For several years I led a monthly lunch-time Bible study class in midtown Manhattan that brought together business people from very divergent backgrounds and beliefs. During a reading of the Biblical account of creation, we discussed whether these ancient stories are meant to be factual reporting of historic events, or perhaps something else.
"It's important to realize that, in spite of the popular conception that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion - between, in particular, the theory evolution and the Bible account of creation - these two actually support each other, and can be easily reconciled." I said.
Suddenly, a man sitting across from me pounded his fist on the table, and shouted,
"That's Bullshit!! You can not possibly reconcile the Bible with evolution. The Bible was written by men, not some invisible super-being, and is simply a collection of superstitions and tribal stories, meant to control others."
"The Bible can be understood in many ways", I answered. "The stories are not necessarily historical facts, but can be read as allegorical lessons, ethical teachings, and mystical insights."
"That's just a spin." he said. "It's absurd - and dangerous - to assign anything else to it but that. Do you know how many wars have been fought in the name of religion? The world would be better off without this insane mythology!"
He sat quietly for the rest of the session. A few weeks later I received a copy of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, with a note from the man in my class: "I urge you to read this to open your eyes to the dangers of religion and faith. Somehow, though, I doubt that you will consider this."
I had, in fact, already read it, as well as most of the books by the so-called "New Atheists", written shortly after 9/11. I completely agree with their warnings about the threat presented by the growing rise of religious fundamentalism and extremism, and applaud their encouragement for people to think for themselves and to challenge doctrine of all kinds. These are, of course, important points. But these books don't seem content to stop there. What has struck me most powerfully about these books, and many of their adherents, such as the man in my class, is the angry, sarcastic, and dismissive tone, and the blind stereotyping of faith and religion.
Most take position that religion is inherently dangerous, because it encourages, or even forces, people to believe things that are objectively not true. Belief in anything that can not be scientifically provable - especially God - they argue, disables our critical thinking, and leads people to act wickedly and to do terrible things, like flying planes in to buildings filled with innocent human beings. Religion, and the notion of God, they write, must therefore be eliminated if humanity is ever to move forward to a future free from the superstitions and divisive beliefs that inevitably lead to conflict, prejudice, and war.
By now, New Atheism is an aging trend that has been strongly challenged on historical and theological grounds by many authors, including prominent scientists and philosophers. I have been looking at these New Atheists for several years from a different perspective, though, wondering about the real underlying motivation for many of the writers and followers. I have begun to ask:
1. Why are the attacks against religion and faith so personal and extreme?
We all know that anyone who is ready to strap a bomb on his back or plans to kill innocent people in name of religion must be condemned and stopped. But why do so many of these New Atheists seem to insist that anyone who is religious shares the same fundamental beliefs as these fanatics? This is factually wrong. According to a recent Pew Forum survey, 68% of Americans who claim to be religious agree that there are many ways to interpret the teachings of their religion. More than a quarter of religious adults - including about half of Jews - say their faith's sacred texts are written by men and are not the word of God. The truth is that most religious people are not fundamentalists, and a very large number do not read the Bible literally, and do not blindly follow the dogma of their faith. And, of course, man people who believe in God are not religious.
Only children - or adults who have never challenged their childish vision - think of God as some kind of super-being in the clouds who literally writes books and punishes those who don't do exactly as "he" demands. Yet this is how these New Atheists see God and the Bible, and they seem to assume that everyone else must as well.
2. Why do New Atheist stubbornly hold on to the wildly inaccurate claims that religion is the cause for most wars, and that people of faith are anti-science?
Whenever the topic of the danger of religion comes up - as in Bill Mahr's movie "Religulous -, someone authoritatively says "Religion is the cause of most wars: Look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11. Need I name more?" Well, yes, you do need to name more. The most devastating, and most recent wars have NOT been religious: Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, The Civil War, the Napoleonic Wars, the America and French Revolutions, and the great conquest of the ancient world. In fact, it is obvious that the greatest destruction has come from non-religious, and often militantly atheist regimes.
In response, the New Atheists have made the claim that Communist Russia and China, and Nazi Germany, were actually "state sponsored religions". Of course this begs the question, "What is a religion?" If it is a system of unquestionable rules and submission to absolute authority, then while it applies to North Korea, actual religions fail this test, because all religions evolve through challenge and debate. If their concern is that religion is non-rational and subjective, then so is love, art, music, altruism, and much that is most vital to our happiness and growth.
These books also claim that religion closes our minds, turns us away from scientific investigation, and forces us to believe in that which is clearly not true. Again, history proves that this is not a simple truth. Many people of faith seamlessly mesh teaching of their faith with modern life and science, and radical thinkers such as Moses Maimonides, Isaac Newton, Renee Descartes, Frances Bacon, and Max Planck, were men who deeply believed in God, yet saw their faith as perfectly consistent with, and actually helpful to, their scientific exploration. Finally, the New Atheists seem to refuse to consider that religion has contributed anything positive. While religion has been used to bring much pain to the world, it has objectively brought much that is good, in the fight for social justice, the establishment of charitable organizations, the support of community, and the call to compassion.
