With Friends Like These

Damon Linker has a great essay in The New Republic on the so-called "new atheism" and the ways in which it undermines the vision of a secular politics that it purports to defend:

Still, the rise of the new atheists is cause for concern--not among the targets of their anger, who can rest secure in the knowledge that the ranks of the religious will, here in America, dwarf the ranks of atheists for the foreseeable future; but rather among those for whom the defense of secular liberalism is a high political priority. Of course, many of these secular liberals are probably the same people who propelled Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens onto the best-seller lists by purchasing their books en masse--people who are worried about the dual threats to secular politics posed by militant Islam and the American religious right. These people are correct to be nervous about the future of secular liberalism, to perceive that it needs passionate, eloquent defenders. The problem is that the rhetoric of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens will undermine liberalism, not bolster it: Far from shoring up the secular political tradition, their arguments are likely to produce a country poised precariously between opposite forms of illiberalism.

Yes indeed. In a raw power struggle between people who, like Harris, want public schools "announce the death of God" and those who want them to indoctrinate us all in the Gospel, the numbers aren't on the side of the non-believers and the outcome is unlikely to be a happy one for anyone. The liberal consensus, by contrast, has served the country well and undermining it from the point of view of ideological atheism is really no better than undermining it from any other direction.

Comments

Yep. Those militant atheists are a serious threat. It's ridiculous for atheists to expect to have their beliefs respected. Arguing that God will eternally torture Matt Yglesias in hell for being a Jew is all good stuff. Arguing that this will not happen because god and hell do not exist is just obnoxious.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 17, 2007 1:26 PM

Religion is the root of all evil. Accepting death means the end of everything you've ever known, the snuffing of your consciousness, is the first step towards rational, humane treatment of your fellow man.

Posted by steve duncan | December 17, 2007 1:27 PM

Most of these writers are English and do not need to suppress what they genuinely believe for fear of arousing the wrath of the righteous wingnuts. Are you arguing that English scientists should suppress what they believe because if they don't the crazed fundies will take over the US? Yeah, that's worked well so far.

I for one was appalled by the funeral of John Paul II, which was treated by the media as the passing of a superior being blessed with superhuman wisdom and goodness. It wouldn't have hurt to have just one voice point out that this fellow protected and protested child molesters while causing untold misery by working ceaselessly to deprive poor women around the world of birth control. Or that the church under him actively intervened and may have determined the outcome of a US presidential election.

And the funeral of Jerry Falwell was not much better. If it takes an atheist to call Falwell a charletan, then we need more atheists in the public sphere.

Posted by Bloix | December 17, 2007 1:28 PM

I don't know about you, but they still read the pledge of allegiance every day over the loud speaker at the high-school I went to, and constitutional rights be damned, when I was a student I was told by more than one teacher that I "had" to stand up for it out of respect.

The fact is, there is no liberal consensus about religion in this country, atheists are made to feel like outcasts in public institutions, and if it is unfortunate that they have become radicalized, it is not very surprising.

Posted by Sam L. | December 17, 2007 1:30 PM

If schools are doing their job, they won't need to "announce the death of God". God died because of the enlightenment and scientific progress and the advancement of the state of human understanding of the workings of the universe.

Schools need only teach good science and good philosophy, and students will draw their own conclusions.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 17, 2007 1:34 PM

I always see Dawkins and Hitchens talked about as if they were somehow similar in their approaches to promoting atheism, and that's really not fair to Dawkins.

Hitchens is little more than an angry religious zealot. He may be an atheist, but he's still pure, unadulterated, religious-style faith behind that anger. This comes through loud and clear whenever Hitchens veers off topic from a generalized criticism of theism and religion to criticisms of specific religions or topics not touching on religion at all. As an atheist myself, Hitchens seems a total nutter who happens to accidentally be right about god. Hitchens is to god as Ron Paul is to the Iraq war.

Dawkins is simply not comparable to Hitchens. Dawkins would leave religion alone if its effects weren't so broadly externalized beyond the individual believer; Hitchens would cry jihad against even the most private of theisms. Dawkins is somewhat angry about religion but generally reasonable about all things including religion; Hitchens is over-the-top angry about religion and reasonable about nothing including religion.

Dawkins is, of course, a first rate scientist, and he approaches religion from a scientific point of view; Hitchens is a particularly scientifically illiterate journalist and literary critic who wouldn't know science or a reasonable argument if it bit him on the ass.

Posted by R Johnston | December 17, 2007 1:35 PM

I think that we're going to see some changes in this 'new atheism,' or rather, 'newly assertive non-theism', as it broadens from being led by a few cranky individuals to a lot more people who may be less invested in demonstrating their own personal contrarianism and more interested in showing that they're simply fed up with having their sensible outlook dismissed by many in the public and private sphere.

Posted by El Cid | December 17, 2007 1:36 PM

I got halfway through that TNR before I gave up. Guy just couldn't get to the point.

Do we have to be nice to people who believe in pixies and crystals too?

Good post R Johnston.

Posted by Chris M | December 17, 2007 1:37 PM

I must say, giving resolute secular voters a little breathing room doesn't seem the worst outcome. There's something incompatible about the incessant demands that Democrats "grow a set," "grow a spine" etc. and now this squeamishness in the face of actual liberal forthrightness. Excesses in the rhetoric of atheists are like any other -- excesses -- but if we want to build a truly liberal nation, that's going to be part of the mix. In other words, clamping down on it now is one way to guarantee that it won't happen. I overstate, perhaps, but there's something to it.

Posted by Martin | December 17, 2007 1:39 PM

i don't always agree with yglesias, but at least he usually makes sense. but his jihad against the so-called "new atheists" makes no sense.

first, there's nothing "new" about them. there have been assertive atheists for quite a long time. look at marx, or bertram russell's "why i am not a christian". what we're seeing now is nothing all that original, at least not in the modern era.

and second, what does yglesias think atheists are supposed to do? just shut up and keep their atheisim to themselves? why can't atheists talk about their beliefs (or lack thereof) like everyone else? and how does getting atheists to not discuss their beliefs undermine liberalism?

yglesias is on this anti-new atheist kick and he seems to have lost his otherwise sensible self in the process.

