In defense of the ‘New Atheism’
Recently, there’s been something of a media backlash against the so-called ‘New Atheism’, that is, the vocal declaration of atheism by those who do not subscribe to a religion and who believe that the universe demonstrates that it is very unlikely that there is a god. In addition, ‘new atheists’, or, as they are called by some, ‘fundamentalist atheists’, have stepped up their attack on religion, no longer content with simply keeping their beliefs (or lack thereof) private, but now writing books, putting up blogs, making movies, and generally getting the message out that religion, in all its shapes and forms, is not only illogical, but downright dangerous.
The general response from many in the religious community has been to, as usual, paint themselves as the victims (even though ‘believers’ far outnumber atheists in the US, and atheists are the last minority that it’s still okay to discriminate against), and basically say: “What’s with these uppity atheists all of a sudden? Can’t they just go back to their stuffy rooms and towers and keep quiet like they used to? It’s downright rude of them to start going on about these things, and anyway, everyone knows that they’re wrong.”
Even among atheists themselves, there are those who say “Why do we need to attack religion? Isn’t it enough to simply accept your own lack of belief, and let others believe as they wish? In short, can’t we just live and let live?” It’s a tempting thought. Let’s avoid the confrontation, and just go on with our lives, and if those wacky theists want to go on believing in their big sky fairy, well, good for them. It sounds reasonable, and proper, and the theists would dearly love it if we just all took that point of view and simply want away. But here’s the problem with that: if we go away, they certainly won’t.
There’s a reason that the ‘new’ atheists are loud and proud, and they’re spreading the word, doing everything they can to let the world know that they exist, that they’re out there, and that they’re not alone: the reason is that they’ve noticed that the world we live in has been getting worse and worse, and so much of it can be traced directly back to religion and faith. We live in a world where religious extremists strap bombs to their bodies and kill themselves, taking out dozens of innocents along with them, because they believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife. We live in a world where a large majority of the population of one of the most powerful countries on Earth honestly believes that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old, that evolution is ‘just a theory’, and that scientists are in league with the devil. We live in a world where a large majority of not only the population, but the people in power, the people with their fingers on the proverbial button, believe, honestly believe, that the world will end within their lifetimes, in a terrible war and destruction. And they see this as a good thing, they can’t wait for the Armageddon to come, because they think that their god is going to pull them up into heaven when that moment comes. We live in a world, too, where people routinely trust the advice of a homeopath over a real doctor, where political leaders consult star charts, or base political decisions that will affect millions of people, on the words of a dusty and discredited book written thousands of years ago.
In this situation, I have come to believe that we cannot sit idly by and let it happen. That to simply keep quiet and let religion and ‘believers’ drag this world down into the muck, to let them destroy thousands of innocent others, to continue to spread lies and hurt the poor and gullible, is downright immoral. We, as atheists, are often accused of having no moral compass, simply because we don’t have our commandments handed down to us by and angry and jealous god. That we cannot possibly make moral decisions, as we have no basis on which to form a moral framework. And yet, any fool can see that to simply lay back and do nothing, to let the world fall prey to the poison of religiosity, is not only irresponsible, but simply wrong from a humanistic standpoint. We cannot go quietly. We owe it to ourselves, and to our fellow man, to fight, to shout, to let people know: you’re living a lie. You are being lied to, and you are following that lie to your grave. Religion is a plague upon mankind, and we can move beyond it. And if we annoy a few religious folks, and even a few less bombastic atheists, I can live with that. But let it not be said that we stood by silent while religion continued to drag the world deeper into chaos and ignorance.
May 5th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Religion is not the source of the problems you mention, people are. Atheists are perfectly capable of commiting all the attrocities listed above too, getting rid of religion won’t solve it. Getting rid of people will solve it, but, you know, that’s not really a proposition I’m happy with … as much as I hate people as whole, there are some individuals I’m terribly fond of.
Another angle on this is not to blame religion, but to blame fanaticism. Of course this would place you in the same boat as the religious nut, as you seem to be an atheist fanatic, just as dangerous as all the religious fanatics that you are lashing out against. Death to all extremists.
May 5th, 2007 at 11:24 am
‘Religion is not the source of the problems you mention, people are.’