3. Why do these authors so love being thought of as naughty rebels, and why are they so angry and bitter?
Like Jackson Pollack peeing in Peggy Guggenheim's fireplace at a dinner party, or a little boy yelling "poop" in a classroom assembly, the New Atheists seem to want to think of themselves as bad boys (and, yes, this is predominantly a male phenomenon), rebelling against adult authority, and reveling in the insistence that they are a persecuted minority. While perhaps this is a publicity position (books by thoughtful moderates usually languish in the remainder pile) it is not supported by facts. Worldwide surveys show that people who define themselves as "non-religious" or "atheists" total approximately 10% - 20% (and it's likely that the numbers are actually much higher because many are reluctant to say so). According to the Pew study, 25% of all American who claim to be religious see God as "an impersonal force" - the very definition of an atheist - and only 39% of Americans attend religious services on a regular bases. So atheism, and a tepid, or even contentious, relationship to religion, are actually very common (just come to any Jewish event to see this in action)
Something odd is going on here. While the New Atheists claim to be spokesmen for rationality and a brighter future of peace, many of their positions are plainly irrational, factually wrong, and violent in their implications. Their eagerness to label and destroy such a diverse and fluid institution as religion, and their childish parody of the notion of God, reveals a level of hatred and close-mindedness that points to something which, I suspect, is not directly related to the subject, but that stems from a painful and very personal dilemma that they refuse to consider.
The next blog will outline some reasons for this irrationality and nastiness.
Alan Lurie: Reframing the Conversation After 'Anatomy of an Angry Atheist'
The very essence of religion is an experience of the mystery of being and the determination to incorporate practices in order to become a better human being. Religion points inward.
Not because belief in the unknowable causes strange antisocial behaviour, but because it intrudes into non-religious people's lives in insidious ways.
It is not the intangible we detest, but the tangible effects because: Religion exists to define and encourage moral behaviour, and yet in todays world, it regularly does the exact opposite.
We are 'too' angry, because it makes us ineffective. Drug addicts, depressed people and people with low IQs are drawn to religion because it is simple and emotionally rewarding. We must offer simplicity and happiness in atheism, and we can't do that while we are cold, cranky, rational and dismissive.
http://www.explonential.com/how-to-convert-a-theist-3-arguments-for-religion-rebutted/
As the Great Professor Irwin Cory might respond (and I'll send him a stipend for filching his material if he wants) "Why are new atheists angry?" is really two questions:
"Why?" has been asked since the beginning and answered only partially. It would be presumptious of me to say why.
"Are new atheists angry?" You bet.
I have decided that the anti-religious are looking for ways to justify their premise, even, possibly mainly, to the extent that they use a narrow definition of religion to serve their angry purposes.
The basic problem is that science at its core is objective, yielding universal proofs which are uncertain. Religion, on the other hand is subject, yielding personal "truths" which are "certain" for the individual, albeit subject to change with new wisdom. It is this distinction that science is "fact" and religion is "experienced" that makes the difference.
The worst idea from religion: that morality has no logical foundation, that it can only come from some supernatural "Almighty" god.
By the way, I'm an atheist, but not a "New Atheist". I've been an atheist since I was 9 years old and I'm now 60 - I'm not a new anything.
- Ray Eston Smith Jr
1. Why are the attacks on atheists so personal and extreme?
2. Why do religious people stubbornly hold on to the wildly inaccurate claims that atheism is the cause for so many of society's ills?
3.Why do these religious conservatives so love being thought of as pious, and why are they so hypocritical?
Also, religion and science can not be reconciled. They are two classes of propositions which have nothing in common with each other. As Wittgenstein would argue: it is senseless to connect the two. It is like asking if the good is like the beautiful-- complete nonsense from a logical perspective.
I think that religion can be reconciled with anti-religious people but only if there is significant compromises from all the parties involved (theist and atheist alike). Believing something on faith, misinformation, and not seeing around your own preconceptions/prejudices. I can't figure out exactly why evolution is so controversial or why a significant number of people don't accept that the climate is changing (how it's changing seems to be up for debate). How can we solve any real problems if a) people don't see a problem, b) can't work together to solve it, c) are reluctant to accept even the most well supported ideas in the sciences, d) actively try to get in the way when anyone brings up an important concern, and e) tend to remain unaware of a, b, and c?
For most of the rest of the things you say, I'd like independent verification. No offense.
Only children - or adults who have never challenged their childish vision - think of God as some kind of super-being in the clouds who literally writes books and punishes those who don't do exactly as "he" demands.
~"New" Atheists are dumb, and don't know that many believers faith is considered and nuanced.~
2. Why do New Atheist stubbornly hold on to the wildly inaccurate claims that religion is the cause for most wars, and that people of faith are anti-science?
In fact, it is obvious that the greatest destruction has come from non-religious, and often militantly atheist regimes.
