what is advertised by the label and how Josh wants to define it. To advocate creationism is to advocate the view that existence is Created. To advocate New Atheism is advocate for atheism. These are, or ought to be, platitudes.
As a result, if William Jennings Bryan were to say, “I’m a creationist, but I no longer believe that the Earth was created by God”, and if Bryan’s opinion is at odds with the beliefs of all his fellow travellers, then we are seemingly obligated to think that Bryan is no longer a Creationist. Similarly, if Sam Harris thinks that the movement that goes by the name of New Atheism ought to have nothing to do with being vocal about one’s atheism, then Harris’s fellow-travellers have no obligation to agree. One might as well say: so long, Sam, I guess you’re not a New Atheist anymore.
Surely what’s missing there is the discussion of how prevelent that influence is in any given circumstance?
I could even agree with the above definition, if it was acknowledged that the response from NAs will be relative to the infuence in question. Small infuence, small response. Big influence, big response.
Actually, reading Josh’s addition there, he has switched things. Completely. I really think he’d actually struggle to argue, on the facts, that NAs spend more time and are more vitriolic (if they are at all) arguing with, commenting on, or otherwise engaging “moderate” religionists, than arguing against fundamentalists. For want of more general labels. ffs.
I dunno, this whole thing is really giving me the shits. I was going to post some stuff about my personal experience, and I may still, but it’s just all so disheartening.
# 10 – oh so I did! Which is funny, because it was that one that prompted me to do the post – the last drop in the brimming bucket, so to speak.
Benjamin S Nelson #18 wrote:
I was at the 2007 AAI conference in D.C. and heard Sam’s speech, and talked a bit to to him afterward. I would take his “we need to stop calling ourselves atheists” point with a grain of salt, and wouldn’t pin him down on holding that as his firm view.
IIRC, he had prefaced his talk with the humorous admission that it was unusual for him to speak in front of a crowd which was in basic agreement with him … and this made him uncomfortable (haha): therefore, instead of throwing us some “red meat,” he was going to throw out an idea that he hoped was provocative and intruiging and would start up some interesting conversations. That’s when he suggested that we might hit harder against faith, and have more impact in criticizing religion and spreading our views, if we just pushed ourselves as advocates of reason, science, and skepticism — and left off the label that had been given a “religious” flavor to it: atheism. Just an idea we needed to consider, in terms of effectiveness.
Ok. This isn’t an accomodationist position. Harris isn’t saying atheists need to get back in the closet, become less visible, or stop being so mean to religion. On the contrary — he was being contrary about a word. We need to be vocal, speak out, make arguments, become part of the public debate — not as atheists — but as people who advocate reason — and there’s no good reason to believe in God.
Splitting hairs, I think. And, as far as I know, he’s more or less dropped this since — maybe because he got the audience to react and that was his goal, maybe because he was just trying the idea on for a while, maybe because he changed his mind or rethought his strategy, I don’t know.
But I’d still include him as a New Atheist (gnu atheist) nonetheless, because the content of his position is more significant than the term “atheist.” Maybe he can be a gnu rationalist. Whatever…
I think you’re all wrong. Knop clearly argued that gnus are “aggreessive”—that is, agreeable. He likes us!
Quotes from some old atheists:
From the strident Thomas Jefferson:
“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”
From the aggressive Carl Sagan:
“You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe.”
From the argumentative Benjamin Franklin:
“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
From the hostile Susan B. Anthony:
“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.”
From the intolerant Bertrand Russell:
“So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.”
From the dickish Robert Ingersoll:
“Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own?”
From the bigoted Thomas Paine:
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
From the negative Mark Twain:
“It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”
Ooh nice Charles.
Ben Nelson @18: I think the main problem with Josh’s use of the Harris speech is that Harris was (unfortunately, in my view) engaging in a bit of semantic hair-splitting, and Josh is doing the same in a different way.
Here’s the relevant part of Harris’s speech:
Josh has a point that Harris does arguably contradict the literal version of Ophelia’s definition of New Atheism as “atheism that makes a point of increasing atheism’s visibility,” in that Harris is suggesting that “we” not promote atheism qua atheism (or under the label of “atheist”). But as the last, bolded sentence shows, Harris was still advocating that we “destroy bad ideas wherever we find them” — including religious ideas.
