The New Atheism

Kevin Drum raised a good point the other day. There have long been atheists in the West, especially among the intellentsia, but lately there seem to be an awful lot of what you might call evangelizing atheists who want to publish books about how awful religion is. Kevin names Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens and I was also add Daniel Dennett into the mix. What's going on?

It seems especially odd to me because it's so contrary to the spirit of non-theism to go around writing books like this. The whole strength of the non-theistic intellectual enterprise over the years has simply been to go about our business without talking about God. Talk about the origins of the universe. Talk about human history. Talk about ethics and politics. Talk about the nature of truth. Talk about the origin of species. And do it without talking about God. That's atheism -- just doing the intellectual work of explaining and debating things without reference to the supernatural -- not devising ever-more-intricate proofs that there is no God.

Comments

Surely the puzzle is rather why people took the "don't talk about the absence of God" approach for so long. (Even after "fear of the stake" ceased to be an explanation.) The normal thing to do when you have a belief[1] and other people have a different one is to argue about it.

[1] It's true that you don't need to have an affirmative belief that there is no God to be an atheist. But that doesn't mean you're not allowed to have one or that most atheists don't.

Posted by Adrian | May 7, 2007 9:43 AM

In the case of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens, it's a matter of running out of anything else to say. The rest; bandwagon jumping.

Posted by dsquared | May 7, 2007 9:49 AM

"...[I]t's so contrary to the spirit of non-theism to go around writing books like this."

This statement makes no sense to me.

Posted by david mizner | May 7, 2007 9:50 AM

Come on Matt, I think it's fairly obvious. Since the late 70's right wing religious extremists have become a major force in our politics.

It is now a mainstream position in America to disbelieve evolution and work to stop having it taught to kids in schools! Life saving medical research is halted due to rank superstition. A president starts a war in Iraq because he thinks god told him to do it. One of his top generals thinks he sees Satan miraculously appearing above a battlefield. Kids are taught that condoms don't help prevent AIDS and straight-talkin' John McCain thinks that may well be true.

This is crazy shit. Religious nuts are out of control in America.

Face it: religion is a crock of shit. Most parts of western culture are evolving out of it but the U.S. is retrograde. Our politicians increasingly have to kow-tow to religion. Any religion is considered much more respect worthy than atheism. Thus ridiculous frauds like Mormonism and the Reverend Moon's cult are considered reasonable. Irrationalism needs to be nipped in the bud.

Posted by Disturbance | May 7, 2007 9:56 AM

I imagine its because all of a sudden there's a lot of money to be made writing books like these.

The current administration is perceived as being very religion-oriented. This is partly because there is in fact a lot of God-talk coming out of the administration, and partly because those who don't like the administration likely over-estimate the degree to which the administration's policies stem from its religious orientation.

And in fact there are a lot of people who really, really don't like the administration. Within this group there is a large chunk who have never been especially religious. For these folks, adopting a stance of atheism is a good way to further separate themselves from George Bush. Reading books about the wrongness of religious faith is another way of reading books about the wrongness of the administration and its allies.

My guess would be that if a Democrat wins in 2008 the market for this kind of militant atheism mostly dries up. If its Obama, it almost entirely dries up.

Posted by sd | May 7, 2007 9:58 AM

There are two separate issues that these people address: 1) questions about the likelihood of the existence god, and about why people have a tendency to believe in god; 2) questions about whether or not religion is a good thing for human society.

I'm extremely interested in issue 1. I think there is interesting research being done to explore why people tend to be religious. Its at least as interesting as the question of why people like music so much. Its also useful for people like Dawkins or Dennet to knock down the sophistry-laden arguments that people make in favor of the existence of god.

Issue 2, on the other hand, seems like a waste of time to me. Religion, and the underlying psychological traits that lead to it, seems to be such an ingrained part of human nature that it is useless to ask if we'd be better off without it.

On a personal level (and I know this will sound condescending), I have no wish to disabuse religious people that I know of their belief. I feel that many of them need this faith, and that they will suffer if they start to question it (sort of like the issue of the need for "pipe dreams" in The Iceman Cometh).

Posted by Jim W | May 7, 2007 9:59 AM

Well, gosh, maybe Sam Harris and the rest have observed that only 37% of Americans would vote for an atheist president (among many other data), and come to the not-unreasonable conclusion that the "let's not discuss our beliefs, I'm sure evangelical Christians will do a fine job of framing the debate" philosophy hasn't been particularly effective.

Posted by OhioBoy | May 7, 2007 9:59 AM

if your question is about what non-theists did in the non-public sphere all these years, I think you've got the history wrong. J.L. Mackie was kicking butt with the problem of evil decades ago, and W. K. Clifford flummoxed Wm. James with his 1879 piece showing that belief w/out evidence is unethical. It's just that those debates remained inside the academy by and large

So as an activity among intellectuals and academics, the active promotion of atheism and criticizing of theism has a long history.

if your question is about the prominence of such discussions in the public and political sphere, then your puzzlement about "what's going on?" seems comically naive.

Perhaps you have missed it over the last few decades, but a particularly virulent, ruthless, and anti-intellectual strain of theological authoritarianism came into political prominence in the 1980s and took over one of the two political parties in our country.

Known as the "moral majority" or "religious right" or "fundamentalist wackos", this group pushed explicitly religious dogma into the public sphere in a way that had not been seen in an English-speaking country since the death of Cromwell.

They passed a lot of bad laws, undermined a lot of good ones, and contributed to the deaths of millions world-wide through their espousal of irrational dogma, most of it flavoured with a strongly sexist, woman-hating tinge, some of it openly flirting with fascist masculinity-worship.