Posted by upyernoz | December 17, 2007 1:46 PM

don't rock the boat. stay in your place and quietly accept the fact that you are second-class citizens for not Believing. enjoy the grudging tolerance Believers have for you and your wicked hell-bound atheistic ways.

Posted by cleek | December 17, 2007 1:46 PM

What R Johnston said.

I haven't read "The God Delusion", but I did read a long essay by Dawkins in which he makes the philosophical case that there is a low likelihood of the existence of a Divine Being. I thought it was very well argued. All his premises were put forth clearly, and the argument was lucid and convincing. And, anyone who has read "The Ancestor's Tale" knows that he is a great science writer.

Its possible that Dawkins political views are not as sound. That's true of a lot of scientists: they are often naive when it comes to politics.

Hitchens, on the other hand, is just a gasbag.

I respect Dennet, a philosopher who has written quite a bit about consciousness, but based on those writings I believe he is a little too literal-minded and lacking in imagination. He doesn't really seem to grasp how fundamentally un-understandable consciousness is.

Regarding all these people, I think you have to distinguish their arguments about the existence of God from their arguments about what our public policy toward religion should be. I'm totally sympathetic to writings that argue in favor of atheism. I'm not too sympathetic to public policies that involve intolerance toward religion, if that is in fact what any of them are supporting.

Posted by Jim W | December 17, 2007 1:48 PM

Oh good grief. The "liberal consensus" hasn't served the country that well. What has served the country well is the initial condition and persisting tendency towards the separation of church and state.

When did an atheist insist that the schools announce "the death of God"? This is the sort of writing that should see the perpetrator banned from the 7th grade honors class, not published in a national magazine or subsequently cited in blog.

On the other hand, we see the very clear consequences of entirely too much religion in our schools- a dumb-as-bread populace that barely beats a tossed coin in deciding which side of the country the Pacific Ocean is on.

Maybe Matt should discuss this with a rabbi. Or take a close look at Israel.

Posted by serial catowner | December 17, 2007 2:02 PM

Reading the broadsides against the "new atheists," I'm often left to conclude that their critics either didn't read their books or failed to totally comprehend their arguments.

For example, anyone who read God Is Not Great should recognize that Hitchens, while vociferous in calling religion what it is -- claptrap-- insists on polite treatment of the religious individual. He, and none of his "new atheist" colleagues, never call for the abolishment of religion by fiat or government power, or the disenfranchisement of the religious. Mocking someone's belief in the public square is not tantamount to trying to stifle them.

Clearly, these critics -- and unfortunately Matthew appears prey to this as well -- are missing the details of the argument for the vociferous language it is presented in. This is indeed a flaw, and one that as an atheist myself I have pointed out repeatedly, but it's not the same as illiberal oppression.

Posted by James F. Elliott | December 17, 2007 2:09 PM

I can't get elected to fucking dogcatcher as an atheist.

I'm automatically reviled by a significant portion of this country.

And I'm the one who's gotta learn toleration?

Fuck that. Fuck your myths. Fuck the abusive indoctrination of your defenseless children.

And fuck MY for perpetuating this useless pushback against a movement that's sorely needed.

Posted by ethan salto | December 17, 2007 2:13 PM

The liberal consensus, by contrast, has served the country well and undermining it from the point of view of ideological atheism is really no better than undermining it from any other direction.

That's a little bit of a stretch, I think. In the past 8 years we've seen a massive roll-back of secular pluralism and the secular protections against religious oppression, and it hasn't been at the hands of atheists - "new", or any other kind - it's been at the hands of religious moderates simply ceding the ground to their co-religionists.

The new atheism doesn't undermine to the secular wall between government and religion; it's a stronger prop than anything religious moderation brings to bear.

Posted by Chet | December 17, 2007 2:20 PM

I do think my fellow atheists could clean up their language a bit...

Posted by Jim W | December 17, 2007 2:20 PM

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out, but the public tension about keeping atheistic views hidden is precisely the kind of cultural 'taboo-ish' sort of thing which is fought by direct and individual defiance.

That's why part of this debate seems so cranky, and why these 'new' public figures emphasizing it seem so divisive.

That's what happens when there's a set of unwritten but largely accepted cultural prejudices and people start refusing to follow them.

This is not the kind of issue which is really focused on some sort of new legislation, or the need for some new institution, or something like that.

It's one of those cultural things that people just need to start saying, 'No, I'm not going along with that anymore, and my views are actually the more reasonable ones.'

That's the kind of individual-level cultural defiance which right wing religionists feel is their sole preserve. Only they get to bitch and moan about how the NYT doesn't condemn homosexuals to death and hell like they might prefer. Only they get to cry to the heavens that the Statue of Liberty isn't dressed up as Mother Mary with Baby Jesus once a year.

So given that this is an argument that individuals begin publicly asserting their own atheism, or non-theism (I'm not sure there isn't a God, but there certainly is no evidence for one either, and surely if there is one it's not a lunatic who prefers we think irrationally), a certain crankiness is required.

The crop of authors mentioned are the ones who step out in front of the crowd, and so are sensibly the sorts of cranky individualists more willing to do so.

Posted by El Cid | December 17, 2007 2:23 PM

Worst. Post. Ever.

Wow, what a crock of shit. Be committed to rationalism, and watch the "I'm so reasonable" Broders and Yglesiases of the world turn.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 17, 2007 2:28 PM

Another second for R Johnston. I'll add that I think Linker's essay also misrepresents Dennett's book. Concerning Dennett, Linker writes

Philosopher Daniel Dennett shares Dawkins's hostility to religious education, warning ominously in Breaking the Spell that "under the protective umbrellas of personal privacy and religious freedom there are widespread practices in which parents" harm their children by teaching them ignoble lies.

and

Yet the fact remains that the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens is a brutally intolerant, proselytizing faith, out to rack up conversions.