I’d also point out that Josh goes on to adopt Victor Stenger’s slide as his own definition of New Atheism. But one of the points on that slide is “atheism is growing, coming out of the closet.” But Josh’s interpretation of Harris speech is that he’s urging us back in to the closet, so if Ophelia’s definition fails (because any definition of NA that excludes Harris must be invalid), then Josh’s definition fails as well.
But the broader problem here is with who has the burden of proof of coming up with a coherent definition. The “New Atheist” label was created by people looking for a way to lump the Four Horsemen together in a way that’s pithier than “four guys who have written recent best-sellers about religion from an atheist viewpoint.” That in turn led to attempts to define what exactly the “New Atheism” is, i.e. what these four people — and, subsequently, their supporters and other writers — have in common.
I think most Gnus have stopped fighting the use of the label (though still mocking it, as with “Gnu”) simply because it’s become obvious that many reporters and bloggers and commenters — both critics and sympathizers — seem determined to use it. And I think it probably has acquired a meaning that is basically in the ballpark of what Ophelia said, although the precise language might need tweaking.
But if there isn’t a coherent definition, don’t blame us — it wasn’t really our idea in the first place!
It would be difficult to credit gnus as advocates for New Atheism if they make fun of the term, and agree with critics that what is said isn’t really new.
I also think atheism is a problem for the group definition. Is it a positive philosophy or just a “not”? Strictly the term is just that, without a god, but in practice almost all gnus are science-loving advocates of naturalism, materialism and other overlapping isms. That is an affirmative position, about as far from nihilism as you can get. We are all negative atheists, but more important it appears that the great majority of gnus are also the second kind. This looks like a family that shares a group of traits though no member has all of them.
The easy way to distinguish gnus is to highlight what they oppose: religion, faith, the supernatural, irrational views and the cultural/political power and prestige they have accumulated. This is what distinguishes gnus, not the advocacy of atheism, though that is advocated by many members of the gnu family.
It sounds like Harris was making a point like mine in the previous paragraph. We are united in opposition more than in affirmation. I’m saying that’s true, and I take it he is saying it’s better to play it that way.
It really has come down to tone. I read this yesterday, more of the same, though mutton as lamb. Stop being so polemical gnus! After all, if you keep attacking the moderate religious, you’re just poopy heads.
http://nonprophetstatus.com/2011/04/26/why-do-we-need-new-atheists-cant-we-just-spruce-up-the-old-ones/
[…] in the comments (#23, by Charles Sullivan) in a post from Butterflies and Wheels: Quotes from some old […]
Lecturing here in Japan on English poetry and on the origins of theatre, I have offended certain Christians simply by saying I am not a Christian, which is something I say in connexion with Christian poetry (George Herbert’s, say) or religious theatre to make it clear to audiences who, being mostly Japanese, are mostly not Christian that it is perfectly possible to think a poem good and to imaginatively enter into it and like it without sharing, or liking, its writer’s beliefs, and to also make it clear that I’m not foisting Christian belief on them by choosing a certain poem or talking about the beliefs informing the mystery plays. (The proselytising activities of Christians often enter into things like lecturing on literature – the Jesuits have a university here in Tokyo.) This caused one Roman Catholic acquaintance (American) to accuse me of being contemptuous of Christians and treating them as if they were superstitious primitives. I thought I was just being courteous.
Remember that research that showed God to be the universe’s biggest sock-puppet? You know, the study that proved that most believers thought they understood their God, but in reality it was simply that each believer had constructed each God with characteristics equal to their own likes.
Well it seems to me that each believer creates their own New Atheist, with characteristics equal to their own dislikes. Whatever they are, we are.
@27: yes – but who are the moderately religious?
Rieux and Stephanie Z have been brilliant over there. Forcing the odious Anthony McCarthy to stop making his dishonest, bigoted, hypocritical and altogether substance-free digs is a real achievement, and Rieux’s even-tempered handling of the rambling ‘Gray Falcon’ shows astonishing patience.
