Jeff Sparrow on the need to save ourselves from the sickishness of the New Atheists

[Whateverist]

[tongue in cheek]So I've been wondering how I could boost my popularity here so I thought I might introduce this article "We can save atheism from the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris"for discussion.  It was written by Jeff Sparrow and appeared in The Guardian in November of last year.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...w-atheists

"New atheists", "new atheism" were pretty new terms to my ears.  (But then I probably spend far too much time in gardens and hanging out with dogs.)  Anyhow lots of bits rang true for me, including:

By the 2000s, the old left had disintegrated, both as a movement and a set of ideas, even as some of its doctrines became entirely mainstream. Secularism was one of them. In 1901, it took considerable courage to proclaim your atheism in an English-speaking country; a century later, non-belief had become (within the intelligentsia, at least) largely unexceptional.

That was part of what made the New Atheists new. An earlier generation of atheists were brash and offensive but their provocations were generally directed at a church that still possessed considerable institutional power. The New Atheists were, by contrast, insiders rather than outsiders, writing and speaking in societies where manifestations of fervent religiosity largely occurred on the cultural fringes rather than the intellectual centres.

To be fair anyone living in Tennessee or so many other places in the South where everyone is a member of a church may be forgiven for feeling courageous for proclaiming their atheism.  I grew up feeling my atheism made me an outcast but only until I got to college.

Then there is this little tidbit which gives the sense of how old time atheist Marx regarded the importance of rushing everyone out of their favorite fantasy beliefs.

As early as 1842, Marx dismissed those who trumpeted their disbelief to children as “assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogeyman”. For him, intellectual disproofs of God were trivial; what mattered was building a world that didn’t give rise to mystification of any kind.

Or there is this choice morsel:

You don’t have to be a believer to see that religion genuinely offers something to its adherents (often when nothing else is available) and that what it provides is neither inconsequential nor silly.

By contrast, the New Atheists engage with religion purely as a set of ideas, a kind of cosmic rulebook for believers. On that basis, it’s easy to point out inconsistencies or contradictions in the various holy texts and mock the faithful for their gullibility.



But what happens then? You’re left with no explanation for their devotion other than a susceptibility to fraud. To borrow Dawkins’ title, if God is nothing but an intellectual delusion then the billions of believers are, well, deluded; a collection of feeble saps in need of enlightenment from their intellectual superiors.


That’s the basis for the dickishness that so many people now associate from the New Atheism, a movement too often exemplified by privileged know-it-alls telling the poor that they’re idiots.

That's a lot of quoting without a lot of discussion.  But I'm literally just beginning to process this.  Anyone else aware of this counter attack against the "new atheists".  Anyone else feel that there is a major kernel of truth to it?

[Whateverist]

Damned auto-correct ninja'd my title: Should read the "dickishness" not "sickishness", duh.

[Minimalist]

No.

Now what?

[Whateverist]

I'd be interested in your historical perspective, min. Does this ring true at all for you?

[Mudhammam]

[tongue in cheek]So I've been wondering how I could boost my popularity here so I thought I might introduce this article "We can save atheism from the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris"for discussion.  It was written by Jeff Sparrow and appeared in The Guardian in November of last year.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...w-atheists

"New atheists", "new atheism" were pretty new terms to my ears.  (But then I probably spend far too much time in gardens and hanging out with dogs.)  Anyhow lots of bits rang true for me, including:

By the 2000s, the old left had disintegrated, both as a movement and a set of ideas, even as some of its doctrines became entirely mainstream. Secularism was one of them. In 1901, it took considerable courage to proclaim your atheism in an English-speaking country; a century later, non-belief had become (within the intelligentsia, at least) largely unexceptional.

That was part of what made the New Atheists new. An earlier generation of atheists were brash and offensive but their provocations were generally directed at a church that still possessed considerable institutional power. The New Atheists were, by contrast, insiders rather than outsiders, writing and speaking in societies where manifestations of fervent religiosity largely occurred on the cultural fringes rather than the intellectual centres.

To be fair anyone living in Tennessee or so many other places in the South where everyone is a member of a church may be forgiven for feeling courageous for proclaiming their atheism.  I grew up feeling my atheism made me an outcast but only until I got to college.

Then there is this little tidbit which gives the sense of how old time atheist Marx regarded the importance of rushing everyone out of their favorite fantasy beliefs.

As early as 1842, Marx dismissed those who trumpeted their disbelief to children as “assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogeyman”. For him, intellectual disproofs of God were trivial; what mattered was building a world that didn’t give rise to mystification of any kind.

Or there is this choice morsel:

You don’t have to be a believer to see that religion genuinely offers something to its adherents (often when nothing else is available) and that what it provides is neither inconsequential nor silly.

By contrast, the New Atheists engage with religion purely as a set of ideas, a kind of cosmic rulebook for believers. On that basis, it’s easy to point out inconsistencies or contradictions in the various holy texts and mock the faithful for their gullibility.



But what happens then? You’re left with no explanation for their devotion other than a susceptibility to fraud. To borrow Dawkins’ title, if God is nothing but an intellectual delusion then the billions of believers are, well, deluded; a collection of feeble saps in need of enlightenment from their intellectual superiors.


That’s the basis for the dickishness that so many people now associate from the New Atheism, a movement too often exemplified by privileged know-it-alls telling the poor that they’re idiots.

That's a lot of quoting without a lot of discussion.  But I'm literally just beginning to process this.  Anyone else aware of this counter attack against the "new atheists".  Anyone else feel that there is a major kernel of truth to it?

The New Atheists weren't addressing "societies where manifestations of fervent religiosity largely occurred on the cultural fringes rather than the intellectual centres." They were speaking to societies in which religion continues to dominate policy and world events, and where an alarming number of supposedly educated people disbelieve in man's power to affect the climate but believe in an iron age god who will intervene in a person's mundane private affairs if only one can muster enough faith. If the author's only point is to basically say, "Yes, religion is full of contradictory and delusional propositions which are easy to ridicule, and if you do this honestly and passionately, then you're perceived as a dick," then fine. But if he thinks the New Atheists are dicks for doing this, then he's actually the one who's cynical and condescending, and worse, a fool who apparently hasn't realized this about himself yet.

[Minimalist]

I think Dawkins nailed it.  Maybe he left out the fact that lots of believers are willingly deluded because it is easier than thinking.

[Whateverist]

So you're unaware of any "sea change" in the attitude/posture of atheists before and after Dawkins and company?

[Minimalist]

You know, both before and after I read Dawkins...and Harris and Hitchens....I thought the entire concept of 'god' was total fucking bullshit.  None of them changed my attitude a whit.

[Whateverist]

I think the same regarding the entire category of "the supernatural". So long as theists insist on filing God there I can't take it seriously either. I never read those guys (the new atheists) but there is something about taking everything said within the context of faith literally which seems as dumb when we do it as it does when they do.

[Cecelia]

If Religion were harmless, then I could understand frustrations about "New Atheists". However, Religion is far from harmless. Religion has become a shield for bigotry. It's a sword for unjust laws. Religion, like all things, must earn respect. It has not earned that respect. In fact I'd say it's done well to earn the harsh criticisms. And yes, religious people too have earned those criticisms.

When they use their bible to try to deny gay marriage, why shouldn't we point out that traditional marriage was reserved for men who paid for teenage girls (Yes, plural) or for a rapist and his wife? Why shouldn't we point out the parts they ignore while cherrypicking? As soon as they realize why others don't agree with their assertions, and stop using their book to try to deny rights to others-- then and only then will they being to earn understanding.