Why I Disagree With the New Atheists
75"What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." 1
The New Atheist movement is a response to a rise in religious fundamentalism. The 9/11 attacks, intelligent design movement, opposition to stem cell research, the Catholic Church's cover up of sexual abuse of children by priests, and homophobia have created a backlash against religion among many secular minded people.
Sam Harris, the author of "The End of Faith" went so far as calling for an end to all religion, as the title suggests. Harris even opposes liberal and moderate interpretations of religion because he believes they provide cover for fanatical interpretations.
My Problems With the New Atheist Arguments
I am an atheist. I think atheists have every right to express our views like anyone else. The New Atheists have every right to explain their views, including those that are critical of religion. But calling for an end to all religion bothers me. We live in a free society. I'm uncomfortable with anyone who think they have a right to force everyone else to think the way they think. I don't like it when religious people try to do this. I don't like the idea of the nonreligious doing it either.
Moderate and liberal minded religious people tend to dislike fundamentalist beliefs just as much as any secular person. Many religious people support separation of church and state. I worry that the New Atheist movement has created a chasm between atheists and moderate believers who should be allies in opposing religious extremism. Fundamentalist efforts to enforce personal religious morality on everyone else should be opposed by all decent people, whether they are religious or not.
An End to Close-Minded Thinking
Rather than calling for an end to faith, the New Atheists should be calling for an end to irrational thinking in all it's forms, whether religious or secular. They should be promoting critical and evidence-based thinking. Part of critical thinking is rejecting your beliefs when they are proven to be wrong. Our beliefs should be based on evidence. We shouldn't reject evidence or truth simply because it conflicts with our cherished beliefs. It's only when people become open-minded, willing to question their cherished beliefs and willing to change their minds when proven wrong that extremism of all kinds can be eliminated.
It isn't faith so much that is dangerous. It is extreme ideological belief that is dangerous. A person can believe in a god and an afterlife but have absolutely no doctrinal belief outside of this. A person can be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Buddhist and have absolutely no desire to force this on anyone else. On the other hand, a person may not believe in any gods but may blindly subscribe to an extreme political or nationalistic ideology. The New Atheists tend to assume that atheism and rationality go hand in hand. The fact that some atheists blindly subscribed to communist ideology indicates that being an atheist alone doesn't make you rational.
The real problem is an unquestioned belief in any ideology. The problem is denying evidence or trying to make it fit existing beliefs. Ideologues tend to ignore or deny evidence that doesn't fit an existing worldview. They tend to exaggerate evidence that does. Anyone who holds strong ideological beliefs, whether they are religious or secular, are guilty of this.
Take Libertarianism as an example. When presented with evidence that a particular government regulation is beneficial, a Libertarian may try to explain away that evidence because it doesn't fit their worldview. When presented with evidence that a particular government regulation caused harm, they will likely exaggerate it's significance.
The same thing occurs with some religious people like those who insist on abstinence only education even though it increases unwanted pregnancies. Or conservative Catholics who insist that condoms don't reduce the risk of getting aids. And, of course the claim that atheists dislike the most: you can't be moral if you don't believe in God. This false claim is often made despite the fact that moral behavior has also been found among many social animals. The most religious parts of the country have the most social problems and Mormon family values Utah has the highest Internet porn use in the nation.
According to Robert Levine, author of the Power of Persuasion, people will often believe in something more strongly when evidence actually proves it wrong. It is this tendency to hold onto beliefs the evidence be damned that rational minded people should be concerned about. What we really should be calling for is an end to close-mindedness because this is what really endangers and divides us.
References
- Did Removing Prayer from Public Schools Lead to Moral Decline?
Prayer was removed from American public schools in 1962. Premarital sex and divorce increased in the mid 1960's. Crime rates increased in the late 1960's. So, did illegal drug use. Is it correct to assume that removing prayer in school led to an increase in social problems or was it just a coincidence? - 7 months ago
- Why I Disagree With the New Atheists
Aspects of the New Atheist arguments that really trouble me despite the fact that I am an atheist myself. - 8 months ago
- A Story of Lost Faith at Chick Fil-A
An overheard conversation at Chick Fil-A about a son who lost his faith and his father's feelings of rejection. - 8 months ago
CommentsLoading...
"I think this is exactly why an end to faith is proposed by so many, because faith is the anti-thesis of skepticism and without skepticism we'd all be so open-minded that our brains would fall out"
You're absolutely right! Atheists should absolutely be explaining why we don't believe in any gods and the problems we have with religion. I do it myself in my own writing. But I think calling for the elimination of religion is going a step too far. It crosses the line in terms of individual freedom and alienates moderates who are in agreement with us about the dangers of religious extremism. I think it can lead to more hostility against atheists by making us seem intolerant. I prefer atheist writing along the lines of "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God" or something like "Letting Go of God." They can give people food for thought without seeming intolerant.
