The new atheist

[TheLibertonian]

For those of you who are unaware of the phrase, you probably know the result of it. The New Atheist is a contextually newish movement within atheism itself, as much as "atheism" can be called a movement.

Which is probably one of the major and first dividing points between the new atheist and the rest of atheism. Atheism has never been a "movement" except perhaps on a very local level. The new atheist want to change that; they want all atheist, everywhere, to subscribe to their philosophy.

Who are they? You know names of them. Richard Dawkins and Hitchens probably ring a lot of bells here.

And that's the problem. For many people, Atheism is now synonymous with the people known as the New Atheist. However, the fact is not all atheist are new atheist.

I'm putting this out there because I know many religious people hear "Atheist" and their mind immediatly jumps to the Dawkin style of atheism. It's not like we don't have an example of it on the forum, after all, and also because you deal with atheist in real life and may not realize it.

So what is the New Atheist? What defines being a new atheist?

1. New Atheist believe that science and religion are absolutely incompatible and are diametrically opposed forces. That science and religion are locked in a struggle and that one cannot thrive while the other exist.

2. New Atheist don't believe in neutrality. They deny the existence of agnostics as merely being uncommitted or closet atheist. One must either believe in rationalism and science or, in their terms, irrationality.

3. They believe that atheism is a movement. Again, stemming from point 1, new atheist believe that science and rationalism can only be supported by Atheism.

4. They believe that faith in any sort of religious sense is a negative. Again, this stems from point 1.

These are just some highlight points. The point is that new atheist certainly exist, but the fact is they are not representative of all atheism. Internet atheist, young atheist, often tend to fall into the new atheist camp, but not all.

So keep in mind that much like religious faith, atheism matures, and is varied. Please don't lump all atheist together under the branch of the "new atheist" because it's simply not that way; many atheist respect faith and can understand it even if they lack belief in higher beings.

"The mistake we make is to attribute to religions the errors and fanaticism of human beings." Tahar Ben Jelloun

 

[vraiblonde]

I must be a paleo-atheist, then, because I don't give it that much though. Just like I don't spend a lot of time thinking about why I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, nor do I want to join a club and go to meetings with other people who don't believe in SC or EB.

The atheists who want to impose their lack of religion on everyone else and be offensive are mental and clearly not comfortable with their belief system, otherwise they'd just be living their life and not worrying about everyone else.

 

[Gilligan]

The atheists who want to impose their lack of religion on everyone else and be offensive are mental and clearly not comfortable with their belief system, otherwise they'd just be living their life and not worrying about everyone else.

There it is....^.

 

[Radiant1]

Does this mean Proxima is like a fundie?

 

[Amused_despair]

My imaginary friend turns water into wine, what does your imaginary friend do?

 

[Gilligan]

My imaginary friend turns water into wine, what does your imaginary friend do?

Makes beer disappear.

 

[PsyOps]

My imaginary friend turns water into wine, what does your imaginary friend do?

Causes my shoe to come untied when I really have to pee.

 

[Larry Gude]

For those of you who are unaware of the phrase, you probably know the result of it. The New Atheist is a contextually newish movement within atheism itself, as much as "atheism" can be called a movement.

Which is probably one of the major and first dividing points between the new atheist and the rest of atheism. Atheism has never been a "movement" except perhaps on a very local level. The new atheist want to change that; they want all atheist, everywhere, to subscribe to their philosophy.

Who are they? You know names of them. Richard Dawkins and Hitchens probably ring a lot of bells here.

And that's the problem. For many people, Atheism is now synonymous with the people known as the New Atheist. However, the fact is not all atheist are new atheist.

I'm putting this out there because I know many religious people hear "Atheist" and their mind immediatly jumps to the Dawkin style of atheism. It's not like we don't have an example of it on the forum, after all, and also because you deal with atheist in real life and may not realize it.

So what is the New Atheist? What defines being a new atheist?

1. New Atheist believe that science and religion are absolutely incompatible and are diametrically opposed forces. That science and religion are locked in a struggle and that one cannot thrive while the other exist.