Doubtless we can dispute who fired the first shots in this war. But asking "what's going on" with public atheism without mentioning the explosion in politicized christianism is...well, incomplete.

Posted by william | May 7, 2007 10:00 AM

I think you're missing a lot here. Even though there may have been atheists in the past expressing the fact was risking being ostracized from society or worse.

The work of people like Dawkins, Harris, etc... is in direct response to the increasing influence fundamentalist Christianity is having on the country and the west. They aren't evangelizing, they are pushing back against the tide.

I also disagree with the phrase "evangelizing atheists". By using the word evangelize, you're continuing the fallacy that atheism is just another religious belief. This is often used by theists to ignore facts and say that atheists are just pushing another religious belief.

Finally, you're whole argument (intentional or not) comes across as "why don't these atheists just shut up". You are wrong that it is "contrary to the spirit of non-theism to go around writing books like this". Non-theists believe in rational inquiry and the scientific method. The preposition that a god exists is a statement about the physical world. Would these people be wrong to write books disproving other beliefs such as ghosts, divination, UFO's or anything else? What makes a rational discussion about the existence of god something that shouldn't be discussed? It is actually completely consistent for atheists to write these types of books while living in a society dominated by religion.

Posted by gonzoknife | May 7, 2007 10:03 AM

I also don't undertand Matt's "going about our business" argument?

Why wouldn't people have discussions about religion and God? The problem has always been that believers would testify while atheists would not. That made atheists even more marginalized.

Posted by Gorgle Erf | May 7, 2007 10:07 AM

A better term for folks like Dawkins is "antitheist". This is also a growing phenomenon in Europe. The WSJ recently had an article about an antitheist 'preacher' as it were, who was giving anti-religious sermons to large crowds in France.

Posted by Dave | May 7, 2007 10:11 AM

Several commenters have argued that anti-religion has become more salient in recent years because of the successes that extremist Christianity has recently had in America. I think they're surely right, though I would add that it's not just Christians in America; extremist Muslims, Hindus and Jews in other parts of the world have been up to a lot of no good as well (especially Muslims). But I would add that the project of trying to get rid of religion would be noble and quite urgent even if this were not the case. We have recently seen something of a spike in scary religion, but it has been really scary for a very long time. It has done more damage than anything human beings have ever come up with, and working to shrink its size and power deserves to be a top intellectual priority whether or not we happen to be living in a moment that represents something of an uptick.

Posted by David J. Balan | May 7, 2007 10:14 AM

dsquared,
wrt Hitchens I think he has plenty left to say -- he could fill many lifetimes with apologies for his Iraq war advocacy, for example.

I would take the right wing apprac to this question and ask why at this point is the market demanding these books? I do not know the answer, but I hope it is represents the beginning of a decline in the obviously silly religious beliefs.

Posted by theCoach | May 7, 2007 10:14 AM

I've only read Harris's (rather bad) book of those you list, but for him, and I suspect Hitchens as well, a major impetus is the rise of Islamic terrorism as a major political force. When the debate is over relatively minor issues like teaching ID in the school it is harder to sell books, but terrorism sells. After all, now the conservative atheists (i.e. Mr. Rove types) will buy these books as well.

Other than that I take it that your claim about atheists "going about our business without talking about God," is just clearly false. Sure, many atheists don't talk or write much about God, but then many theists don't either. However, many of the most influential thinkers on twentieth century thought--people like Darwin, Einstein, Marx, and Freud, were atheistic (at least on some construals of atheism) and wrote significantly about God and religion or their ideas were used in understanding religion.

I think the real difference is that the questions being addressed by Dawkins, Harris, et al. (although not Dennett) are basically closed questions in the academy. Few people believe in the literal truth of religious texts in the way these atheists are criticizing in the university, and so it is not an interesting research topic. Sociological, literary, and theological issues are however still very bound up in religion, even when done by avowed atheists.

Posted by Sabina's Hat | May 7, 2007 10:16 AM

by 'apprac', of course, I meant 'vero', which means 'approach'.

Posted by theCoach | May 7, 2007 10:16 AM

I said my piece here

Posted by Freddie | May 7, 2007 10:16 AM

Darwin was not an atheist.

Posted by Freddie | May 7, 2007 10:18 AM

Robert G. Ingersoll spent the second half of the 19th Century doing basically the same thing, although he described himself as an agnostic, not an atheist. Susan Jacoby's "Freethinkers" is pretty good on him. He spent his time attacking religion and, according to wikipediea, was credited with getting rid of blasphemy laws, through his impassioned defense.

In his day, Ingersoll was a much bigger deal than Dawkins is today.

Posted by witless chum | May 7, 2007 10:22 AM

There have long been atheists in the West, especially among the intellentsia

To hear some religious conservatives talk, much of this "atheism" was not atheism at all but rather Deism, which was at the time considered by some to be tantamount to atheism. They may have a point: at one time, Judaism was considered a form of atheism as we denied the pagan deities (and later denied the trinity).

Anyway, though (drifting even further OT), as to the need to "defend" atheism. What need is there? As Dagobert Runes (certainly no atheist) pointed out, if the existance of God were something so obvious and un-deniable, why would societies throughout history feel the need to punish atheists? After all, nobody punishes you for claiming death does not exist ...

But drifting back on topic, perhaps the reason why you hear more from atheists nowadays is that (1) unlike in the past, they won't get into trouble for speaking their mind but (2) they see in which direction we're heading, so they feel the need to speak up now while they still can?

