Who are 'The New Atheists'?
Posted on: February 14, 2010 - 5:57am
Offline
Who are 'The New Atheists'?
I seem to come upon this concept every now and then. 'The New Atheists'.
I don't understand what it means. I think it must be an American expression.
How can there be any 'old' or 'new' to the simple question of whether or not you are religious?
It's not like the question is opening up for a whole lot of angles....
Can someone please enlighten me? Who are 'The New Atheists'?
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
- Login to post comments
I think its because "new Atheists" take things further than a non belief in god, here is something I found duno If its any good but il share
Im not really sure what they are either but this is what a quick google search found
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Movement is that unlike millenia-old atheist thought which dates back to the greeks in historical literature, the New Atheists, led by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, Sam Harris and in my opinion David Attenborough, in our own time, are openly and aggressively anti-religion. Faith, they argue, is not something to be tolerated but to be learned out of. I don't know but I think the term New Atheists is probably a media label the broader movement has embraced in recent history.
It's my opinion that the rise of New Atheism in part mirrors 9-11 and the War on Terror - a period in which the failings of extreme religiosity are on display on both sides of the ledger. Other parallels include the intrusion of fundamentalist islam into Europe and the rise of the christian right in the United States and places like Australia, where most political leaders claim faith and religions have influence far greater than their numbers justify. The neverending crisis in the middle east is another dramatic demonstration of the danger and violence of religious difference.
Other parallels that serve the cause of New Atheism include our growing understanding of neuroscience and genetics, ably supported by a revolution in computer technology that in terms of really serious functionality dates back no further than the end of the 1990s.
I tend to think New Atheism is a response to what could be called new fundamentalism, which is itself a backlash against what many conservatives see as the failure of the liberality of the past 20-30 years.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
New atheism or"neo atheism" is just regular atheism.
They are trying to make it sound extreme. Basically, if you are willing to openly talk about atheism they try and label you an extremist to get people to not pay attention to you.
I mean, the idea to be critical of religions is such a new one.
They did this with militant atheism as well. Basically try and make it sound unappealing, since atheism isn't working as a pejorative for them anymore.
Some atheists grab onto these theist-coined terms to try and make themselves look more moderate in some way by throwing others under the bus. It really just makes them look like tools though.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
i personally fucking hate the prefix "neo-". it's got to be the most overused prefix in the english language. people use it because "neo-atheist" or "neo-marxist" or "neo-conservative" sounds more intellectual than just using the root word alone.
i don't see how either "neo-atheism" or "new atheism" could possibly exist.
perhaps there was once some justification in "neo-conservatism" at one time because originally neocons wanted to distance themselves from the sincere religiosity and blind patriotism of their forebears and insist that their economic and social conservatism was purely pragmatic, but ever since 9/11 i feel there are few who still take this road. they spent so much time imitating the tribal mentality of the "old" conservatives--supposedly only as an expedient--that they finally started to become what they aped. oh, i know there still are a few genuinely neo-conservative theorists out there who are mostly unknown, but the representatives of neo-conservatism in the popular mind, i.e., bill o'reilly, ann coulter, rush limbaugh, glenn beck, sean hannity, etc., cannot strictly be called neo-conservative at all.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Interesting.
I feel uncomfortable with the notion of a 'new atheism'. I most definitely think of myself as 'old-school' in a most real way. Meaning that I am a conservative disciplinarian who thinks that 'responsibility' is a prerequisite for 'freedom' - and I hate sentimental nonsense; whether this manifests as religious faith, the typical 'new age' crystal-spirit-astrological gobbeldygook, or mindless 'empathy' for morons who are getting exactly what they deserve. In my opinion, if you are religious you are an idiot. Period. There are no two ways about it. If you are a person of 'faith', this alone corrupts you beyond repair; i.e. you can't be trusted to think and behave in a rational manner. It is irrelevant what other talents you might have; your 'faith' alone - a mental perversion - disqualifies you from holding positions of responsibility. It obstructs your right to have 'freedom'. In a very chicken and egg way, having a religious faith means that you need to be subjected to authoritarian leadership, because your irrationality means that you can't be trusted to be reliable.
So far so good. That, to me, is the 'old' atheism.
What is 'new' over the last 50 years in this world is how science now have cracked into creation itself through the work of people like Turing, Beluzov, Lorenz and Mandelbrot; establishing an understanding for how complexity emerges from simplicity in a basic algorithmic way. 'Evoution' is now a constant, or a vector, in an immensely complicated system of chaos and self replicating patterns - leaving an even smaller room for 'God' to operate within. In lieu of this, I would assume that 'new atheism' has been forced to confront religion as a direct obstacle for the dissipation of 'new science'. (Similarly, we may observe that when Charles Darwin published his 'Origin', what offended the Church of England wasn't that his theory conflicted with the creation myth of the Bible - the CoE was already actively encouraging people to view the Bible metaphorically - but rather that the proposed evolutionary mechanism wasn't benign, or even intelligent, it was simply something which happened naturally, needing no God to make it work.)
Atheism shouldn't be a political issue - but it becomes so by necessity, because people of 'faith' have made religion into a political issue, and religious people should never under any circumstance be allowed to have political power. Yes, this is indeed non-negotiably black and white. There is no 'cool' way to be religious. It is retarded. It is also perhaps the most prominent body of evidence against the strange idea that Homo Sapiens, by default, is an intelligent creature.