That’s a cop-out, and an easy one. Sure, at the end of the day, the hand that pulls the trigger, the fingers that trigger the bomb, are human, no more, no less. ‘Religion’, as a concept, can no more create anything than can ‘love’ or ‘hate’ or any other concept. That’s not the argument here: the argument is that religion is a negative force. No, getting rid of religion (which I think may well be impossible) won’t get rid of all the world’s problems… but it’s a step forward. The problem with religion is this: faith. Every single religion boils down to that one concept.
Due to simple neccesity (reality refuses to conform to the words in any religion’s holy books), all religions require faith, that is, the ability to believe something in the absence of proof. Sure, the world doesn’t seem like there’s any sort of god in it, everything we see around us flies in the face of the very idea of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god… but despite the evidence, despite all you see, despite logic and common sense, you have to believe… you have to have faith. Harmless enough at first glance, but it opens the door to other things, worse things. Because once you can make yourself believe something wholly without any evidence for it, you can come to believe *anything*, regardless of proof, simply because you’re told it’s so by your priest, imam, or fellow churchgoers. Is there proof that god hates gays? Is there proof that if you die as a martyr, god will reward you in heaven with however many virgins you’re supposed to get? Of course not, you take all this on faith.
Yes, the actions in the end are simply an example of human stupidity, ugliness, and violence. At the end of the day, it’s, as you say, a people problem. But the fact of the matter is that religion and faith make it easier for these ‘people problems’ to happen. Whether used as an excuse or a reason, people are killed, discriminated against, abused physically and mentally, and mistreated in a variety of ways, by other people who all use some variation of the same excuse: god told me to do it. When your religion, like almost all religions, teaches that those who are not of your religion are less than you, it becomes easier to treat those people as less than human. When your religion teaches that women should be subservient and lesser than men, it becomes easier to mistreat them.
Religion may not be the direct cause of all the suffering in the world (and it would be ridiculous to claim that), but the very concept of it makes it easier for suffering, injustice, intolerance, and other social ills to spread.
Now, there are many good christians, good muslims, etc. In fact, the vast majority of believers are fine people, who simply go about their day, feed their families, help their neighbors, and live their lives. But in all of them, there’s one dark little detail: their religion, their faith, *requires* them to believe that I, as an atheist, and, in fact, anyone who does not share their religion, deserve to go to a place of eternal suffering and torment, and to stay there, forever. It doesn’t matter whether they like me, wether they’re my coworkers, neighbors, or even the guy standing next to me at a bus stop. It doesn’t matter that I’ve never done anything to hurt them, that I’m overall a good person, that I help out others, I give to charity, I love my friends and family, etc. etc. etc. I do not share their beliefs, and thus, I deserve to go to hell. You’ll excuse me, I hope, if I am not particularly comforted by the thought that these people, who I’ve never met, and who would otherwise have no reason to wish me ill, have this belief.
‘Another angle on this is not to blame religion, but to blame fanaticism. Of course this would place you in the same boat as the religious nut, as you seem to be an atheist fanatic, just as dangerous as all the religious fanatics that you are lashing out against.’
Again, a cop-out, and worse, a shining example of exactly the point I’m trying to make. Yes, fanatics are to blame for the actions they commit, but people are not, as a rule, born fanatics. They are made into fanatics. And fanaticism requires one thing most of all: faith. Faith that what you are doing is right, or faith that the people you are hurting deserve it, or simply faith that you’re following god’s orders. Faith.
As for that last little bit, I’m going to go ahead and hope you’re just playing devil’s advocate here, because, otherwise, I’d have to fear for your sanity. When a religious person expresses their opinion, says out loud what they believe, makes a statement about their faith, preaches what amounts, basically, to simple hate against others, that is simply par for the course, and expected, because it’s a matter of faith. But when an atheist takes a principled stand and states his own beliefs and his reasons for those beliefs, he is suddenly declared a fanatic and an extremist? Lovely double standard you’ve got there, Sparky. You’ve made my point about exactly why we can’t afford to simply shut up and be quiet once more better than I ever could.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Note: This is not a rebutal to your argument, and is not structured as one … it’s mostly a collection of what’s going through my head as I read what you write.