Posted by DAS | May 7, 2007 10:24 AM

When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, religious lunatics didn't have national political power. So it made sense to avoid insulting them. But now, their influence is so dangerous, it's necessary to speak out against all their garbage.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 7, 2007 10:25 AM

I'm going to have to dispute William's characterization of the dispute between Clifford and James (although yes, Mackie's Miracle of Theism is the best book on the traditional arguments for the existence of God).

Clifford's positivism (which came several years before James' pragmatism) is pretty clearly false. I know of no person that could accurately claim to have the kind of epistemological warrant for every belief he or she has that Clifford demands. And to view belief as a moral issue in the way Clifford does is to make the same mistake that the fundamentalists make and use to justify their discriminatory practices.

Posted by Sabina's Hat | May 7, 2007 10:26 AM

"Darwin was not an atheist.

Posted by Freddie | May 7, 2007 10:18 AM"

That was partly just to satisfy his wife, who was very religious, and to attempt to avoid criticisms that his work would destroy god. He said that his work caused him to question his beliefs in god, especially his observations of the tarantula hawk, whose existence and breeding method is so cruel no just and merciful god would create such a being.

It's not like these writings came out of nowhere. Case in point:

"Cannibalism: See the eucharist"

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2007 10:26 AM

On your rash of books by authors pro-actively advocating atheism, which so contradict the traditional spirit of atheism, you forgot to include Feuerbach and Marx.

Posted by Matt Steinglass | May 7, 2007 10:26 AM

On the one hand, Matt, I understand your point about "evangelism" being contrary to the atheist/nontheist (is there really a difference between those words?) agenda. I have long since given up the fervor of my youth where I tried to convince religious friends they were wrong, because every argument ultimately came down to, they had faith, i.e., believed it regardless of any evidence or lack of evidence. Once you've decided that, then rational argument is just not possible; you're don't even have the basic premise of logic in common to build on.

On the other hand, I'm thrilled to see these books being published, mostly because there are no doubt lots of people -- a lot of them young -- who struggle with their lack of religious belief and need someone to tell them, "yes, atheism is a viable and respectable alternative." Much like growing up gay (I'm both, which means I will likely never be elected dogcatcher, even if I wanted), you need someone to tell you, "you're OK, kid" even thought most of the world tells you you're horribly misguided or even evil.

Posted by Glenn | May 7, 2007 10:28 AM

I think it's because of the non-events of Y2K and the fake-Singularity of the dot com bubble, combined with the very real events of September 11th and the War on Terror.

The nineties were obsessed with the future. But the threats and promises of the future remained unfulfilled. Meanwhile, the past is resurging to bite us in the ass. A lot of people refuse to accept this, and have declared war on the past.

Posted by Consumatopia | May 7, 2007 10:29 AM

What. Ever.

This is neither new nor interesting. It's buying into the idea that atheism is, new, aggressive, and on the rise, none of which are actually true. Did Nietzsche only write Thus Spake Zarathustra in an alternate dimension? Anyone ever hear of Epicurus?

Posted by Nick | May 7, 2007 10:34 AM

sabina's hat--

thanks for your note.

Clifford claims that it is morally wrong to hold beliefs on insufficient or inadequate grounds.
you interpret Clifford as requiring such high standards for "sufficiency" or "adequacy" that he winds up ruling out any and every belief that we ordinarily have.

well, that looks like a serious defect in your interpretation of Clifford.

A better reading is that he thought the vast majority of our ordinary beliefs do enjoy the sort of sufficiency and adequacy of grounding that he demands.

Now let's reformulate his point: given *that* standard of adequacy, i.e. the one exemplified by the great mass of our ordinary beliefs, most religious beliefs (esp. the more metaphysical ones) do *not* enjoy sufficient or adequate grounding. And thus, it is unethical to hold them.

No matter where you make the cut-off between ethically tenable levels of justification and ethically untenable levels of justification, most religious beliefs are going to come out way, way worse off. That's all Clifford needs.

(And yes, I was aware that James wrote after Clifford--indeed, after his death. But James' replies are so pathetically feeble that "flummoxed" is a polite way of putting it.)

Posted by william | May 7, 2007 10:40 AM

Matthew Yglesias is part of media and political establishment. Who cares what he has to say about atheism? He is not in a position to think freely about the issues at hand.

Posted by Benny The Bull | May 7, 2007 10:41 AM

Much like growing up gay you need someone to tell you, "you're OK, kid" even thought most of the world tells you you're horribly misguided or even evil.

Bullshit. The notion that being an atheist is anything close to as risky-- emotionally, socially, physically-- as being gay is ridiculous. Look, I don't really believe in god. But this idea that atheists are these courageous truth-tellers is absolute nonsense. There is no threat to Hitches or Dawkins or Dennett or anyone else. No threat whatsoever. It's amazing to me that you are all so quick to celebrate the pretension and self-worship of these people. Do I believe in an old dude with a white beard controlling the universe? No. But I'll take this guy
over the preening self-righteousness of a Richard Dawkins any day.

I don't understand how you can view the appropriation of the worst of religion by the public face of atheism as a cause for celebration.

Posted by Freddie | May 7, 2007 10:43 AM

Sorry, I was being imprecise, Darwin's views on god are notoriously unclear. What seems different to me about the Dawkins, Harris, (and I assume Hitchens) books are that they are primarily addressed against popular religion rather than the intellectual reasons for theism. My point is that non-religous people, such as Darwin, make influential critiques of religion or their ideas are used to do so.