Hey, quisquoise —
Do you (or anyone else) have a link or some useful keywords I can use to find that research? I’d be very interested in reading it…
but who are the moderately religious?
Don’t ask me. I was just parodying the usual anti-gnu trope.
Oh, ugh – Chris Stedman is getting in on the “tut tut tut noo atheists” act – even though he’s always insisting that no he really is an atheist in spite of all this interfaith bollocks.
Blegh.
Ah, Sastra — thanks for that. I sort of suspected that something like that must have been going on. Still, it’s useful to see that Josh is not quite right even if Harris were serious.
I see McCarthy was peddling the same inane challenge of one instance where religion has infiltrated science, which I responded to two years ago at The Intersection by saying it’s an ill-conceived point because science is self-correcting. I also offered a clear-cut example of creationism slipping past lazy reviewers at the journal Proteomics, only to be later retracted, a clear a case as any of religion trying to pass itself off as science. It was amusing to watch how he basically admitted he was wrong by trying to derail the thread. I’ve only resisted the urge not to remind him of this embarrassing episode in his career as a troll by staying away from Rosenau’s blog.
As someone else said, a good indicator of a poorly managed science blog is one in which kw@k and McCarthy are runaway commenters.
#33 Chris
God is a sockpuppet
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/god_is_a_sockpuppet.php
gillt said
I find it impossible to believe that McCarthy would ever admit he was wrong. A sudden shifting of the goalposts, yes, thats the usual tactic (just watch TB, the master of that technique) but an admission of error! No wai!
Michael De Dora:
Yes there is. Most of us would not support special legal restrictions on religious belief, nor do we support violence as a means to achieve an end to religion.
Thus my standpoint is that in the new atheist paradigm religion should be tolerated, New atheists argue that they just don’t think it should be tolerated quietly or that religious beliefs should be afforded any more seriousness than we do for any other set of claims for which we, as in humans, have no evidence.
Tolerance does not mean agreement, it does not mean “to quietly put up with”, it certainly does not mean “publically respect”, it means we allow the religious to state their views without fear of violence or legal sanction.
Bruce Gorton
April 28, 2011 at 2:27 am
Sorry, I just read through it again. Brain glitch – ignore.
Re: Benjamin S Nelson #18
I recently happened across PZ’s reaction to that speech of Harris’s: Letter to a non-atheist New Atheist. The thing is, Harris has not started believing in some sort of deity, so he cannot escape the label of “atheist” whether he rejects it or not. Similarly, he cannot escape the “New Atheist” label while continuing his unflinching, boisterous scrutiny of the Abrahamic religions in particular. So, I think the argument from both Dawkins with his scarlet “A” OUT Campaign and PZ with his stirring of the Dictionary Atheists goes: You’ve got it so wear it proudly.
To me, over the last nine months of both following new atheism and attempting to promote it, it is a continuation of the application of reason, or critical thinking, from only a narrow philosophical sense to a wider cultural and political sense.
In other words, it’s a continuation of the enlightenment project, which for some reason failed to fully dislodge hierarchical beliefs from society.
Criticism is naturally polemic, and those with lesser minds mistake rational criticism for personal attacks, and even lesser sinister minds confuse criticism for terrorism.
Reason is a threat to baseless authority and opinion. Those in position of power, often corrupted by wealth or status, also feel threatened.
I would really like movement to be seen as a movement beyond only atheism. I think the word atheism is only negatively defined, and can’t represent fully something more positive that is at work. However, for now, the word atheist is essential in encompassing the masses, to retain the current momentum, and it is also essential to prevent theistic influences from undermining it.
This is is somewhat unrelated, but …
I just read Josh Rosenau’s original post, where I spotted Vic Stenger’s slide declaring atheism a “positive philosophy.” This echoes something I heard from an audience member at a recent event: that atheism means “looking for evidence for one’s beliefs.” I still don’t understand this sentiment. Why do people want to make atheism out to be more than it is? There are plenty of other words out there: secular humanist, humanist, freethinker, secularist, skeptic, etc. Why employ atheist to describe something that is not inherent or implied in atheism?