2. New Atheist don't believe in neutrality. They deny the existence of agnostics as merely being uncommitted or closet atheist. One must either believe in rationalism and science or, in their terms, irrationality.

3. They believe that atheism is a movement. Again, stemming from point 1, new atheist believe that science and rationalism can only be supported by Atheism.

4. They believe that faith in any sort of religious sense is a negative. Again, this stems from point 1.

These are just some highlight points. The point is that new atheist certainly exist, but the fact is they are not representative of all atheism. Internet atheist, young atheist, often tend to fall into the new atheist camp, but not all.

So keep in mind that much like religious faith, atheism matures, and is varied. Please don't lump all atheist together under the branch of the "new atheist" because it's simply not that way; many atheist respect faith and can understand it even if they lack belief in higher beings.

"The mistake we make is to attribute to religions the errors and fanaticism of human beings." Tahar Ben Jelloun

It's not accurate to put Hitchens in that group. He had no problem with religion as long as it was not taught along side science. It's fine and in fact indispensable in any conversation about philosophy, history and so forth. Hitchens styled himself an anti theist in that he did not believe because he could not do so intellectually and did not wish to be able to. He would absolutely not support the above contentions.

 

[Larry Gude]

Makes beer disappear.

I used to believe in that.

Then, I caught myself...red handed.

 

[TheLibertonian]

It's not accurate to put Hitchens in that group. He had no problem with religion as long as it was not taught along side science. It's fine and in fact indispensable in any conversation about philosophy, history and so forth. Hitchens styled himself an anti theist in that he did not believe because he could not do so intellectually and did not wish to be able to. He would absolutely not support the above contentions.

He himself lumps himself with Dawkins, Harris, and Dennet. I agree that of the new atheist he's probably the least reprehensible in his arguement style.

 

[vraiblonde]

It's not accurate to put Hitchens in that group. He had no problem with religion as long as it was not taught along side science. It's fine and in fact indispensable in any conversation about philosophy, history and so forth. Hitchens styled himself an anti theist in that he did not believe because he could not do so intellectually and did not wish to be able to. He would absolutely not support the above contentions.

Larry, that is simply not true. Not even sure where you got that bull#### from. Here is one of his books:

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

One only has to do a quick google to find a number of anti-religion articles Hitchens has written.

 

[Larry Gude]

He himself lumps himself with Dawkins, Harris, and Dennet. I agree that of the new atheist he's probably the least reprehensible in his arguement style.

No, he did not. In fact, he had disagreements with Harris, for one, because Sam argues that there is some sort of spirit, supernatural energy.

It is fine to accept the 'four horseman' thing but it's not accurate to label them as a specific group. They had contentions and disagreements among themselves which is only proper as Hitchens, for one, ALWAYS said he can not prove there is no god, only that he has yet to see convincing evidence and, as such, he held that, however unlikely, it was still possible. He had a strong disagreement with, IIRC, Dawkins in that Dawkins would convert the last person of faith if he could and Hitch absolutely would not. SO, I object to him being called a 'new' atheist. He was what he said he was, an anti-theist. Very different from what you are describing.

 

[Larry Gude]

Larry, that is simply not true. Not even sure where you got that bull#### from. Here is one of his books:

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

One only has to do a quick google to find a number of anti-religion articles Hitchens has written.

Vrai, is simply is true. It takes 2 seconds to find him speaking these exact words. In fact, he credits organized religion as being our first attempt at science and philosophy. He simply thinks we've long outgrown it.
He is only anti religion when it comes to people declaring it true and/or fighting to have it taken as serious science or fact. I'm right.

 

[TheLibertonian]

No, he did not. In fact, he had disagreements with Harris, for one, because Sam argues that there is some sort of spirit, supernatural energy.