Posted by Sabina's Hat | May 7, 2007 10:45 AM

No, Nick, it's pushback against aggressive religiosity. I've been an atheist my entire life, and can clearly remember, at age 10 in the late 1970s, getting into an argument with some Christian kids in rural Maryland over the origins of the universe. (They felt my statement that the universe "just happened, like electricity" was absurd.) So obviously it doesn't seem "new" to me. But I can entirely sympathize with the motives behind the new atheist explicitness these days. It became extremely clear, over the decade starting 1994 or so, that atheists had become unwelcome in public discourse -- that no atheist at this moment could be elected to public office in the US, and that this was leading people to censor their opinions in public. That's a scary and intimidating position for any minority to be in; as a Jew, when you start to feel like you have to "pass" in public in order to be accepted, you get angry. At some point, a lot of atheists simply got fed up and felt that someone needed to reassert their right to a place at the table. There were organized voices defending the positions of other vulnerable minorities -- gays, racial and ethnic minorities, religious groups, etc. -- at the table. Atheists had nothing similar. The reaction makes a lot of sense.

Posted by Matt Steinglass | May 7, 2007 10:50 AM

The whole strength of the non-theistic intellectual enterprise over the years has simply been to go about our business without talking about God.

Well, when we can no longer go about our business or live our lives without having to take "God" or whatever superstition is currently distorting godless activities (embryonic stem cell research, for instance), it would seem we're compelled to exert some pushback.

Posted by Doug Bostrom | May 7, 2007 10:52 AM

This blog doesn't allow links?

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 10:53 AM

I strongly doubt the existence of God, making me basically an atheist (or an agnostic, depending on definition).

I have to say, though, that there is one group of people whose views I really don't understand: those atheists who claim that they either don't care about the existence of an immortal soul (or some sort of existence beyond death), or that they actually prefer the idea that existence ends with death.

Personally, I don't really care whether God exists or not. But, I do care whether I will exist in some form after I die. Its the basic self-preservation instinct. Life is good. Why would I want it to end?

These are big questions. So, I don't share Matt's view that the default for atheists, or anyone, should be to go about their business without raising questions about these things.

Posted by Jim W | May 7, 2007 10:58 AM

(Let's try this with just one link at a time.)

I think this *is* new and interesting. I think it has something to do with the Internet, which has a very Voltaire-ish set of users and it's easy to publish work for a select audience. And it has something to do with recent history, where religion has not flattered itself (9/11, the religious right, etc.)

This program by Bill Moyers did a good job of putting it in perspective (although there is no talk about the Internet factor, which I think is important):

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05042007/profile3.html

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 10:58 AM

The thing is that the New Atheists often operate in an echo chamber and stir each other up. See Cass Sunstein on this:

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//005507.html

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 10:59 AM

I think political blogger Barbara O'Brien had a good rundown on the whole issue here:

http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/04/richard-dawkins-and-fundamentalist-atheism

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 11:00 AM

Why these books? I would say because there are 80 million Christians in this country that fervently believe that non-believers are destined to burn in hell. The value they place on these living non-believing human beings is proportionate to the value they ascribe to those that burn in hell. Its the inevitable push-back to irrationalism, and pulling-back-the-curtain on the hate and intolerance that is the underpinning of some who chose the most literal, fundamental and radical interpretations of their religious text (be it the Koran or the Bible, or something else).

Posted by Palooza | May 7, 2007 11:00 AM

The notion that being an atheist is anything close to as risky-- emotionally, socially, physically-- as being gay is ridiculous.

I'd bet there are more openly gay members of Congress than there are confessed atheists. In any case, who cares whether it's "as risky as being gay"? There are, what, 5,000 titles published every year in the US about being gay, and say 10 feature films, 5 with national releases? Atheists would be happy with 1/100th of that attention.

More broadly, this is only partly about being a group that's been excluded from an increasingly sanctimonious public discourse for the past decade. It's more importantly a response to an all-embracing war against reason and evidence conducted by the religious right. The effort to exclude atheism from the public sphere is part and parcel of a broader theocratic attack on science, reason, skepticism, and the rule of law. No effort to roll back that anti-rational crusade can succeed without a campaign to relegitimize atheism as part of the public sphere.

Posted by Matt Steinglass | May 7, 2007 11:01 AM

Religion, and the underlying psychological traits that lead to it, seems to be such an ingrained part of human nature that it is useless to ask if we'd be better off without it.

This is not at all clear; indeed, it is hotly contested in sociology circles. See, for example, Paul and Zuckerman's "Why the Gods Are Not Winning" ( http://tinyurl.com/2cbbg8 ).

The data are profuse that when you (1) increase the educational level and (2) provide a strong economic safety net (including health care) in a society, traditional religion dies. Predictably and consistently. Starved of its necessary preconditions--ignorance and fear--society-wide manifestations of supernaturalism wither on the vine. That process has been going on for a couple of centuries now in a substantial fraction of the world (Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Taiwan...), and there's really nothing anyone can do about it.

It is, I think, well established that the only "underlying psychological trait" that is relevant to the success of supernaturalist-religious systems is that we humans are all born ignorant and afraid. Societies that manage to alleviate those problems (and for the first time ever, there are now several parts of the world where that really is happening) show no "underlying psychological" propensity for supernaturalism whatever.

Posted by Rieux | May 7, 2007 11:02 AM

What's potentially dangerous is that New Atheism is emerging as another form of Identity Politics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

It could get devisive, which I don't think is good for other things we want to accomplish having to do with reason, science, rule of law, etc.

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 11:04 AM

Oh gawd.

Matthew, you are just as wrong in your critique of the critics in this case as you were in the lead up to the Iraq war, and for many of the same Chait-ian reasons. I thought you had learned your lesson.

Vigorously speaking out against the core values of an aggressively authoritarian religious movement is not "evangelizing", and it is intellectually sloppy and just plain irresponsible to advance such an equivalence.