This is where I fully agree with Sam Harris.
Do your think “Heirs of the Enlightenment” is too pretentious?
Michael,
Good question. I think maybe it’s not as batty as it looks. (People doing that; not the question.) I used to say atheism is just non-theism a lot, but I think I don’t so much any more. I think the extra stuff may be hooked to the willingness to call oneself an atheist. Especially now after years of enemies of atheism adding yet more baggage to the word, anybody who is willing to own it is implicitly taking on more than just non-theism – the willingness to say an unpopular thing, at least. An atheist right now probably implies someone who is at least willing to argue for her atheism.
I obviously don’t have any issue with people arguing for atheism/against religious faith, or clearing up misconceptions about atheism. I think that’s important. I just think that we should be careful about how we use the word atheism. Using it as synonymous with reason, etc, has problems both in theory and in practice.
I mean, the New Atheism can get on just fine, and perhaps even better, without trying to make atheism a positive worldview.
I agree Michael. I’d rather label myself as both an atheist and something else, that something else being a positive philosophical view, whether naturalism, neosecularism, new enlightenment. I don’t identify as a humanist though, I don’t think humanism is what we’re doing, rather I think we align ourselves with humanists as allies (unless you are a humanist of course).
I’ve never really considered myself a humanist, though I think it’s clear that I am one. I tend to use the word “secularist” instead. My ethical outlook is a bit hard to describe with one word: it’s built on several different ideas proposed throughout the history of Western moral philosophy. But they are all secular.
@Michael De Dora #44 and later
My 2 cents, I think the idea is that we need to acquaint people with what real atheism is apart from the basic definition–for the first time in many cases.
Sure, most Asian communists were and are atheists, but I do wonder what they would say their reason is for being an atheist, and I have a feeling that in most cases it wouldn’t be just because the Communist Party demands it (reasons I’m thinking they might say would be everything from the pernicious effects of religion on society to the lack of evidence for gods to the belief that deities are just plain ridiculous). Even communists probably have what they think are good reasons, entirely separate from party doctrine, for not believing that deities are real entities, and I would venture to guess that the same would be true for the genuinely atheist genocidal dictators mentioned by Harris in the quote you gave.
Atheism isn’t a big scary monster of an idea that leads one to become a raving homicidal maniac. Instead, atheism is a rather mundane position available to anyone willing to critically examine the world around them (including the fake stories being touted as real by their fellow humans). The more non-atheist people who actually realize this, the better.
Aratina, I’m not sure if I disagree. Though the thing I’d like to keep in mind is the notion embraced by current working sociologists that the existence of a movement crucially depends on the idea that participants self-reflectively consider themselves to be part of a movement. If Harris substantially distances himself from the movement or dissociates himself with its primary aims, then one can legitimately question whether or not he’s one of the Jedi we’re looking for.
Michael, that is an interesting section. Partly because it reminds me of something I’ve been uncomfortable with for the past few months.
In isolation, the “Stalin argument” is awful. It is usually refuted by pointing out that there’s no logical connection between atheism and totalitarianism, while (by contrast) there is a logical connection between the Abrahamic dogmas and theocratic regimes. If people don’t see this, then they’re thick — and, I’m inclined to say that even if they never see it, I guess we’ll have to settle in for the fact that people are thick. No point in getting off message just because some dregs can’t follow a line of valid sound reasoning.
Still — I have to make a concession on this matter. There is one area in which the appeal to Stalin is well-founded: when they are in reaction to arguments that are based on mere cause and effect. For example, Steve Weinberg is often quoted as having said that you need religion for good people to do bad things. But actually, that’s not correct — witness the average citizen under Stalinism. Soviet citizens sincerely believed in their goals, and many of them were (no doubt) good people, and yet astonishing evil was done in their name. And really, it turns out that it’s surprisingly easy to get good people to do bad things — as with Stanley Milgrim’s experiments. So when we take Stalinism seriously, we’re forced to remove Weinberg’s trope from our rolodex of bon mots. Which is too bad really.