It is fine to accept the 'four horseman' thing but it's not accurate to label them as a specific group. They had contentions and disagreements among themselves which is only proper as Hitchens, for one, ALWAYS said he can not prove there is no god, only that he has yet to see convincing evidence and, as such, he held that, however unlikely, it was still possible. He had a strong disagreement with, IIRC, Dawkins in that Dawkins would convert the last person of faith if he could and Hitch absolutely would not. SO, I object to him being called a 'new' atheist. He was what he said he was, an anti-theist. Very different from what you are describing.

I think the fact that he felt the need to include himself with the group says something. I also say that even if he does not proscribe to every tenant of the other three he certainly represents a very different sort of atheism then what replaced the 19th century "opiate of the masses" type stuff.

 

[Larry Gude]

I think the fact that he felt the need to include himself with the group says something. I also say that even if he does not proscribe to every tenant of the other three he certainly represents a very different sort of atheism then what replaced the 19th century "opiate of the masses" type stuff.

I don't think 'felt the need' is accurate either. Like minded? Sure. Leading atheists, generically understood? Sure. Again, my point is he is not a 'new' atheist as per your OP. Quite the opposite. Furthermore, you bring up a great point perhaps without meaning to; he quite often took the time to clarify Marx's quote as we, the generic we, have it quite wrong. He was very much a Marx type, old school atheist. Very early on in his life he found he simply couldn't get his mind to accept the teachings anymore and it was, forever more, one of his favorite subjects.

Marx's quote is often taken as an insult, that religion is a drug the dumb people need. In context;

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

That's quite a different understanding of the thing. Marx said, and meant, that religion is a medicine trying to genuinely help real suffering. His point was that it is both cause and relief of understanding and that it would be well to overcome it's limits and thus not only not cause it's suffering but not need it's treatments which are, specifically, for the ailments it causes.

THAT is Hitch. And that is a good deal more respectful of thing, understanding of it, acceptance of it, than some of his compatriots. Hitchens was only hostile to religion when it entered the public square and made its all knowing demands. He was quite fine with people choosing to have it as a personal thing provided they kept it that way. Some of the others wish it eradicated which Hitchens was NOT for.

 

[Gilligan]

I'm just glad that I'm a Druid. All this atheist stuff is so confusing.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm just glad that I'm a Druid. All this atheist stuff is so confusing.

Shouldn't be. You're a neo pagan, basically, yes?

 

[Gilligan]

Shouldn't be. You're a neo pagan, basically, yes?

Only "neo" when we drink beer around the bonfire instead of mead. Technically speaking.

 

[TheLibertonian]

I don't think 'felt the need' is accurate either. Like minded? Sure. Leading atheists, generically understood? Sure. Again, my point is he is not a 'new' atheist as per your OP. Quite the opposite. Furthermore, you bring up a great point perhaps without meaning to; he quite often took the time to clarify Marx's quote as we, the generic we, have it quite wrong. He was very much a Marx type, old school atheist. Very early on in his life he found he simply couldn't get his mind to accept the teachings anymore and it was, forever more, one of his favorite subjects.

Marx's quote is often taken as an insult, that religion is a drug the dumb people need. In context;

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

That's quite a different understanding of the thing. Marx said, and meant, that religion is a medicine trying to genuinely help real suffering. His point was that it is both cause and relief of understanding and that it would be well to overcome it's limits and thus not only not cause it's suffering but not need it's treatments which are, specifically, for the ailments it causes.

THAT is Hitch. And that is a good deal more respectful of thing, understanding of it, acceptance of it, than some of his compatriots. Hitchens was only hostile to religion when it entered the public square and made its all knowing demands. He was quite fine with people choosing to have it as a personal thing provided they kept it that way. Some of the others wish it eradicated which Hitchens was NOT for.

I like Hitchens arguments more then Dawkins and Harris, but Hitchens arguements are also weak. The New Atheist thing is that religion itself is bad and opposed to "progress", which was a philosophical position taken by some atheist during the 1800's.

 

[TheLibertonian]

Shouldn't be. You're a neo pagan, basically, yes?

Those are the weak livered theologically inept ones who refuse to say why Odin no longer requires the seventh year sacrifice.