I am not an atheist, but I have become radicalized in my anti-religious views. Which is to say, I have moved from my formerly lazy soft liberal "open-minded" position to one more in line with many of our founding fathers'. Yes, I too find Harris and Dawkins tiresome at times. But their voices are also necessary.

Mounting effective narratives and arguments against ideologies that claim absolute temporal authority is of obvious and crucial importance to our Republic--all the more so when the claim is based on "absolute truths" contained in supposed automatic writings inspired by mysterious deities. And such counter arguments cannot and should not be limited to the boarding-school debate club style that seems to be so favored by self-styled voices of moderation.

Matthew, haven't you learned yet that you cannot stay above the fray?

Posted by mondo dentro | May 7, 2007 11:05 AM

Rieux,

You're right. I wrote that passage hastily, and didn't really mean to make such a strong statement. It actually is an interesting question if we'd be better off with fewer and fewer people believing in religion. There are pros and cons, and I honestly don't know what the answer is.

My basic point is that I'm personally much more interested in philosophical and scientific debates about the intellectual justification for religion, and the phychological propensity for religiousness than I am in the social outcomes.

I am particularly repelled by any arguments on either side that advocate we should believe one way or another BASED ON what the social outcomes are. I say we should just aim for the truth as best we can, and let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by Jim W | May 7, 2007 11:08 AM

I've got a theory that the Internet is playing a similar role that widespread publishing played during the Enlightenment. Take for example, the text "The Treatise of the Three Impostors:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treatise_of_the_Three_Impostors

For the first time people could easily circulate texts and ideas that you couldn't before.

But I think what people don't realize, is that we're not purely rational beings. And people will want transcendent ways of thinking no matter what you do. That was true during the Enlightenment, it's true today:

http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-11

So I think the people who are pushing so hard for atheist identity politics are being a bit foolish. It's fine if you're an atheist. But if you operate in such a bubble at rant about everyone else, there's going to be a backlash at some point.

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 11:13 AM

Since fundamentalists are attacking evolution, isn't it fair play that an evolution scientist like Dawkins fights back?

With fundamentalist and evangelical religions on the rise, and due to their hostility to science, and furthermore due to their repeated attempts to legislate their religions into the cirriculum of our secular public schools, don't you consider it important that public intellectuals who are also atheists try to mount resistance to and refutation of religious philosophies?

Calling a scientist like Dawkins an evangelizing atheist is a crock. Most scientists do not possess a Manichean view of reality, and most certainly do not carry themselves with religious certainty on any idea they hold. Religions strip doubt from the dialogue by default and try to create a dictatorship of certainty on all ideas within (and sometimes outside) their dogma, while scientists consider doubt one of their strongest intellectual tools.

To some of us, religion--any religion--is awful. Furthermore, some religions need to be debunked or examined rationally, simply because these religions are so adamantly attacking reason, science, and modernity.

Posted by mat | May 7, 2007 11:16 AM

It could get devisive...

It could get divisive? Are you kidding me?

It has always been divisive. Maybe, like me, when you first saw guys like Falwell on the scene you were just feeling above all of that "foolishness". Surely, no serious person is going to listen to the likes of them!

When someone says that it is impossible to be a moral person because you don't believe in their particular sky-god story, that is pretty damn divisive. When someone says that they have a right to control your sexuality because god says they can, that is divisive. When someone says that it is morally wrong to seek peace in the Mid East, rectify income inequality, or address looming environmental dangers because it goes against their sacred texts, that is DIVISIVE.

And failure to respond these claims is not tolerant, high-minded, or moderate--it is irresponsible to our children and our country.

Posted by mondo dentro | May 7, 2007 11:21 AM

Calling a scientist like Dawkins an evangelizing atheist is a crock. Most scientists do not possess a Manichean view of reality, and most certainly do not carry themselves with religious certainty on any idea they hold

Have you ever actually seen a TV interview with Dawkins? Did you read his latest book?

Posted by Freddie | May 7, 2007 11:22 AM

"It could get divisive? Are you kidding me?"

Yes, it *is* divisive. But who is going to be the adults in the room? I don't think the fundamentalist atheists that Barbara O'Brien describes look like adults.

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 11:23 AM

I've read a bit of Dawkin's writings, and he is a lucid, subtle thinker. So, I agree that describing him as some sort of boorish crank is completely off the mark.

I don't have quite the same high opinion of Dennett. Dennett, like the Churchlands, seems to be one of those people who elide the mystery of consciousness by basically denying its existence, or at least denying that there is any mystery to begin with.

As for Hitchens and Rove...if they're both atheists...well, maybe I should reconsider. Mabye there is a God after all?

Posted by Jim W | May 7, 2007 11:24 AM

But who is going to be the adults in the room?

I don't think "being an adult" means letting yourself get steam-rolled. Sometimes, controlling the knot in your stomach that conflict brings is exactly what is required of us as adults.

Why is it wrong to question the very foundation of religious belief? Why is that not "adult"? The religious right is questioning the very core of western post-enlightenment thinking (including science) and is doing so with the expressly stated agenda of overturning it and replacing it with what can only be called a neo-medievalist worldview.

Is it "adult" to just give them a free pass?

Posted by mondo dentro | May 7, 2007 11:32 AM

Being an adult means that you don't let jerks draw you into a discussion in such a way that makes you look like a jerk too.

I heard a saying the other day that I thought was good: never wrestle a pig. Because in the end you'll be covered in mud, and the pig likes it.

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 11:36 AM

william,

Faith exists outside of theism so your point is not quite relevant, but ...