Not playing devil’s advocate, but instead showing that an atheist displaying intolerance towards the religious is just as bad as the religious displaying intolerance towards different religions or atheists. And yes, that Death to all extremists bit was a joke, to show you what your statemnts read like. I just think it’s sad that you are slowly becoming exactly what you are trying to lash out against. Are there things wrong with plenty of religions out there? Hell yes. Are there things right with some of them? I’d say so too. Some people need religion/faith in their lives, I don’t happen to be one of them, but strangely enough you appear to be. You are turning atheism into your religion instead of turning away from religion. We have no proof for or against a God/gods/alien being, so believing that one exists or believing that none exists are both stances that must be taken on faith. I have a very different stance from yours, I don’t care if there is a God.
The main problem with your arguments are that they link religion to judaism and it’s derivatives, and let’s face it, there are other religions out there. People who practice Hinduism make up 14% of the world’s population, Buddhism 6%, and Taoism 6%, just to mention a few.
Take a step back, and really read what you have written, and take in the tone that it projects. It’s the tone of a fanatic, one lashing out against other fanatics. That scares me, and in a way makes me worry for you. I understand that you were brought up in a very religious hosehold, and maybe finding out that all of that was a lie is making you grasp at something to replace it. I’m trying to tell you that you don’t need to, you can throw it all away, you don’t need faith in your life. Faith is what makes us try to take away choice from others, and that, to me, is the real crime, taking away people’s choice.
If you are really interested in researching practical aplications on how to remove religion from a society, take a look at the history of Maoist China. It’s the only practical example I can think of off the top of my head, frankly I wouldn’t want to live there.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I see your point, but I do have to take exception to several aspects of your commentary. I won’t deny that the original entry comes from a place of anger inside me, anger at both the lies I grew up with, and the lies I see in the world around me on a daily basis. But the emotion behind the words doesn’t take away their truth.
The idea that atheism is ‘just another religion’ is an easy one to follow, and is used often enough by many. ‘Just as we take the existence of God on faith, so do you take His non-existence on faith. You have no more proof of His non-existence than we do of His existence, so what makes your belief different from mine?’, one might ask, and it’s a valid question. In fact, it’s easy enough to draw that same analogy of ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘extremist’ atheism, once you’ve fallen into that trap. But you’re missing one major point (though, perhaps, I am guilty og not being very clear on this):
Yes, there are likely many atheists out there that do, indeed, take their atheism as a surrogate religion, and *believe* in the non-existence of gods so strongly that nothing would sway them. If I’ve given the impression that I am one of them, then I suppose it’s my duty to disabuse you of that notion. I will readily admit that I have no concrete, definite, 100% certain proof that there is no god. There is a very real possibility, in fact, that we may never have such proof. Thus, in that sense, and strictly speaking, I would be an agnostic, not an atheist. My stance is that we don’t know, one way or another.
However, I take my agnosticism one step further, and I’ll tell you why: I’ve studied as much as I can of the world around me, different belief systems, science, philosophy, etc. I don’t claim to know everything, or have all the answers, but the more I’ve looked, the less proof I find for the existence of god. In fact, the more I look, the more it seems that the universe can get along fine without one, and, indeed, has been getting along fine without one ever since the Big Bang. Now, it’s possible that there *is* a god, and he is simply controlling the universe to make it appear *as if* there was no god. By that same token, it’s quite possible that there is no such thing as gravity, or the weak and strong nuclear forces, nor any other force of nature: we’re all being held down, or moved around, as the case may be, by angels, who just so happen to be moving every single subatomic particle in such a way that is *seems* they’re following the laws of nature and science. Yes, these things are completely possible, and I have no way to deny them. But when we study these things, and we see that they do, indeed, move according to the laws we’ve discovered, then why do we need to bother positing a god, or angels, or any other supernatural being? It seems to me, an unnecessary complication. Therefore, though, strictly speaking, I am an agnostic, not a true atheist, I am willing to accept the null hypothesis, that is, that there is no god, unless and until I am shown proof to the contrary, since all current evidence seems to point to his nonexistence.