Brutally intolerant? Hardly. Here's the continuation of the same paragraph in Dennett that Linker quotes above:

What are the rights of parents in such circumstances and 'where do we draw the line'? This is a political question that can be settled not by discovering 'the answer' but by working out an answer that is acceptable to as many informed people as possible.

Does that sound brutal or intolerant? It sounds reasonable to me. In that passage Dennett is simply arguing that religious upbringing should not be off-limits when we consider what's good for children.

Posted by RSA | December 17, 2007 2:28 PM

The fact is, this country's so-called religiosity is 3000 miles wide and about an inch deep. "Extremists" like Hitchens and Harris are doing quite a good job at doing their part, namely emboldening the significant percentage of Americans who kinda sorta believe out of habit and guilt and upbringing, but really don't. More extremists, please. A good swift kick in the ass from a fearless atheist is all this erstwhile 20-year-old needed to come out of the closet, once upon a time.

More new atheism, less concern trolling.

Posted by Bill | December 17, 2007 2:31 PM

Religion is indeed every bit the opiate that alcohol is. But we should learn from the temperance/prohibition movement: the thing to fight is drunkenness, not occasional imbibing. Nothing wrong with an occasional glass of wine, or a little "denial of death" for Christmas and Easter.

Atheists, like teetotalers, will always be a tiny sliver of society. But somewhat like the % of society that aren't problem drinkers, atheists combined with the non-observant and the occasionally-observant are a clear majority and growing every day. The civic goals of secularists are strengthened by emphasizing what we have in common with that secular majority, not by emphasizing our differences.

Posted by kth | December 17, 2007 2:34 PM

Furthermore, I tutor a lot of lower-income kids who would uniformly describe themselves as Christians. They know...not a thing about the history and beliefs of their own religion, let alone this country's history and founding beliefs. I needed to cope with an 11th grader recently who had absolutely no idea that the way we count the years is linked to the birth of Jesus, and for whom the notion of "B.C." was entirely new. Another had never heard of the Three Wise Men or any other detail of the nativity story, in spite of attending church every Sunday. Their parents are equally ignorant. These students go on to be voting-aged "Christians" and there are millions of them. They think Christopher Columbus is our Founding Father (if perchance they've heard of him at all), they point to Canada when I ask where Mexico is, and they couldn't pin down the life of Jesus anywhere within a thousand years on a time line. The least we can do is point out to them the details and context of what they're supposed to be believing.

Posted by Bill | December 17, 2007 2:41 PM

Linker's article is in the great "you're only helping the other side!" tradition. Hitchens et al. may be tediously shrill at times (OK, a lot of the time) but how about "the other side"? They get a bit shrill at times as well. Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" is a better book than 99.99% of the god-fearing types can manage.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | December 17, 2007 2:42 PM

There's a bit of a double standard here, I think?

Saying, "I believe in God, and you should too, else you risk the fires of hell" is considered normal.

Saying, "I don't believe in God, and you shouldn't either, because believing in God is stupid," is considered somehow mean. And if you say it, people claim you're part of a campaign to destroy religion.

If that counts as a campaign to destroy religion, then the first statement should count as a campaign to destroy atheism.

Posted by Patrick | December 17, 2007 2:50 PM

I'm actually a little ambivalent about what to tell children. I vividly remember looking in the mirror when I was 4 years old, thinking that some day I would turn into a skeleton. I remember how terrifying it was. When my older brother assured me that I would go to Heaven, it made me feel much better.

I think that comforting children with the illusion of an afterlife might be the best thing for them. Why not wait until their in they're in their teens to tell them the truth?

Posted by Jim W | December 17, 2007 2:58 PM

MY is not criticizing the atheists' tone, and Linker is only secondarily criticizing their tone. The primary criticism is of their illiberalism, which not a single commenter has addressed except for the one who agreed that bringing children up religious is child abuse.

Also, why is it assumed that anyone on the left criticizing these people is a "concern troll" who is worried that atheists are being too inflammatory? Why can't we sincerely believe that the belief that "believing in God is stupid" is, in fact, stupid?

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 2:58 PM

I reject the premise that the "liberal consensus" has served the country well. Really? Because I don't sense that the national culture has any collective tolerance for non-belief.

Now, you can argue that atheists have done a lousy job of packaging and selling its virtues. And I'd concede that. But I see Harris, in particular, as someone who can assertively elevate nontheist talking points and sculpt them into something that resembles an organized movement.

Second, belief in god has dropped from 79% to 73% in three years. Among those under 30, the number is down in the mid-to-low 60s. I'm no pollster, but that suggests to me that nontheism could be a majority in our lifetime.

Finally, I don't see a wholesale criticism of Islamism as "illiberal." Are you really buying into that ridiculous premise that "intolerance of intolerance" is "illiberal"? This is a fallacy of squishy liberalism: Excusing Islam's murderous essence because Muslims are brown people and, quite often, impoverished. Harris rightly believes that we shouldn't excuse a religion that subjugates women, hangs gays in the public square, and preaches murder in the body of their most sacred texts.

Yes...atheists...warriors in a war on Ramadan.

Posted by Kevin | December 17, 2007 3:03 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by illiberalism. For example, is it illiberal to say believe 100% in evolution and to think creationism is stupid?

From what I remember, all Dawkins said is that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the existence of a divine being. He is approaching this like a scientist, and saying what the evidence leads him to conclude and why. I don't see what is illiberal about this.

If he is saying that we should pass laws forbidding organized religion, then that would be illiberal. But, I haven't heard that.