So Clifford flummoxed James, hmmm? I heartily disagree. James essay "The Will to Believe" was seen as a response, eighteen years after, to Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief".

James writes, "I have long defended to my own students the lawfulness of voluntarily adopted faith; but as soon as they have got well imbued with the logical spirit, they have as a rule refused to admit my contention to be lawful philosophically, even though in point of fact they were personally all the time chock-full of some faith or other themselves."

All rationalism can do at it's best, is to extend a set of postulates. The postulates themselves depend on faith and the system of rationalism itself only covers a narrow band of possibilities.

Godel proved with his incompleteness theorem that no matter how many postulates (faith) a system has it cannot be made comprehensive enough to address all possibilities. These occasions, which lie outside of the power of rationalism, are those occasions where James' points out that we must use faith.

James kicked Cliffords ass!

Rationalism does not replace faith. All rational systems are built on faith and leave vast areas for decisions that cannot be resolved by faith alone.

Posted by GPS | May 7, 2007 11:38 AM

While it may be turning into an issue of identity politics, I'm not sure its the atheists doing it. It might just be the people who go around tossing out labels like "Atheist Fundamentalists" or "Evangelical Atheists," in what sure appears to be an attempt at turning atheism into just another point of view on matters religious.

Posted by Patrick | May 7, 2007 11:42 AM

Have you ever actually seen a TV interview with Dawkins? Did you read his latest book?

You’re kidding, right? I should ask if you have read any of his books.

I happen to have a copy of The Ancestor's Tale on my desk right now, and as I flip through its pages, randomly reading blocks of text Dawkins wrote, I find no absolutist language or even any "evangelizing" type words or phrases to promote his scientific ideas.

Dawkins sometimes goes way out of his way to continually remind his readers of the highly provisional status of every scientific idea he expresses in his works. Nothing he promotes about evolution science gets an imprimatur-like stamp of absolute finality. If he did promote science in that manner, he'd be laughed out of the scientific community.

Posted by mat | May 7, 2007 11:43 AM

Oops! last sentence should end:

"decisions that cannot be resolved by REASON alone."

Posted by GPS | May 7, 2007 11:44 AM

Being an adult means that you don't let jerks draw you into a discussion in such a way that makes you look like a jerk too.

Sound advice, exactly of the type I gave my children when telling them how to deal with assholes at school.

But you are confusing a garden-variety jerk problem with an existential threat at the cultural/societal level. These are not just jerks. This is a well-funded highly organized political movement with both exoteric and esoteric agendas. They are changing our schools and affecting our foreign policy. They are impacting our health care system and our research priorities. Fight back or be absorbed.

How does extremism take control of a country? I would submit that at least in part it happens because those articulate enough to have had an impact on public opinion held themselves out of the debate until too late, often because they didn't want to be seen to be arguing with "jerks".

Posted by mondo dentro | May 7, 2007 11:46 AM

"just another point of view on matters religious."

The whole point of O'Brien's post is that there *is* a particular point of view being argued. It has a very specific philosophic view. Daniel Dennett's philosophical arguments are not a "game over" arguments, although he'd like you to think that. Why Dawkins and Dennett, and why not Isaiah Berlin and Charles Taylor, as this Alternet blog post argues? (although he does a sloppy job explaining Berlin):

http://alternet.org/blogs/video/42125/

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 11:48 AM

If religion would/could have refrained from making empirical claims, Dennett, and probably Dawkins as well, wouldn't have had such a big issue with it.

It is relevant to keep track of who broke into who's house. Hell - even Kant was aware of the relevance of this.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | May 7, 2007 11:50 AM

Have you ever actually seen a TV interview with Dawkins? Did you read his latest book?

Oh, to answer that question: yes on both accounts.

And I still don't get your point.

Posted by mat | May 7, 2007 11:52 AM

The notion that being an atheist is anything close to as risky-- emotionally, socially, physically-- as being gay is ridiculous.

Never said it was, and I certainly don't think so. It took me a lot longer to come out as gay than it did to assert my atheism (others may have had a different experience). My only point was that in both cases, it was a struggle to assert my identity, if you will, in the face of overwhelming disapproval, and unless you're possessed of extraordinary self-confidence, it helps to have prominent figures telling you it's all right to be gay, atheist, whatever. For me as an atheist, it was actually Ayn Rand, and although I have long since jettisoned my adherence to her philosophy, I still appreciate the fact that her books gave me the courage to assert my atheism as a teenager.

Posted by Glenn | May 7, 2007 11:54 AM

I agree about fighting back. The point is to do it in a way that *advances* the things, really, the cultural traditions, that we care about: reason, science, the rule of law.

I just don't think atheist identity politics is a good way to do this. One of the good things about the Enlightenment, is that everyone was able to get along with each other, despite the fact that you had Quakers and Anglicans with deep differences trying to hammer things out together side by side. Getting hysterical about *any* type of religious life is really not in this spirit.

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 11:58 AM

I'm an atheist and don't much care what people believe in so long as they don't foist their beliefs on me. That is not the case anymore and this pushback from us typically quiet atheists is in response to the pervasiveness of religion in public life today.

I believe religious people are mentally ill and/or insanely stupid - not the people who believe in God, but the people who follow any specific church; it takes the intellect of a 5th grader to shoot holes in nearly every religions' doctrine and dogma. Most are harmless, and good people, but it's without question that much death and sorrow is inflicted upon our world in the name of religion. It's no coincidence that the Dark Ages was a time of great ascendancy for Christianity.

Posted by adam | May 7, 2007 11:58 AM

The notion that being an atheist is anything close to as risky-- emotionally, socially, physically-- as being gay is ridiculous.

