What's a "New Atheist"?

Great Debates
41

There is a problem with the discussion here.

The “New Atheism” describes a new attitude to one’s atheism. Most atheists assume that the facts are self-evident, and only a gormless idiot believes in a god. If we wait long enough, they think, all the uneducated believers will read the facts, or learn them in school.

In Ireland, this is increasingly the case, as our education system becomes more secularised. My parent’s generation were 99% church-going. In my children’s generation, it’s more like 15% - aided by child abuse scandals.

However, in my experience, that expectation is fallacious in relation to large parts of the USA. Of course there are many highly educated and intelligent USAians, but I have been astounded by the lack of basic scientific knowledge shown by many. And the less their knowledge, the stronger their faith in a god. Most seem to have little or no knowledge of other faiths or of atheism.

Dopers are by definition seekers after truth, so they are not in this group. They often take insult at such comments, not realising that their peer group excludes such people.

That is why I would view myself as a New Atheist. We have to let these people know that atheism is not a “lack of belief”. Belief is a lack of rationality.

42

In Ireland, it seems like strict religious observance is giving way to a more consumerist, individualist spirtuality, predicated on saints, angels, faith healers and self-help bullshit. I’m not so sure that atheism is on the rise. I think in years gone by it could do real damage to a person’s livelihood to be openly or avowedly atheist in this country, much less so now. Although we still have the case where atheists have their kids baptised so they can get into decent schools.

43

and

Your view outlined in the second quote is no more likely to succeed than the view of “old” atheists outlined in the first and probably less. Few are convinced of anything important by rationality, and few believe rationality to be important. Mostly people just believe what they are lead to believe. If “new atheists” do anything right it is probably just that they include some people with charisma prepared to stand up and lead. In other words they are (sadly) likely to lead people away from religion by methods more akin to those of religion.

Futther, I don’t know that the views you attribute to old atheists are too wide of the mark. As I understand it, the rise of secularism (and atheism) tracks pretty well to rises in good quality education. Not because of any specific study of belief or rationality but just because broad knowledge and questioning attitudes are antithetical to theism’s really quite obviously parochial and childish nature.

44

“Athier” A word I would use if there was any chance anyone would understand me. “Oh yeah, well I’m athier than you are.”

My understanding is that the “new” implies the new openness about ones beliefs. In the past you just didn’t talk about being a nonbeliever unless you were some kind of philosopher or you were purposely looking for a heated argument. “Atheist” was a very bad word when I was young and still is in a lot of places. Even today I don’t talk about it except here in the anonymous interwebs. So, I welcome the New Atheists.

45

Well they have to get those 15% through the doors somehow.

46

Now with fewer calories!

47

You’ve hit the nail on the head. What we need is a New Atheist religion!

I suggest we posit a god who demands we don’t acknowledge him and who will punish people who worship him.

48

Please. Athier than thou.

49

How about New Age Atheists? Now, that would be interesting!

We have these crystals and pyramids that you hang over your bed. They don’t do anything at all, but we just like to look at them. They’re pretty.

50

Non-serious answer to the OP:
Old Atheists don’t worship a higher power. New Atheists do.

Serious attop: the term refers to four authors who in the 2000s brought out bestselling books challenging theism - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris - together with other writers, bloggers and scientists who share their views - Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers and Ophelia Benson spring to mind but there are plenty of others.

The term seems to have developed as a pejorative, castigating such authors as strident, militant, rude, offensive etc etc. My impression is that these accusations are bullshit and in any case irrelevant, and made by tone-trolls who want to talk about style of delivery so as to avoid addressing the underlying arguments. ISTM that the ‘New Atheists’ would be the first to affirm that there is nothing new about their views or the arguments they use to support them. They might say that what’s new is that ‘the gloves are off’, but I don’t really see that. My recollection of Russell, Nietzsche, even Paine and Jefferson, is that they had quite outspoken things to say about the religious mindset.