Posted by Jim W | December 17, 2007 3:05 PM

There's a difference between wanting the Government to enforce your view and simply advocating for it forcefully. Despite occasional excesses of rhetoric, think the latter is what DDH&H are doing.

(A long blog post elaborating on this, & generally responding to Linker, can be found here.)

Posted by Stephen Frug | December 17, 2007 3:06 PM

You can, just as I sincerely believe (and can probably defend with a lot more cogency than you can defend your belief, but that's another topic) that believing in God is indeed stupid. Now, I'm not telling you to shut up about your belief no matter how dumb I may consider it- that's not my place, and it is much better to debate you than to try to encourage you to be silent. (Marketplace of ideas, and all that.) And by the same token I have no attention of listening to goofs like Linker and Matthew who have the gall to tell me I should shut up about mine.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:07 PM

While the article may be correct in saying that many of the "new atheist" writers have been too strident in their denunciations of theistic belief that they find themselves grasping for straws to finish their arguments and that they ultimately turn off others to atheism, I do think that atheists should make their views more public.

Atheism is a growing group in this country, with more atheists among the younger generations and many of us feel that there have been ideas in our national discourse which are anti-atheist and I think it is fair for us to point out that we exist that there are reasons that we exist, and that we have a right to participate in the national discourse.

When we have presidential candidates who make speeches about freedom requiring religion and vice versa, we need to point out that we atheists can indeed be ethical...that ethics in no inextricably tied to religion. When bigotry against atheists rears its ugly head in driving families out of town, we need to stand up against it. When the forces of ignorance found in the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis try to push on our children religious thought pretending to be science, we need to stand up.

It's true that those in the new atheist movement that gain the most influence are those who make the most strident claims, but that does not mean that the movement should or will be abandoned. I think it marks a period where atheism will be permitted to be more openly expressed and eventually will shape our national discourse as well. Of course, this is more long term, but we cannot be so short sighted that we ignore the consequences of staying silent.

Posted by Meng Bomin | December 17, 2007 3:08 PM

My, the comments spring up thick and fast. Mine was in response to Brendan. (And my fingers typed "attention" when they were supposed to type "intention".)

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:10 PM

What RSA pointed out. Linker is searching out a Sister Soljia [sp] moment, and lies to try to do so. Better liars / concern trolls, with more appropriate targets, please. MY, you should feel terrible for parroting such BS.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 17, 2007 3:11 PM

Illiberalism meaning the use of state power to suppress religion. All of the "new atheists" hint at this, some more directly than others.

My above comment was too strong. There is definitely the sense in Linker's article that there is something illiberal about these authors' contemptuous or dismissive attitude toward religion, which I don't agree with.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 3:12 PM

Wow, that's a pretty vitriolic set of comments. Here's the problem: atheism is not anything you can live for. Nor is it something that you can stand for or have ground your morality. You're an a-theist, I'm an a-Buddhist. Big deal. Doesn't tell me much about you to tell me what you're not.

The question is what are you for? Then take on a name (freethinker, secular humanist, whatever) that represents what you think. Then you have to argue for it. And until everyone has cards on the table, Brendan is right in saying that "believing in God is stupid" is, in fact, stupid.

Posted by nolaboyd | December 17, 2007 3:15 PM

I recommend reading David Sloan Wilson, an atheist evolutionist who looks at religion scientifically. We can strive for understanding the phenomena of religion in a scientific manner. Religion has evolved, just like our bodies and our cultures, and it has played a large role in our overall cultural evolution.

I prefer to specifically attack stupid ideas (such as ID and brainwashing children), but I look upon religion curiously, wondering if it is just like a virus that evolved and is harming us (the Dawkins view) or if it is like any other cultural phenotype whose creation and current evolutionary purpose can be studied and understood. I trust that atheism will prevail over time, just like most good ideas eventually do, and bad ideas can be useful, but eventually will dissapate, as bad ideas do. Survival of the fittest memes! Some (many, in fact) religious ideas are horrible, but some are good and useful, but are, for now anyway, packaged with the stupid. Let's chip away at these ideas and be part of the evolution and progress of our culture.

Posted by Ares | December 17, 2007 3:15 PM

It almost sounds like Matt is saying that atheists should think strategically. That, if we say what we really think, it may be counterproductive.

Now, I'm all for politicians holding back on what they really believe in order to get elected, etc. But why should ordinary citizens start acting like politicians? We should just say what we think and let the chips fall where they may.

Of course, once President Huckabee establishes the US as a Christian Theocracy, I might change my tune.

Posted by Jim W | December 17, 2007 3:15 PM

"Illiberalism meaning the use of state power to suppress religion. All of the "new atheists" hint at this, some more directly than others."

This is an outrageous lie. Is spreading lies a "liberal" thing to do?

Here's the real problem: rational criticism of religion is prohibited by such a strong taboo that religionists and their sympathizers are even led into telling ridiculous lies like Brendan's when it is breached. To them, criticism already comes near to attempted suppression. They appear to be too addled to know the difference.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:17 PM

There's nothing really new about these "new atheists" to people who have paid attention since, well, much longer than anyone here has been alive.

Christopher Hitchens' book for one is just a pale shadow of Gore Vidal's much more intelligent and much better written writings on the subject going back several decades.

Posted by mad6798j | December 17, 2007 3:18 PM

So saying that I'm an A-unicornist doesn't tell you anything? And if I claim that "your belief in unicorns is stupid", that is a stupid statement? Ridiculous.

Posted by TheF79 | December 17, 2007 3:20 PM

nolaboyd's comment perfectly illustrates the defects of the religious mindset. People should be totally defined by their adherence or otherwise to some set of metaphysical beliefs? What rubbish.

I don't know about you but I have more than one thing to live for.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:21 PM

With Harris and Hitchens, there's no question that there atheism leads to illiberalism--Harris has come out in favor of torturing our enemies, and Hitchens is, well, Hitchens. And Dawkins goes too far in criticizing religious education.