My conclusion? I sympathise with the 'new atheists'.
They are the same as the old ones. It is the environment that has changed.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
Wrong, Dawkins first used "militant atheism" in a tongue in cheek fashion. I think it's funny, because it does sound like something you would hear from fundamentalists if we hadn't used it first.
It's just a way to make us sound scary to these church going, Sarah Palin Voting, floral printed, cholesterol consuming, tabloid reading morons in the midwest...
...and might I add...its working...
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
So..I am wrong that they are using the term in an attempt to make atheism seem extremist? Please elaborate?
Do you have any evidence that Dawkins used it first? From what I understand the term has been used for well over one hundred years. I wasn't aware Dawkins was that old.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Originally, the 'new atheists' was coined from an article in Wired magazine to refer to the recent best-selling atheist authors, starting with Sam Harris, and continuing in the Dawkins vein.
However, most 'new' atheists did not really see themselves in the moniker. But at the time, it was the only category around, so it began to stick.
Eventually, it was adopted by critics of the recent 'movement' of atheists in order to paint them with a broad brush and exaggerate their 'offensive' tone. After all, what's really 'new' about these atheists except that they are annoying to the status quo? The word 'new' is a complete red herring in that term. It has become associated with all the usual stereotypes: Militant, extremist, fundamentalist, rude, strident, etc.
Unfortunately, it is this new stereotype that has stuck most strongly in the public discourse. Very few atheists actually call themselves 'new atheists', and I believe Victor Stenger made a big mistake in titling his book 'The New Atheism'. (Personally, I feel Stenger is more 'along for the ride' than he is anywhere close to the forefront, but whatever. He's famous as a scientist and so is able to use his name to sell books.)
In any case, I recently proposed the term 'unapologetic atheist' to better describe the actual unifying characteristic of the best-selling authors as well as the recent 'movement' of atheists who are speaking out louder and with more confidence than in recent decades. For me, it fits, and I haven't been able to come up with a more apt descriptor. I've used it successfully many times to challenge critics of 'new atheists', and to promote the main ideas described by Sam Harris in The End of Faith, especially the idea of confronting and dismantling the taboo against criticizing religion (aka 'blasphemy').
Mano Singham has tried to help popularize the term (see Introducing the Unapologetic Atheist), but so far, it's been slow going. In my eyes, there are so many good angles to use with the term that it's just too good for me to pass up easily. Certainly, I'll never adopt an empty word like 'new'. I'm toying with the idea of writing a book about 'how to become an unapologetic atheist', describing all the angles I've worked out so far. Maybe it's just unclear to people how to use the term effectively.
In any case, I don't recommend using 'new atheist', since it's inherent vagueness allows people to slap on any old atheist stereotypes and use it as a straw man slur against atheists. For the same reasons I eschew 'materialism' in favour of 'physicalism', I also eschew 'new atheist'. Why get bogged down trying to correct people's endless stereotypes and misunderstandings? It's a waste of energy, and at the end of it, all you've done is returned back to plain-old 'atheist'. Meanwhile the taboo against criticizing religion has been left unchallenged, and even unidentified. Complete waste of time, IMO.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
From a Garrison Keiller guest on his radio show:
This guy was not a militant agnostic. Militant agnostics go door to door, "HI! I don't know and you don't either!!" Nor was he an apathetic agnostic, "I don't know and I don't care." No, he was a evangelistic agnostic, going door to door, "Hi, I don't have a clue. Want to talk about it?"
From there it is a short step (for some people) to militant, etc. atheism.
As for "new" atheism. Me, five years ago, "Whatever, people like to have imaginary friends. Who does it hurt?" Me, now, "Ignorance is no excuse and it is curable. Don't bring it to school, the board room, or politics and don't be lazy. The library is free for pete's sake." I no longer believe it is harmless. And I think the current push to institute theocracies is a really bad idea that I will fight if necessary. Guess I'm part of the "new militant atheist" movement.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I think the only way to use "new atheist" is to describe somebody who just became an atheist
This topic inspired The Unapologetics Challenge.
This labeling is not a new tactic in human history. It is an attempt to marginalize and demonize something foreign to accepted social norms.
There is nothing "New" about atheism. There are say differences in tactics between atheists. Much like the difference between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King.
HOWEVER, just because some, like me are more "loud" and "in your face", which I am as compared to other atheists, doesn't make me a "new atheist". It merely means I am blunt and blasphemous. I am no more a zealot like Bin Laden or Pat Robertson than a parent telling their kid bluntly, "Santa isn't real". Sometimes there is no polite way to tell someone they got it wrong.
I am glad humans no longer believe the sun is a being. I am glad humans no longer believe the earth is flat. I don't think it is wrong to shout from the rooftops "WAKE UP!".
Talking to magical beings pretending them to be real is old hat and needs to be put in the trash bin of bad claims along with Thor and Isis. We as a species have much better explanations for reality than invisible brains with no brains with magical super powers floating around in the sky everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
IT IS 2010! NOT 1,000BCE! I'll take a computer, telescope and yardstick over any book of myth any day.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I stand humbly corrected. That being said, I do hear the term far more from atheists than pejoratively by theists. I've used it myself when I can get my point across no other way. It isn't an insult until we accept it as one. See also the origin of the term "big bang."