NEW ATHEISM: Some misunderstandings

I’ve stopped posted on this Blog mainly due to time constraints, but a recent discussion on Facebook brought up some points on the so-called “New Atheism”.

Defining New Atheism – the starting point

Let me start by addressing the term New Atheism which is very important in the context of the discussion of the points brought up. I believe these to be incongruent to the facts, yet they were raised by a fellow atheist. This is not new:

Not all nonbelievers – atheists, agnostics, humanists, or freethinkers – have been happy with the approach taken by the new atheists, especially our unwillingness to take a benign view of moderate religion. They would like to maintain good relations with the religious community , especially with regard to the public acceptance of science….While new atheists sympathise with these concerns, we do not consider them as serious as the even greater dangers imposed by the irrational thinking associated with religion. (Stenger 2009, 14-15).

Stenger goes on to quote geneticist Gerry Coyne’s view that the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science forms part of the former and religion part of the latter.

We do we think our thoughts have relevance when some like Stephen J. Gould have claimed that science and religion are “non-overlapping magisteria”:

“We agree with most reviewers that Gould’s interpretation is incorrect and amounts to a redefinition of religion as “moral philosophy” . Religions make statements about all kinds of phenomena that are legitimate parts of science, such as the origin of the universe and the evolution of life. Even the principles of morality are subject to scientific investigation since they involve observable human behaviour. Furthermore, we do not see morality as god-given but rather as the result of humanity’s own social development. (Ibid, 14)

Finally, Stenger (Ibid, 15) explains the critical stance of New Atheism:

“Perhaps the most unique position of New Atheism is that faith, which is belief without supportive evidence, should not be given the respect, even deference, it obtains in modern society. Faith is always foolish and leads to many of the evils of society. The theist argument that science and reason are also based on faith is specious. Faith is belief n the absence of supportive evidence. Science is the belief in the presence of supportive evidence. And reason is just the procedure by which humans ensure that their conclusions are consistent with the theory that produced them and with the data that test those conclusions.”

Sadly, we should not even need to define atheism as Sam Harris sharply points out:

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."  (Harris 2007).

Thankfully, nonbelief is the fastest growing and either second or third largest “belief system” so things are moving in the right direction.

 

Point 1: Atheist fanaticism as bad as religious?

Note the original points have been slightly rewritten here for clarity, if the original author feels misrepresented, please leave a comment to clarify:

You people still don’t understand that you are as fanatical as the theists that you keep writing about. I am a atheist myself but with the wisdom, and without the arrogance to preach that my idea is the right one.

Firstly, its important to understand that atheism unlike theism has no “ideas” associated to it, it simply defines a person as not believing in the proposition of God or a god.

Secondly, if you browse definitions of “fanatic”  and “fanatical” you find the word “irrational” embedded and this is the crucial difference between proponents of New Atheism and believers:

• having an extreme, irrational zeal or enthusiasm for a specific cause
• Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. .
• a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill

There are other more benign definitions of fanatical which generally amount to being “excessive” or “extreme” in support of your views and beliefs.

New Atheism, by the definition given in the earlier section, is critical and rational, so we need to accept that those elements of fanaticism cannot apply to it. This leaves the question whether we are “excessive”, “extreme”, “overzealous” etc. in our views.

What is more relevant, however, is whether our views are dangerous for if not an excessive enthusiasm for them will not cause any harm, unlike those of religion.

However, let us not be fooled into accepting a moral relativism that claims all beliefs as being equal. As Sam Harris’ has often stated in debates: We can measure what beliefs are must conducive to the welfare of human beings (a thesis which can be fully explored by the interested reader in “The Moral Landscape”).

We are seen as “insensitive” for telling believers that they are fooling themselves. New atheists have good reasons not to be quiet, and few sum it up better than Sam Harris:

“Patrick Bateson tells us that it is “staggeringly insensitive” to undermine the religious beliefs of people who find these beliefs consoling. I agree completely. For instance: it is now becoming a common practice in Afghanistan and Pakistan to blind and disfigure little girls with acid for the crime of going to school. When I was a neo-fundamentalist rational neo-atheist I used to criticise such behaviour as an especially shameful sign of religious stupidity. I now realise – belatedly and to my great chagrin – that I knew nothing of the pain that a pious Muslim man might feel at the sight of young women learning to read….” (Stenger 2009, 78-79).