But I think Dennett is still pretty firmly in the liberal secularism camp. Dennett's rhetoric may have gone too far, but his proposal was just to require teaching on the history of religions in school--and apparently some religious believes are in agreement with him on that score. He defends that proposal here and though you could criticize the proposal as unrealistic, it doesn't seem illiberal. Dennett is not proposing that parents be kept from imparting any religious teaching they want, but that they be kept from isolating their children from competing religious teachings.

And ultimately Damon Linker is just wrong, and kind of illiberal, on this point.

Do they seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society--a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion? The former is a liberal goal, the latter an illiberal one; and it is inexcusable that each book leaves readers guessing which objective its author favors.

No. Prostelyzation does not disqualify you from liberalism. A liberal Christian can believe that religious freedom and exchange of ideas will move the nation in a Christian direction, a liberal atheist can believe that the same will lead the nation in an atheist direction. Both of them can work together in the political sphere even as they compete in the sphere of belief. If Linker is uncomfortable with this, I'm not sure he's being any more liberal or tolerant than any of the New Atheists.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 17, 2007 3:21 PM

It's a hilarious double-standard that you actually have to pick up a gun and kill somebody to be considered a 'militant' believer, but all you have to do to be considered a 'militant atheist' is write a book. The 'rhetoric' of Dawkins and Dennett in particular is routinely exaggerated; their books are quite reasonable in tone. Can anyone produce a good counterexample? Hitchens... he's often provocative, even rude, no question. But how long do you think I'd have to search to find statements of comparable intensity on the religious side?

Posted by Ray Ingles | December 17, 2007 3:23 PM

I should clarify that I'm also an atheist. I was responding to the tendency, here and elsewhere, to accuse an atheist who encourages respect for religion, or something along those lines, of pandering or condescending or "concern trolling," etc.

But certainly we all acknowledge that there are beliefs that we do not share, but do not find stupid. The job that I'm not doing right now involves reading a lot of legal documents, and as anyone familiar with the law knows, legal questions often require a judge or a jury to decide how a "reasonable person" could or would react to given set of facts. I think we all perform a sort of "reasonable person" test with respect to beliefs we encounter: there are some beliefs that do not convince us, but which we think could convince a reasonable person.

I don't think the belief that the Bible is literally true could convince any reasonable person with an adequate education. I find that belief stupid. But I do think that a reasonable person could conclude that there is a God.

Obviously we can't respect every possible belief, but political liberalism does depend on our ability to recognize a range of respetable beliefs. For some people, all religious belief falls outside that range, which is fine, but I think they're wrong and that it would be a bad thing if everyone agreed with them.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 3:25 PM

Matt, this is the most disappointing post I have ever read from you. I would have assumed that you would support my right to freely express my religious beliefs.

I see no evidence that atheism undermines secular liberal politics. Even if we stipulate that it does, why wouldn't it still be valid for atheists to advocate atheism on its own merits? Even aggressively? Why would you single out one inflammatory position of Sam Harris to malign an entire school of thought? Shall I pull out a quote from an inflammatory rabbi and use it to make the argument that Jews should shut up because comments like the one by that inflammatory rabbi are undermining liberal politics?

This post fails to treat your readers' religious views with respect, fails to support its thesis, and basically says to a group of people who probably outnumber Jews, Muslims, and Mormons in this country that they should keep their religious views to themselves based on your unsupported statement that advocating those rationalistic views undermine what you presume to be their political beliefs.

Advocating what I believe is important for its own sake. Advocating atheism almost explicitly endorses making the political sphere secular, which is important for its own sake. Drawing attention to the fact that as of today, liberal politicians, and most Democratic politicians, offer a more clear path to secular politics is important for its own sake. If advocacy like this encourages the nonreligious to support candidates committed to separation of church and state, and can help offset the phenomenon of megachurch political activism, that would be to the benefit of secular politics.

People are unlikely to call it bigotry when aimed at atheists, but it quacks like a duck.

Posted by Tim | December 17, 2007 3:26 PM

I'm with Linker on this one. Dawkins, Hitchens and the so-called "new atheists" have made it acceptable to classify people of faith as essentially sub-human - intellectually inferior and mentally ill.

Even looking at some of the lesser wannabee sites (Pharyngula for example) you can see a disturbing trending away from a tolerance of intellectual and spiritual freedom. What was once a campaign with fairly specific goals - maintaining the firewall between church and state - has now managed to become a generallized "war on religion" (in P.Z. Meyers'own words) with calls from many of his commenters to criminalize the teaching of religious principles to children as a form of child abuse. What do these people honestly expect to accomplish with this kind of adversarialist approach?

The only thing new about the new atheists is the level of their strident rhetoric. They're not helping - they're part of the problem.

Posted by Chris Wren | December 17, 2007 3:27 PM

"For some people, all religious belief falls outside that range, which is fine, but I think they're wrong and that it would be a bad thing if everyone agreed with them." Then why don't you just say that, instead of accusing them of being "illiberal", and making up lies about their proposed forceful suppression of religion?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:28 PM

I find the whole atheism discussion rather pointless.

1. Even the most casual glance at human history teaches us that a huge portion of people (if not the outright majority) have a basic NEED to believe in something. So, the idea that atheism will lead to everyone becoming these hard-headed rationalists who view the world with dispassionate logic is quite silly.

2. The complaints about religion really aren't about religion...they're about what people do in the name of/in the service of religion. Yet, didn't the 20th century provide us with the greatest example (Communism) that if people aren't doing bad things because of God, they'll do bad things because of something else.

Personal disbelief in God is one thing, but Atheism the ideology strikes me as yet another utopian fetish that ignores the immutable nature of Man.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 3:29 PM

Here's the real problem: rational criticism of religion is prohibited by such a strong taboo that religionists and their sympathizers are even led into telling ridiculous lies like Brendan's when it is breached. To them, criticism already comes near to attempted suppression. They appear to be too addled to know the difference.