The key phrase here, of course, is that last one: ‘until I am shown proof to the contrary’. I do not believe (or disbelieve) out of faith, or out of a sense of needing to fill some god-shaped hole in my life. I simple see no proof of a god, or of the need for one in order to make the universe run, and I’ve decided that, until proof to the contrary rolls along, I will work with the theory that there is, in fact, no god. The crux of the matter is in the difference between these two phrases: ‘I do not believe in god’ and ‘I believe there is no god’.
Though very similar, those two phrases mean very different things, and I subscribe to the first one. The first statement does not imply a belief in anything, it is a statement of non-belief. The second one *is* a statement of belief, and can lend itself to all the usual foibles of belief.
Should god almighty, or Vishnu, or Buddha, or any one of the saints or angels or vedas or magical sky fairies ever show themselves to me and prove me wrong, I will gladly take it all back. But I strongly doubt that any of these presumably mythical beings will do such a thing.
All that said, would I take any of what I put up there back? No, I stand by all of it. I don’t consider my statements, or my arguments, to be fanatical in nature, not in the least. Reactionary, perhaps, but not fanatical. They are angry, however, and ‘lashing out’ would be a valid description, but with good reason. I see, day after day, the ill effects of religion and blind faith both in my personal life and in the world at large. It’s hard to simply remain quiet and let it pass, and, it seems to me, it would be immoral to do so.
I wish, at times, that I could be like you claim to be, and simply say that I don’t care if there is or isn’t a god. But it seems to me, looking at the state of the world at large, that the question of whether god exists or not is one of paramount importance, because decisions are being made, plans are being put into action, and people are committing their lives to causes based on their belief that the answer to that question is ‘yes’. I think that the question of god’s existence needs to be taken head-on, because it affects the lives of so many, both directly and indirectly. I’m willing to go so far as to say that, if we got more people to at least doubt the existence of god, we would see a quick drop in the amount of suicide bombers, and vast numbers of other attacks. I’m not advocating, at any point, faith in the non-existence of god: I’m advocating *doubt*. I’m pushing for people to start *questioning* themselves, their beliefs, and put aside faith. Religion and faith are not *necessary* in order to live, be happy, and be good.
My own beliefs are hardly carved in stone: as someone who appreciates science in all its weirdness, there are few things I like more than to be proven wrong about something, because it usually means I’ve discovered something new and altogether fascinating about the world around me. Would I like there to be a god, an afterlife, and all that rigamarole? In a sense, yes. The idea that this life is all we have and when it ends, we’re gone and there’s nothing else, is one that I have not yet come to peace with. I would love for there to be a heaven waiting for me when I die. But I think that I owe it to myself to not believe in such things without proof, to not let such an important thing be determined by, of all things, faith. I think it would be a disservice to myself and to those around me to live my life believing in something for which I have no proof. Such an important question deserves an honest and truthful answer, and until there is one, I would be remiss to allow myself to live in what, to all appearances, is a fantasy.
August 18th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I have read Dawkins and Harris and I am still a believer. Many people are willing to die for their faith. If you want to stop religion, you will have to do terrible things. Tolerance is the only way.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:14 am
Well obviously god exists, he came into existence before the world was created. How long before is a very good question, well just before okay. And He is all powerful, he believes in punishing the 6 month old baby with blindness, and death obviously the baby deserved it. The death of the innocent in a random and haphazard manner is obviously the will of a all powerful all knowing god.
He is a great tool to be used for controlling the masses and keeping a small minority very powerful and rich.
He is used for division and a rallying point for the disenfranchised and lost. The idea of him answers so many questions conveniently, and is a great way to bring up a kid and control them. You can pretty much get them to do whatever you want.
Very handy if you are a politician and want to manipulate a large group of people.
Tolerance is the only way to stop religion. Yes and challenging religion and be brave enough to ask the questions and accept a justifiable provable logical answer.
Where religion really fails is it asks people to forgo rational thought. Don’t think and have faith. Faith is not a good thing if it forgoes reason.
Faith in people is a much more useful and constructive use. Faith in family, friends and colleagues, can be used for creating trust and doing something good and worthwhile.
Faith in some all powerful god which will solve this worlds problems, or has some large scale measuring events and peoples actions is just a silly construction by people wanting to control other people. It is divisive and destructive.