The Trouble with the New Atheists: Part II

Last week in this space I posted an attack on the "new atheists" that got me--predictably, I guess--attacked by new atheists.

My complaint wasn't the usual complaint about them (that they're counterproductively arrogant or zealous), but rather that they exert a right-wing influence on foreign policy. By depicting religion as a prime mover of conflict--especially in the Middle East--they discourage us from addressing the grievances of, for example, Palestinians. They give aid and comfort to those on the right who believe (but generally have the tact not to quite say): "What's the point of trying to reason with those crazy Muslims? They'll hate us no matter what we do, because hate is what their religion teaches them."

I've weighed the counter-arguments that have been arrayed against me and--surprise!--found them wanting (though in one case--see point 2 below--I admit that I did a very bad job of presenting my argument, pretty much begging to be misunderstood). Let me revisit a couple of key points.

1. Is religion at the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Richard Dawkins had said yes, and I said no; the conflict between Arabs and Jews started as a basically secular dispute over land and only later got wrapped up in religious fervor. Blogger Paul Fidalgo replied that the reason the Israelis thought they deserved the land was because "it says so in their holy book," and John Snider at americanfreethought.com also emhasized the power of the Bible's "cosmic claims about the Promised Land." I think the words "holy" and "cosmic" are misleading here. The leaders of the Zionist movement were secular (as Snider acknowledges). To the extent that they cited the Bible, they cited it not as a religious text, but as an historical text--to establish that their people had been on the land before the Arabs were. (Just as native Americans might point to evidence that they were in America before Europeans.) Whereas the American Declaration of Independence invokes God, the closest the Israeli Declaration of Independence comes to a religious appeal is the phrase "with trust in the rock of Israel." (That's what it says in Hebrew, though it's often translated into English as "trust in the Almighty".)

I'm not denying that the conflict has become religious, both for some Jews and some Muslims. And I'm not denying that this complicates the solution. My point is just that the prime mover is the conflict over land, and if that conflict is resolved, religious zealotry will start to subside--because, in my view, ever since ancient times [http://evolutionofgod.net/time] , it's been material circumstances, not religion, that has driven "religious" conflict. Richard Dawkins, in asserting that there would be no Israel-Palestine conflict whatsoever if it weren't for religion, is not just wrong but dangerously wrong, because such claims discourage us from working hard to change those circumstances.

Speaking of Dawkins:

2. Is Richard Dawkins right wing on foreign policy? Here is where I'm at fault--not for asserting that Dawkins has right-wing views on foreign policy, but for failing to make clear that I wasn't asserting this. My point was that the new atheists' depiction of religion as the root of evil, by discouraging attention to deeper root causes, furthers a right-wing agenda whether these atheists subscribe to that agenda or not. What I should have said is that they are objectively right-wing (after Orwell's famous assertion that pacificists were objectively pro-fascist regardless of their views about fascism). And I should have thought twice before titling the piece "Why the New Atheists are Right Wing on Foreign Policy"--a title that PZ Myers at Pharyngula amusingly used as an excuse to reject my thesis without reading my defense of it. (My sloppiness of expression notwithstanding, it wasn't quite impossible to grasp my meaning, as my new friend Bonzai showed over at richarddawkins.net.)

Still, of the three people I discussed--Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens--Dawkins is the only one I would say doesn't have specifically right-wing views that I know of. (Harris, as I noted, explicitly discourages looking for non-religious root causes of terrorism.)

3. And, by the way, what of Daniel Dennett? He's the only one of the "four horsemen" I didn't mention. Like Dawkins, he's never struck me as right-wing on foreign policy, but as for the question of whether he's "objectively" right wing: Though he doesn't go around attributing evils to religion as recklessly as Hitchens and Harris, he does something that is the rough generic equivalent: Like Dawkins, he refers to religious beliefs as "viruses" of the mind.

Now, viruses, generally speaking, are parasites; when they have a discernible effect on their host it is almost always negative. And, more to the point, the popular understanding of the word virus is that it implies parasitism. Would Dawkins and Dennett say that religious belief is always, or even usually, parasitic in the Darwinian sense--bad for the reproductive prospects of the host? If so, how do you explain the number of Catholics in the world? In light of the fact that sometimes religious belief (however mistaken it may be) manifestly helps people flourish (and even helps them preserve their mental health), while other times it gets them killed or makes them crazy, the proper term for the God meme isn't "virus" or "parasite" but the neutral "symbiont." (When a symbiotic relationship is good for the host, it is "mutualistic" and if it's bad for the host, then it deserves the label "parasitic".) That Dawkins and Dennett have so casually used the term "virus" would seem to reflect an intellectual sloppiness that neither of them practices very often. It's almost enough to make you wonder whether the new atheism, like religion, might sometimes be parasitic on the reasoning power of its hosts.