I shouldn't have said "all," because I haven't read them all. I retract the outrageous lie. However, calling religious upbringing child abuse does invite an illiberal reading, since child abuse is grounds for the state to remove a child from parents' custody by force.

So saying that I'm an A-unicornist doesn't tell you anything? And if I claim that "your belief in unicorns is stupid", that is a stupid statement? Ridiculous.

No. I was talking about God, not unicorns. You are free to believe that the two are equally absurd, as I am free to find that belief stupid.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 3:31 PM

Nor is it something that you can stand for or have ground your morality. You're an a-theist, I'm an a-Buddhist. Big deal. Doesn't tell me much about you to tell me what you're not.

Right. The content of atheism is simply hostility to religion. In that sense, it is not one belief system among others. You can be non-religious without being an atheist.

A lot of the atheists here seem to think the fact that religious practices involve making false claims about the world is a decisive objection. But that's not really relevant. Religion is a set of ethical and moral standards, a community with shared practices and traditions, and most importantly a basis for people feeling that there lives are meaningful and worthwhile. Are you against those things?

Of course, you can fairly say that the way religion has filled those needs leaves something to be desired. but then you have to offer an alternative.

I wonder if any of the militant atheists have ever talked to someone in AA or visited a meeting. "God" in that context is providing something essential to people's lives. It's easy for people who are constantly told by society in various ways "you are important, what you do matters" to be scornful of people who hear the opposite every day. But there are a lot of them, and the message "you matter" really is as much a necessity of life as shelter or clothing. There's a reason the great populist Williams Jenning Bryan opposed evolution and saw it as a stalking horse for social Darwinism.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 17, 2007 3:32 PM

There's nothing really new about these "new atheists" to people who have paid attention since, well, much longer than anyone here has been alive.

Christopher Hitchens' book for one is just a pale shadow of Gore Vidal's much more intelligent and much better written writings on the subject going back several decades.

"New" refers to their being contemporary and writing current bestsellers - not to the notion that they invented what they're saying out of whole cloth. If you weren't in a hurry to sound like a pompous jackass this might've occurred to you. How many copies did Gore Vidal sell, bub? Notice anything new?

Posted by Bill | December 17, 2007 3:36 PM

"No. I was talking about God, not unicorns. You are free to believe that the two are equally absurd, as I am free to find that belief stupid."

And yet you don't actually hold either belief, which suggests that you realize that BOTH are unsupported by evidence. So why the pussyfooting around the one but not the other?

All of us hold stupid beliefs about something at one time or other- it's a human failing. Without open criticism of beliefs, we can't correct our errors. All people like Dawkins (and Dennett, who only an idiot could find "strident") are saying is that it is a very bad idea to rule out criticism of certain minds of beliefs as soon as they have a "religion" label stuck on them.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:36 PM

Yikes, what an awful article; I'm not surprised it graced TNR's pages. Linker needs to recognize that the words "tolerate" and "respect" are not synonyms. He wants us "new" atheists to respect religion, not merely tolerate it. I, for one, see no reason to respect any belief that is utterly unsupported by evidence, even if said belief is very common.

We atheists respect the individual's right to hold religious beliefs, and we tolerate the beliefs themselves, but demanding that we respect superstitious flim flam is asinine. Linker's piece would be no more ridiculous if he were condemning aleprechaunists for penning tomes about how there are no pot o' gold at the ends of rainbows.

Posted by Eric | December 17, 2007 3:39 PM

And yet you don't actually hold either belief, which suggests that you realize that BOTH are unsupported by evidence. So why the pussyfooting around the one but not the other?

I think I already explained this; I make a distinction between beliefs I think are merely false, and beliefs that I don't think any reasonable, well-educated person could hold. If you reject that distinction, tell me why. In practice, I doubt you do.

I appreciate that I have never spent any significant amount of time in a part of the country where atheists are unwelcome, and this probably affects my sympathies. That said, I do think that atheists, who are disproportionately affluent, white, and educated, should be careful about throwing around words like "bigotry" and "oppression."

Posted by BP | December 17, 2007 3:43 PM

BP was me, sorry.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 3:43 PM

What Matt wrote about Linker's view of Richard Rorty seems relevant: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/06/problematics_of_political_libe.php

. Rawlsian political liberalism is indifferent to most of people's views in other areas of life. But Rawlsian political liberalism doesn't say that individual people -- especially including political liberals in good standing -- must be indifferent to the comprehensive views of other.

Let me quote again this from Linker

Do they seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society--a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion? The former is a liberal goal, the latter an illiberal one;

Sure, Harris and Hitchens run flagrantly afoul of political liberalism, and Dawkins skirts the edge--but I think Linker was unfair to Dennett in exactly the same way he was unfair to Rorty.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 17, 2007 3:45 PM

"He wants us "new" atheists to respect religion, not merely tolerate it. I, for one, see no reason to respect any belief that is utterly unsupported by evidence, even if said belief is very common."

Uh, I can think of one reason why atheists should "respect" religion. That would be the fact that religion or the religious impulse has been responsible for so much of the good things that have happened in the world. Atheists too often seem to care about all the bad that can be blamed on religion while ignoring the other side, like how much the advance of freedom and equality has been propelled by religious reasoning and feeling.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 3:47 PM

No, I hold that reasonable, well-educated people ought to reject beliefs that appear to have no foundation, and I would like to live in a society where they routinely do so. And you do thus reject theism. So your position is inconsistent, and appears to be more reflective of some defensive neurosis on your part than of reasoning.

Should gay people- who are on average more affluent than the average American and thus "privileged" in your terms- go back in the closet too because their little problem with bigotry is just to minor for great-hearted Brendan to care about?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:47 PM

Dawkins, Hitchens and the so-called "new atheists" have made it acceptable to classify people of faith as essentially sub-human - intellectually inferior and mentally ill.

and no religious person has ever thought atheists are evil, soulless, or demented. not one. ever. religious people think atheists are perfectly reasonable and want their grandchildren raised as atheists because it's a respectable life choice.

less than 50% of Americans would vote for an atheist, no matter how qualified the candidate was? mere statistical noise!

oh, the poor persecuted religious people!