~"New" atheists are dumb and don't know history.~
3. Why do these authors so love being thought of as naughty rebels, and why are they so angry and bitter?
Their eagerness to label and destroy such a diverse and fluid institution as religion, and their childish parody of the notion of God, reveals a level of hatred and close-mindedness that points to something which, I suspect, is not directly related to the subject, but that stems from a painful and very personal dilemma that they refuse to consider.
~"New" atheists are neurotic, and have mental problems.~
If you do not understand religion's role in war, murder, slavery, misogyny and torment, then you have not studied history or relgion. As a historian, my expertise is history, but that has exposed me to more religion than any educated person should be forced to endure.
Religion, we learn, is the art of being closed-minded; it is a realm for the unimaginative. It is a method of finding personal realization in the ignorance of bronze age and first century charlatans. That is sad.
Sometimes it's a good idea to click on a posters history to see where they are really coming from.
"Something odd is going on here. While the New Atheists claim to be spokesmen for rationality and a brighter future of peace, many of their positions are plainly irrational, factually wrong, and violent in their implications. Their eagerness to label and destroy such a diverse and fluid institution as religion, and their childish parody of the notion of God, reveals a level of hatred and close-mindedness that points to something which, I suspect, is not directly related to the subject, but that stems from a painful and very personal dilemma that they refuse to consider."
WTFBBQ? Man you're an old crank. In writing an article about atheists making straw men out of the religious, in saying that atheists are unreasonable, you have managed to make straw men out of atheists and behave unreasonably. The National Academy of Sciences is over 90% atheist or agnostic, but you can't even give atheists credit for coming to our conclusions in a rational way. You've either got to be completely ignorant of atheism, or a willful liar. Either way I'm completely unimpressed. If all religious people thought the way that you do, I'd be disgusted and repulsed by the majority of humanity. Thankfully, I know that this is not true; I give them more credit than that.
I'm a rational person; I value evidence and logical reasoning. Based on what I see, logic leads me to conclude that the gods people worship do not exist, so I call myself atheist.
Sam Harris points out that fundamentalists also respect evidence and logical thought. Ask one how he knows what he claims to know about God and he'll tell you things like, "The fine tailoring of the universe proves it was designed. God was the designer. He gave us the Bible, so it's true. And it tells me to worship Jesus." I think his premises are flawed and ignorant, but based on them, I think he draws the right conclusions. I can understand him and try to reason with him.
Religious moderates seem to be a different sort. Those I've talked with have never been able to explain how they decide which parts of the Bible are literal, which are metaphorical, and which to ignore. They say things like "It resonates with me" or "I can't believe God wants that". Which is nice, but is not a valid way to determine the facts.
So when I discuss religion, I guess you're right. I treat the audience like fundamentalists, because they're the only ones I can reason with. I don't know how to discuss something with people who don't rely on evidence and logic.
Way to cherry pick your statistics. Check these ones out instead:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
There's a problem when people can't accept something so obvious as evolution. Religion has done its job to misinform for the sake of its own well-being. Do we feel like we've got issues before us created by religion? That religion has the potential to greatly harm the advancement of science? Without a doubt.
It sure is if you're in the United States; there are laws in some states banning you from public office. There are plenty of polls showing that people will not vote for an atheist. Here's a nice little collection: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm
But you know what? I don't define my identity through that discrimination. Even if I did, I'm still going to tell you that your entire basis for whether we feel discriminated against has nothing to do with whether what we have to say about religion or any god is valid. All you're doing is pushing an ad-hominem with this argument.
In response, the New Atheists have made the claim that Communist Russia and China, and Nazi Germany, were actually "state sponsored religions". Of course this begs the question, "What is a religion?" If it is a system of unquestionable rules and submission to absolute authority, then while it applies to North Korea, actual religions fail this test, because all religions evolve through challenge and debate. If their concern is that religion is non-rational and subjective, then so is love, art, music, altruism, and much that is most vital to our happiness and growth."
These two paragraphs fail because of what I wrote earlier. Atheists take issue with any irrationality, and we don't all think that religion caused every major war. I'm completely stumped on how you think that fascism hasn't evolved or changed. I'm also confused as to how you can lump every single religion together and say that none of them think of themselves as unquestionable in their doctrine. All around, this is some very weak material.
You done beating that straw man yet? Need a few more swings in there? Honestly, how out of touch do you think atheists are? I help run a local atheist group; not one that I know of has this opinion of the average religious person. Most of us came out of religion, have friends/family/co-workers who are religious, and see the reality of reasonable, peaceful religious people every single day of our lives.
"2. Why do New Atheist stubbornly hold on to the wildly inaccurate claims that religion is the cause for most wars,"
All of us? Seriously? Do you take us for that historically illiterate? I don't think most wars were religious in origin. I think that organized religion is simply a wonderful tool for getting people to go along with war. I think organized ideology without questioning the source is what religion is all about, but politics can do the very same thing.