I dunno about that...I was raised in a strict Catholic home and educated in Catholic schools. In my second grade catechism class I expressed serious doubt about the "Holy Trinity" and how ridiculous a notion it sounded to me. I recall being on the receiving end of a beating by the nun teaching the class, and then getting my ass further whipped at home for being a "smart aleck."

Posted by mat | May 7, 2007 12:02 PM

Yeah, getting spanked as a child is clearly analogous to being beaten to death for being gay.

Posted by Freddie | May 7, 2007 12:05 PM

Re: The data are profuse that when you (1) increase the educational level and (2) provide a strong economic safety net (including health care) in a society, traditional religion dies.

Traditional religion, maybe. But what about new forms of religiosity? Sure, the cathedrals of Europe may be empty, but the bookstores are full of New Age tomes concerning reincarnation, psychic phenomena, astrology and the like. Plus new religious movements (e..g, neo-Paganism) spontaneously generate as well.

Re: Why is it wrong to question the very foundation of religious belief?

It isn't. But if your goal is to attack and vanquish the Religious Right then why mount an attack against all religion? That's as foolish (maybe more so) as our country attacking Iraq as a response to 9-11.

Posted by JonF | May 7, 2007 12:23 PM

I think political blogger Barbara O'Brien had a good rundown on the whole issue here:

http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/04/richard-dawkins-and-fundamentalist-atheism

There's a lot not to like about "The God Delusion" (even though there's a lot to like about all Dawkins' other books), but O'Brien's rundown was pretty weak. All the critiques on Dawkins were all on one of two ridiculous ideas--that you can't argue against angels without knowing how many dance on the head of a pin, and that you have to argue against every possible meaning of the word "God" to argue against any meaning of "God".

Posted by Consumatopia | May 7, 2007 12:40 PM

I just don't think atheist identity politics is a good way to do this.

I'm with you there, jj. However, I don't like identity politics in general. Why single out atheists?

Furthermore, I don't think Matthew's post really was about the problem of identity politics. It was about labeling critics of god-based values systems as "evangelists", which is what pushed my buttons.

Posted by mondo dentro | May 7, 2007 12:45 PM

Bertrand Russell? H.L. Mencken?

Posted by Tom Ames | May 7, 2007 12:54 PM

Congressman Pete Stark for a Sucka-Free America:

"I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social service."

Posted by sangfroid826 | May 7, 2007 12:59 PM

The "new athiests" is an internet-based phenomena. Sites like Reddit have a lot of new atheist posts. The internet allows people to find, read and promote articles and comments that they like.

Posted by joeo | May 7, 2007 1:00 PM

Radical Religion is the center of the storm nowadays. 9/11 is a great argument for being a non-believer.

Relevance...note that nearly every time atheism is the subject, comments explode.

Posted by judson | May 7, 2007 1:01 PM

Question: how new, exactly, is the whole Religious Right thing? America is a more religious country than, say, most of Western Europe, but it always has been, every step of the way*. I'm inclined to agree with the people saying that "evangelizing atheists" do what they do in response to the politicization of religion, but you know, Prohibition wasn't all that long ago.

Is the unified, partisan nature of politicized religion* genuinely new even though politicized religion isn't? Was there a lull of politicized religion for some unspecified period which ended in the 1980s? Has politicized religion been slowly but steadily declining all along, and it's just recently that it got weak enough that these books were "safe"**?

* Political religion? Religious politics? Theocracy? Far-more-egregious-than-usual pandering to Godbotherers?

** For a given value of "safe." As others have pointed out, there have been plenty of books written about or based on atheism, but it sounds like the recent crop are different. And for that matter, for a given value of "weak."

Posted by Cyrus | May 7, 2007 1:02 PM

Yeah, getting spanked as a child is clearly analogous to being beaten to death for being gay.

It's really only a difference in degree, not in kind (i.e., use of force to eliminate "undesirable" behavior). So yes, it is analogous. Unless analogous doesn't mean what I think it means.

Posted by DMonteith | May 7, 2007 1:02 PM

You say these people are trying to get you to learn about "angels on the head of a pin", they say you are being a cognitive miser:

http://www.scottsdalecc.edu/ricker/psy101/readings/definitions/cognitive_miser.html

which was Terry Eagleton's take on Dawkins:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

So who wins? As Terry Eagleton says, there's a double standard. Dawkins is mad because some religious people won't take the time to learn about evolution (which is true), but Dawkins won't take the time to study the subject he's taking on.

I suspect that this issue is not going to be resolved any time soon. In the mean time, isn't there some work to be done? Like get people to be scientifically literate, and be critical thinkers? That might not get done if you're busy insulting their religious traditions.

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 1:03 PM

And here is a post by David Weinberger, who had a similar take on Dawkins:

http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/i_dont_believe_in_richard_dawk.html

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 1:04 PM

It was about labeling critics of god-based values systems as "evangelists", which is what pushed my buttons.

Certainly. The word Mat wants is "proselytizing". Evangelism comes from a Greek word meaning "from angels"; it specifically and narrowly refers to spreading the word of the Gospels.

Posted by Nick | May 7, 2007 1:04 PM

Yeah, getting spanked as a child is clearly analogous to being beaten to death for being gay.

And yet here you are, alive, to tell the tale of being beaten to death? I am confused. Did this happen to you or are you being juuuussst a little dramatic here.

I think being ostracized, abused, and belittled by my church, my peers, and my family for holding an opposing view of religion is, YES, analogous. I guess to use some scientific measure of psychic pain for being ostracized and abused for being an outspoken atheist in a devoutly Christian community, and comparing that to the psychic pain from growing up gay, could prove you correct.