Posted by cleek | December 17, 2007 3:48 PM

"That would be the fact that religion or the religious impulse has been responsible for so much of the good things that have happened in the world."

With that kind of "argument" by assertion I can "prove" that, say, heliocentrism has been responsible for all the good things that have happened in the modern world. OR for all the bad things- fallacious arguments often "work" both ways.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:50 PM

Should gay people- who are on average more affluent than the average American and thus "privileged" in your terms- go back in the closet too because their little problem with bigotry is just to minor for great-hearted Brendan to care about?

I never said that atheists should stop being atheists, or stop speaking out against prejudice against them. I do find it outrageous that an atheist could not be elected to any high office in America. I'm just uncomfortable with equating prejudice against atheism with much more systematic oppression, as of minorities, the poor, or gay people.

No, I hold that reasonable, well-educated people ought to reject beliefs that appear to have no foundation, and I would like to live in a society where they routinely do so.

Whether the belief is without foundation is sort of the substance of the disagreement, isn't it?

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 3:53 PM

I want to find some of these "militant atheists" so I can join their army and start killing believers.

Just kidding. But it would help your credibility if you could actually name some real "militant atheists" rather then mere book writers.

This feels like yet another manufactured controversy.

Posted by Joey Giraud | December 17, 2007 3:55 PM

Why do you reject theism yourself if you think it is well-founded? And if you in fact do not think it's well-founded why do you have a problem when people say so? You're frankly not making any sense.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:56 PM

"With that kind of "argument" by assertion I can "prove" that, say, heliocentrism has been responsible for all the good things that have happened in the modern world. OR for all the bad things- fallacious arguments often "work" both ways."

Uh, you notice I didn't say ALL the good things. I said MUCH of the good things. The fact that you so easily mischaracterized my argument pretty much demonstrates my point about atheists like yourself.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 3:58 PM

Steve L., let's say some people believe that a national health insurance plan with an individual insurance mandate would not be significantly more effective than one without, as, in fact, some people do. This is an empirical, though still untested, question. Based on what I have read about the subject, I believe those people are wrong. I do not, however, believe they are idiots. There are also people who believe that any sort of national health care system will lead to authoritarianism. I do believe that those people are idiots.

Do you really never make these distinctions? How do you ever have a civil conversation with anyone?

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 4:01 PM

Attributing ANY good- or bad- things to the influence of religion requires actual informed argument about those specific things. You're welcome to submit some of those for criticism, OR to submit your own specific criticisms of assertions by teh authors we're discussing about negative influences of religion. That would be more productive than blathering.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:02 PM

Mateys,

Lighten up. Neither MY nor D. Linker is telling you (or Dawkins et al) what to believe or communicate.

The TNR article is not arguing that people should not be atheists, or even that they shouldn't advocate atheism. But the intolerance Linker highlights in his piece is real. Dawkins and Harris, especially, both paint vibrant pictures of a religion-free world in dire, Huntingtonian, clash-of-civilization terms. While they don't promote illegal means to ring in that bright future, it's clear that they have no misgivings about the immanent correctness of their position. They know exactly what other people should and should not believe. The God Delusion and The End of Faith are not merely about why the authors are irreligious, but rather why everyone should be, and that religion is inherently a toxic threat to our civilzation and species.

Harris and Dawkins often write in their defense to the effect of "we just want to be allowed to criticise religious belief on the same grounds we would criticize political, aesthetic, or scientific positions." But this gentlemanly mode of discourse is belied by statements like "Science must destroy religion" (Harris), "People must not be allowed to play the faith card," (Dennett), or that religious upbringings are a form of abuse worse than sexual molestation(!) (Dawkins).

It's abundantly clear that in their hearts, this crowd would like to see extirpated any sub-cultures who deviate from the rationalist-materialist model of the cosmos. That is a form of tribalism as hard and furious as anything you'll find in the bible belt, or in Waziristan, and it is neither liberal nor tolerant.

Before you respond with a litany of religion's supposed dangerous or ill effects, I've heard them before, but notably they are never accompanied by anything more rigorous than anecdote or casual argument.

Posted by C. Schoen | December 17, 2007 4:02 PM

Bill:

"How many copies did Gore Vidal sell, bub? Notice anything new?"

Umm, lots and lots and lots. His books are always bestsellers. Several of his biggest bestsellers, including Julian and "United States" dealing heavily with religion.

It would be better if you knew what you were talking about before you got all pissy.

Posted by mad6798j | December 17, 2007 4:04 PM

My problem with the article is that it simply isn't persuasive. Rather, it's full of passages like this:

Do [the new atheists] seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society--a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion? The former is a liberal goal, the latter an illiberal one; and it is inexcusable that each book leaves readers guessing which objective its author favors.

In essence, Linker is attacking the "new atheists" for acting like evangelicals. But is evangelizing - which by its very nature involves persuasion, not forcible conversion - really "illiberal"? The clear answer is no, if we regard "liberalism" as the legal and political tolerance of varying points of view. Unless and until atheists begin arguing that religion should be banned by law, there is nothing illiberal about trying to persuade others to adopt their point of view.

Linker tries to make his case by shifting the goalposts:

[L]iberalism is a philosophy of government, not a philosophy of man--or God. ... But modern liberalism [also] derives, at its deepest level, from ancient liberalism--from the classical virtue of liberality, which meant generosity and openness. To be liberal in the classical sense is to accept intellectual variety--and the social complexity that goes with it--as the ineradicable condition of a free society.