Eliminating religion is nigh impossible anyway. I do think there is a place for ridiculing religion as long as we're focusing on poking fun at the beliefs instead of the people who hold them.
All of these methods have their place.
The only methods that don't have a place are the people who call for religion to be outlawed, call for religious people to be badgered or think that any amount of religious instruction from a parent amounts to child abuse. Some people are too overly zealous and too angry, they've become too closed-minded like you said and it can be just as annoying as religious fundamentalism.
(Rather than calling for an end to faith, the New Atheists should be calling for an end to irrational thinking in all it's forms, whether religious or secular. They should be promoting critical and evidence-based thinking)
gobangla,
I appreciate your concerns, but I believe you should re-read Sam Harris as your statement above is a 100% reflection of his position - all types of faith, moderate, liberal, or extreme are examples of irrational thinking. Your call for evidence-based belief systems echoes the position taken by Sam Harris. I'm not trying to be overly-critical as there was a time I agreed with your hub position but have since determined that stance to have been wrong. Some reasons why:
(It isn't faith so much that is dangerous. It is extreme ideological belief that is dangerous.)
Faith very much is the danger.
I think you are confusing reactions of believers with the cause of those actions. No one acts without belief. The same group who has a liberal view blindly accepts the same premises as the guy who bombs an abortion clinic - that a supernatural being is real.
If humanity as a whole did not believe any god was possible or real, there would be no reason to fly airplanes into buildings or to torture and burn suspects as in The Inquisition.
These kinds of atrocities require faith.
(What we really should be calling for is an end to close-mindedness because this is what really endangers and divides us)
I submit that one cannot be religious without closed-mindedness, that the two are inseparable. Those who have doubts about the realities of god are not really religious - they are simply seekers of emotional comfort.
Moderate and liberal religiously inclined like to stake claim to openmindedness in that they accept the possibilities of the supernatural. Truth is, they are simply holding onto the emotional neediness of The Dark Ages fear of the unknown or practicing a form of social networking that has no relationship to faith and belief.
AKA,
My concern is that there is a big difference between the faith of a fundamentalist Christian and that of a Christian who is a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Blaming liberal religionists for the behavior and beliefs of extremists seems unfair to me. It would be liking blaming moderate drinkers for the behavior of alcoholics (which Prohibitionists did).
"I submit that one cannot be religious without closed-mindedness, that the two are inseparable."
You're right. My point is rather than attacking people directly for holding particular beliefs, we should be encouraging critical and evidence-based thinking that would inevitably undermine religious belief anyway. People do become defensive when directly attacked. It's very possible that the New Atheist approach may force people to cling even more to their beliefs rather than encouraging people to question them. Often it's not what you say, it's how you say it that matters.
Titen,
You're absolutely right that religious belief won't go away anytime in the near future, so calling for an end to it is pointless. I think the main focus of atheists should be reducing the influence of religion in society as much as possible. But I feel we need moderate believers to do that. I talked once to a woman with a cross around her neck who was railing against conservative Christians. A lot of believers dislike conservatism as much as we do.
Gobangla, well said and I feel every word was right on the money. By taking a centerist stance as you have, you are walking your truth and offering people a means of communicating with those who may have a different set of beliefs.
Voted up
Thanks TKs. You're exactly the kind of moderate believer that I don't want to alienate. It is the extremists and fanatics that bother me and not anyone else.
Titen-Sxull Level 4 Commenter 8 months ago
"I'm uncomfortable with anyone who thinks they have a right to force everyone else to think the way they think."
I don't think there are many "New Atheists" who truly want to infringe on people's rights or start indoctrinating people the way religion does. Some may be overly zealous in their attacks on religion though.
"willing to question their cherished beliefs and willing to change their minds when proven wrong that extremism of all kinds can be eliminated."
I think this is exactly why an end to faith is proposed by so many, because faith is the anti-thesis of skepticism and without skepticism we'd all be so open-minded that our brains would fall out
Sure there's a few overzealous "militant" atheists who probably want religion outlawed. Atheism used to suffer from the problem that it wasn't vocal enough, now we've gotten over that and it might be said some fringes of the atheist label have become too vocal and put out a message that is toxic to their own goal. In some way they might be the equal and opposite reaction to folks like the West Boro Baptist Church. This is why it's important to call atheists and atheists groups out when they pull a bullshit move (such as the WTC Cross Hub I wrote).
If we're going to win this fight against religion let us do it with honor and respect for the rights of the religious. And honestly religion will likely always be with us in some form, anyone fighting to end ALL religion everywhere is setting impossible goals for themselves.