Point 2: Dogma and Religion

“Dogma is not inherent to religion but to faith.”

“I am an atheist and yes I am religious.”

Religion without faith is not religion by any common definition of the word or any definition that most religious would recognise. A quick web search of the term “religion” will show the word “belief” and “supernatural” propping up repeatedly, but even sociologist Phil Zuckerman admits in his book “Society without God” that defining religion has proven notoriously difficult over the years.

He goes on to offer his own regardless, and it is instructive: “Religion refers to the concepts, rituals, experiences, and institutions that humans construct based upon their belief in the supernatural, otherwordly or spiritual. For me, it is the supernatural element that is the key. I agree with Stark and Bainbridge that “a religion lacking supernatural assumptions is no religion at all…for something to be “religious”, there must be an element of supernatural, otherwordly or spiritual belief. (Zuckerman 2008, 153-154)

Zuckerman goes on to define the “cultural religion” he observed in Scandinavia:

“cultural religion is the phenomenon of people identifying with historically religious traditions, and engaging in ostensibly religious practices, without truly believing in the supernatural content thereof.”

It’s helpful to employ the new term rather than attempting to redefine the existing. Obviously, New Atheism and atheism in general have no quarrel with culturally religious people and it would be possible to be both and atheist and “culturally religious” whereas it is an oxymoron to claim to be both atheistic and religious without engaging in some serious rhetorical gymnastics.

Point 3:

“And where is the proof that fanatics are acting in ways that is consistent with the teachings of the religion or philosophy? Don’t turn the preaching of a few into a religion.”

Firstly, I will answer this as it pertains to religious philosophy and not philosophy in general. Non-religious philosophy has in some cases led to dogmatism, but these would be exceptions and are outside the scope of this discussion.

In the End of Faith Sam Harris shows convincingly how “Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance,"  in other words, in order not to be a fanatic you need to apply the basic human values you already have and wilfully ignore the teachings of your religion, we’ll see why below.

Let’s start with the sources of religious teachings: In general holy books and priests (or other holy men) who interpret them.

Let’s begin with the Bible or the Q’uran, and you will find most of the practices fanatics are engaged in positively recommended, to give a sampling:

• If a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).
• Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lyingwith him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves (Deuteronomy, Numbers 38:18)
• …ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shalt worship no other god… (Exodus 34: 13-17)
• Those that deny God’s revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge” (Q’uran, 3:5)
• Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not (Q’uran 2:216)
• Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise” (Q’uran 4:55-56)

On a final note Leviticus 20 lists the following offences as meriting the death penalty: cursing your parents, committing adultery, making love to your stepmother or your daughter in law, homosexuality, marrying a woman and her daughter, bestiality.

This is just a taster for a fuller account I refer the reader to chapter 4 in the End of Faith, Chapter 7 in “The God Delusion” and chapters 7 through 9 in “God is Not Great”. A good summary of the eventual outcome of current religious faith in the US can be read in the chapter “Toward the Apocalypse” in Stenger’s “The New Atheism” (p. 53-57).

It need not be so, a few religions have more benign teachings, such as Jainism, again back to Harris:

Once again, we need look no further than the Jains: Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept. Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries, on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible. (Harris, 2007)

To summarise it, the actions of religious fanatics are perfectly consistent with the core dogmas that make up the major monotheistic religions.

When moderation occurs, it’s a result of not following the scriptures or the teachings as they are described, so why do you need religion in the first place, rather take Sam Harris’ advice from “Letter to a Christian Nation”:

Religious moderation is the direct result of taking scripture less and less seriously. So why not take it less seriously still? Why not admit the the Bible is merely a collection of imperfect books written by highly fallible human beings."

Tomorrow, I’ll continue this article series with a look at whether religion is inherently dogmatic, whether the statement “a lot of their assertions (red: religious’ people’s assertions) are provable false and must be discarded by religious people” is the product of a fanatical mind, and whether we “New Atheists” are just trying to occupy the “moral high ground” when remarking on religion and should rather just be content with the ideas and knowledge we hold.

I’ll be travelling over the weekend so join me for more on Monday…