So, according to Linker, liberalism is about the toleration diversity of ideas, not about laws or real freedoms. The sin of the new atheists, Linker argues, is that they violate the "spirit" of "ancient liberalism" which celebrates "intellectual variety." In other words, Linker isn't just saying evangelizing is illiberal; he's arguing that a failure to accept any type of "intellectual variety" is illiberal. Taken to its natural conclusion, Linker would have us believe that argument itself is illiberal.

Is it illiberal to fail to respect the ideas of those who believe that global warming is a hoax? Does a vocal argument against neoconservatism violate the "spirit" of "ancient liberalism" which celebrates "intellectual variety"? Of course not.

What makes believers so uncomfortable about committed atheists is that atheists engage the question of religion using traditional, evidence-based arguments. This, of course, is taboo for believers, who want atheists to share their faith in the great unknown. Linker uses the familiar language of political correctness to take it one step further: an attack on religion is an attack on diversity, and is therefore bad. And therein lies the rub.

Atheists like Harris regard religion as a set of ideas that have a very real impact on the world - just as neoconservatism is a set of ideas that has a very real impact on the world. Thus, Harris speaks out against both the intellectual wrongness of religion, and the negative real world impact he believes religion has on the world. If he were discussing neoconservatism, it would be fair game. Because he is discussing religion, he is attacking "diversity."

Posted by owenz | December 17, 2007 4:06 PM

Brendan, to be a successful defense of your position that would require that you think there are arguments for theism which are colorably defensible but which you ultimately find to be wrong, as might be true in your health care policy example. Do you believe that about theism? If so, what are those plausible but wrong grounds? And if you believe they exist, might you not still be mistaken and obliged to consider that you might be mistaken, and shouldn't you therefore ore correctly describe yourself as an agnostic?

Is lying about nonexistent calls for state suppression of religion your idea of civil conversation, by the way? I hope I never have THAT kind.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:07 PM

atheists are disproportionately affluent, white, and educated

This is important. Educated, affluent professionals are told contantly, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, that they are important and their actions and wellbeing matter. Many people in our society are told the opposite -- that they're worthless and nothing they do will have any consequences. For people in that situation, the belief that your spiritual worth doesn't depend on your status and that there are great consequences to your choices is vital. Necessary to life. And religion is often the only thing that offers that.

If you see a lot of people holding what seem to you obviously false and ridiculous beliefs, you might ask, "what are they getting out of it? Why is this important to them? how could we get them what they need in some other way?" Or, like most o f the commenters here, you might just say "look at those idiots! haha, I'm so much smarter than them."

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 17, 2007 4:07 PM

"Do they seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society--a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion? The former is a liberal goal, the latter an illiberal one;"

Not having read the books in question, I'm not in a position to analyze them. But the statement I just quoted is illogical. It's entirely possible to have the "goal of producing a secular society" without being illiberal -- the question is whether you want to achieve that goal through rhetoric and persuasion or through government mandate. Linker fails to make that distinction.

Furthermore, Linker condemns Dawkins for saying that raising a child in Catholicism is abuse but not concluding that the state should intervene:

"Why Dawkins refuses to take this idea to its logical conclusion--to say that raising a child in a religious tradition, like other forms of child abuse, should be considered a crime punishable by the state--is a mystery, for it follows directly from the character of his atheism."

Of course in reality Linker is demanding that Dawkins make a special, and unreasonable, exception for religion in what forms of abuse the state punishes. Parents are customarily allowed to instill in their children any beliefs they want, no matter how harmful those beliefs are -- "you're unlovable" "you're a failure" "you're ruining my life" etc. We tend to draw the line at physical abuse, and even that line is often drawn somewhere beyond spanking.

That Linker starts his argument with this absurd straw-man doesn't give me much confidence that the rest of his analysis is any good either.

Posted by Galen | December 17, 2007 4:09 PM

MBunge said:

So, the idea that atheism will lead to everyone becoming these hard-headed rationalists who view the world with dispassionate logic is quite silly.

I agree that this idea is silly. However, this is your idea. I haven't seen anyone else make this argument.

The complaints about religion really aren't about religion...they're about what people do in the name of/in the service of religion.

I don't think atheists are so much complaining about religion (some are, of course) as saying it is fundamentally irrational.

Atheism the ideology strikes me as yet another utopian fetish that ignores the immutable nature of Man.

Another straw man to beat up. Atheism the ideology.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 17, 2007 4:09 PM

lemuel has merely found a fancy "populist" way to reframe the indefensible taboo against criticizing religion. Unimpressive.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:10 PM

Religion is a set of ethical and moral standards, a community with shared practices and traditions, and most importantly a basis for people feeling that there lives are meaningful and worthwhile.

This is at best a grossly imprecise definition of religion. It in no way distinguishes the thing we call religion from all sorts of things which we do not call religion.

For starters, you left out the part about an unscientific, narrative cosmology. I mention this because one of the things I find most objectionable about religion is that in many instances believers tie, as you have, a sense of personal meaning and worth to affiliation with something supernatural.

Personally, and amidst the same ups and downs that religious types experience, that all types experience, life is precious to me. It seems to me that in that kernel of understanding there is a basis for reciprocity which may perform better as a moral foundation for a community than the more elaborate, confusing, and ultimately vague rules at play in the major religions that have cropped up over the course of human history.

Posted by MrTimbo | December 17, 2007 4:12 PM

"Attributing ANY good- or bad- things to the influence of religion requires actual informed argument about those specific things."

I ge the sense the you're really not that interested in "actual informed argument", but here goes.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The very founding principles of the United States flows from a religious perspective. Therefore, every good thing (and every bad thing) done by the United States can be attributed to religion.

That you would even attempt (feeble though it is) to challenge the position that religion and the religious impulse has been responsible for much of the good that has happened in the world, shows that you are precisely the sort of atheist MY was writing about.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 4:17 PM

You don't know very much about Jefferson (the author of those words), do you. Here are a couple of samples:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." (Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6,