In terms of debate, the usual antonym of “New Atheist” is not “Old Atheist”, but rather “Accommodationist”. These are self-identified atheists or ‘liberal theists’ who attack Dawkins et al for their presentation, who like to say that the “News” are putting off moderate theists and driving them to reject the theory of evolution. They say that to get the public to be friendlier to science in general and the ToE in particular, we must be respectful towards theists.

…which would be fine, but their definition of “respectful” appears to involve refraining to state that religious beliefs are unevidenced, and often absurd, and frequently harmful. Another theme is their concept of ‘non-overlapping magisteria’, as the late Stephen J Gould put it - the idea that science and religion are different ways of looking at the world, which address different questions, and which can get along perfectly well with each other if they don’t tread on each others’ toes. I think this is total balls.

I don’t call myself a New Atheist, I’m just a plain Atheist. But if someone wants to call me New I couldn’t really give two shits.

51

… and 25% more godlessness…

52

I always thought New Atheist means someone who didn’t start as an atheist but “converted”. You’re new to atheism.

53

Well, Pierre-Simon Laplace famously said “I have no need of that hypothesis”.

Technically possible. While atheists and materialists often get lumped together, you can technically be an atheist and believe in crystal energy, black magic and elves as long as you don’t believe in gods.

54

Right. But you can’t expect to get a pass from the rest of the atheist world if you get up on a soapbox about your woo just because you happen to be godless as well. In fact, I’m pretty sure a number of atheists would deny that woo-believers are atheists based on the fact ‘atheist’ has a very strong connotation of ‘rational’ at this point, kind of like how North Korea isn’t a real republic even though you can point to some excessively strict dictionary definitions that would technically include it.

55

You know, if you wait long enough to join new atheism, you can probably get them to match your miles from the old program. Don’t sign up without special offer, it’s just silly.

56

Nuh uh. The “new” atheists (sometimes also “gnu atheists”) are precisely the ones who are looking for a heated argument. Most of the “old” atheists (and I would count myself as one) think that it is mostly pointless and usually counter-productive trying to argue with theists: religious belief is probably best left to slowly fade away in the face of increasing scientific and historical knowledge. “New” atheists like Dawkins and P.Z. Meyers, however, advocate that religions should be actively, publicly and aggressively criticized.

57

I think this is what happens with Catholic countries as they become less religious. People eventually still call themselves Catholic, but what they believe in, if they do in fact believe, doesn’t look very much like orthodox Catholicism. In Quebec I don’t know anyone who isn’t a senior citizen who prays to saints or angels, but the vast majority of people still define themselves as Catholics, despite believing in reincarnation or being atheists in all but name. And plenty of people get their kids baptised or marry into the Church even if they otherwise never set foot inside a church. (Though public education is secular so it doesn’t affect their choice of schools.) I’d assume something similar is true of Spain; perhaps Nava can confirm or tell me I’m wrong.

This is in contrast to countries like the US, which have a strong undercurrent of Evangelical Christianity, but also a large number of avowed atheists, including those authors who are actually hostile to religion which we’re discussing here. I don’t know any equivalent public figure from Quebec, despite the fact that we’re probably less religious than Americans. Speaking of Ireland, I’ve heard that Ireland has both a large proportion of alcoholics and a large proportion of teetotalers. It may be the same dynamic that’s in play.

I don’t know why you’d think it’s ridiculous. If someone makes the claim that the supernatural influences the natural world, then yes, it’s subject to being falsified. But in itself, the concept of the existence or inexistence of a god or gods seems to me to be completely detached from the physical. You cannot prove that there is a god, and you also cannot prove that there is no god.

Not only is it technically possible, but it may even be more common than you’d expect.

58

Remember that some religions are atheist - e.g. most brands of buddhism are not centred in any belief in a god. So, a belief system is not necessarily linked to theism.

59

I prefer retro atheism. It’s hipper.

60

Neo-atheism makes it all Matrixy. There is no master program!