But your kind of hyerpventilating, finger-wagging contempt and use of hyperbole certainly doesn't work.

And just so you know, even these days people DO get killed for holding controversial views, perhaps in greater numbers than this rampant "gay killing" of which you speak.

Posted by mat | May 7, 2007 1:06 PM

Does anyone else think that Hitchens's new attack on religion is in fact motivated by the Iraq situation? I saw him on Charlie Rose discussing his new book, and it left me with the strong opinion that he is being so vociferously anti-relgious because blaming the failure of Iraq on religious conflict allows him to avoid questioning his support of the war and the foreign policy beliefs that led to it. He said something along the lines of, "George Bush didn't lose Iraq. Iraq was lost because of religious conflict, Sunni-Shia conflict." While this is at least partially true, his words and especially the tone lead me to believe that he is so angry about how Iraq has turned out that he found a way to shift blame and avoid introspection by putting the blame solely on religion, resulting in the book.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | May 7, 2007 1:08 PM

I am not really happy that I cannot believe that there is some entity that cares about me and will preserve forever something about me more personal than a bunch of disbursed molecules. I don’t really find myself wanting to evangelize for my lack of a belief in the existence of God. However, there are good reasons for not letting claims of legitimacy for the civil authority of the divine to go unanswered. Atheists necessarily believe that the ways in which we organize ourselves in societies are the business of humans. We work out the laws and customs that make life orderly and predictable enough for most people to navigate their lives as if the outcome of a given action is acceptably reliable. Atheists, bearing no burden of guilt over their mortal deviation from the divine path, have a leg up in the acceptance of the secular nature of the human societal endeavor that a pluralistic and democratic society requires. It may feel like a bargain with the devil to some, but all must finally submit to the imperfect and compromised nature of laws and customs that can be successfully negotiated with others of differing views and interests. No one can be asked to give up the beliefs that define their own morality, but each must give up the idea of compelling others to live in an earthly society that is trying to be the image of what he believes awaits him in the afterlife. Each must rise to the individual challenge of living a moral life in an impure world. Constraints on behavior in the service of a religious belief should be on oneself (and I suppose fellow believers). That seems a noble and difficult enough task for anyone without trying to impose those constraints on non-subscribers.

Posted by jedermann | May 7, 2007 1:13 PM

Mitch: While Hitchens may be motivated internally by a desire to explain away the failure of the Iraq war, he has a long history of holding (indeed, loudly holding) the views espoused in his book.

Posted by Patrick | May 7, 2007 1:18 PM

"he has a long history of holding (indeed, loudly holding) the views espoused in his book."

Yes, ever since his upper crust Oxford days studying Trotsky. I think he comes across as a bit patrician toward us supposedly unsophisticated Yankees...

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 1:22 PM

Not talking about God in the public fora is secularism, not atheism per se. I generally don't talk about God in my historical writing (unless I'm examining what 18th century British people thought about God), but I'm not an atheist (I'm a Catholic.)

Basically, in my own experience, you get the same split among atheists as you do among various religious groups--recent converts feel the urge to go out and shove their ideas down other people's throats, whereas those raised in it generally just want to avoid fights over it, as they know arguing over religion rarely convinces those most firm in their beliefs.

I know an atheist couple who illustrate this well. The guy was raised in an irreligious family, and he's pretty mellow about religion, whereas his wife, who was raised Baptist, then became an atheist under his influence bites people's face off if they so much as say 'God Bless You' when she sneezes.

As for why so many now...you just happened to notice. There's always a fair amount of stuff which attacks religion being published, but it's not always as high profile as the ones you point to.

Posted by John Biles | May 7, 2007 1:26 PM

Question: how new, exactly, is the whole Religious Right thing? America is a more religious country than, say, most of Western Europe, but it always has been, every step of the way. - Cyrus

Except, historically, those religious folks who were most engaged with politics were post-millenialist Protestants who, up until the rise of Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism and related movements, were by and large economic, if not exactly social, liberals (and much of their social conservatism was a reflection of their economic liberalism -- i.e. the arguments to which righty-tighties now-adays pay lip service, e.g. about social ills being hard on the poor, old-fashioned post-millenialists actually, sincerely believed) ... and religious conservatives, even if they were also economic conservatives (to the extent that they felt the current world order was so corrupt, there was no point in changing it and no point in doing anything but accepting the economic status quo), were so willing to accept whatever was the status quo, they were politically in-active.

What's changed is that (1) post-millenialist Christianity has beceome quite reactionary and (2) pre-millenialists have become more politically engaged, for a variety of reasons, which have been discussed at length in the religious quarters of left blogostan.

So yes, while the religious right has antecedents (some of which were very much part of the Enlightenment to which certain liberals give too much credit), to the extent that there is anything new under the sun, the organized, religious right (note the phrase -- organized, religious and right-wing) is a new phenomenon in this country, although many of the parts are indeed as old or older than this country itself.

Posted by DAS | May 7, 2007 1:41 PM

An interesting thing I heard about German Christians is that the more churchgoing they are, the more likely their politics will lean left instead of right. (Wish I had a link about that...)

Posted by JJ | May 7, 2007 1:47 PM

Moi:
Re: The data are profuse that when you (1) increase the educational level and (2) provide a strong economic safety net (including health care) in a society, traditional religion dies.

JonF:
Traditional religion, maybe. But what about new forms of religiosity?

What about them? They're demographically tiny and usually severely ephemeral. They neither last long nor spread widely. As Paul and Zuckerman note ( http://tinyurl.com/2cbbg8 ):

Once rivaling Christianit