4. Is there a "new atheism"? Some atheists objected to my making a general indictment of the "new atheism" as if there were much coherence to the label or much homogeneity to the group it is meant to cover. I'll take this issue up in a future post. Meanwhile, a golden oldie involving Dan Dennett and me: our several-year-old video discussion of whether evolution could have a larger "purpose" (as, for example, if natural selection was launched by extraterrestrials--or by some sort of Deistic God--who had designed the algorithm of natural selection and then seeded the planet with cells that were expected to eventually lead to intelligent life.) In this clip I think Dennett displays an admirable open-mindedness that might surprise some of his detractors.

 

 

Comments

[zokaleka]

to Robert

English is my third language. sorry for the mistakes

I have to disagree with your analysis of the conflict in the middle east. I am a refugee from Bosnia Herzegovina living in Denmark. I am sure that writers like yourself would not link religion to the conflict and wars in ex Yugoslavia as you dismiss it in the middle east and it is even more obvious there. Political figures from Serbia often say that Kosovo is serbian "holy land". This goes for the political science PhD and mad man Vojislav Šešelj as well as others.

You would do the world a favor to look into the facts more deeply. Harris is right. It is odd that intelligent people like you find it so hard to see the obvious. It's a shame that Sam Harris has to waist time explaining things to non-believers.I fear that it will be too late when people finally get it. explain to me the political or some other reason for Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to accept blood which often results in their death and even the death of their children.There is only one sentence in the bible that makes them refuse blood and they do it despite the fact that they will die.now connect this behavior to suicide bombing

those "holy books" are really roots of death but many rational people still can not see this. no wonder it took so many years before the inquisition was stopped.

[Emmanuel9]

If anybody is interested, my review of "The Evolution of God" is here:

http://bit.ly/10Wg9C

[PhysicistDave]

Bob,

I am a Ph.D. physicist (Stanford) and a militantly zealous “New Atheist,” but I agree with your criticism of Harris and Hitchens: I was horrified by Harris’ comments on Muslims and am usually appalled by what Hitchens has to say on any subject *except* religion.

As you suggest, neither Dawkins nor Dennett seem to have commented forcefully enough on the issue that we can really know their views.

Perhaps, all that proves is that Dawkins and Dennett have the good sense not to pontificate in areas in which they are not knowledgeable, and that Harris and Hitchens lack such good judgment.

Or perhaps it merely shows that atheists are as prone to silliness, bigotry, and divergent opinions as humans in general.

I’ve never believed atheists were saints; I’ve simply doubted that Christians were any more saints than atheists.

Oh, and last I checked Hitchens still considered himself a Trot who revered the “Old Man”: I know that Trotskyites are a weird political species in general, but does Hitch really count as “right-wing”?

Dave Miller in Sacramento

[Emmanuel9]

There is an interesting two hour discussion between the "4 horsemen" (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennitt) on utube. I recently blogged my reaction to the first 4 clips from the point of view of a Baha'i. Here it is if anybody is interested.

http://bahaicoherence.blogspot.com/2009/07/blogging-giants-of-atheism.html

[HelloImTroyMcclure]

Just like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, Mr. Wright knows that religious beliefs help to create and mold political agendas - just as political agendas can help to create and mold religious belief; but the real issue is, does it matter which one leads to the other?

Let's assume he is right about the Arab / Jewish conflict... But, does it really matter that the dispute began as a land war? The sprinkling of religion into the recipe has now turned a territorial conflict into a holy war, with both sides using their own particular notion of God as cosmic justification.

Does Mr. Wright really think that either side could go back to (what he believes) was the root of the problem? Does he honestly think that the Palestinians and Israelis could simply eschew their religious differences and look only at the issue of territorial boundaries? It seems to be clear that they cannot... religion has made the divide between them far too wide and complicated to be easily or simply traversed - which I would argue is ultimately the more important issue that the so-called "new atheists" Mr. Wright criticizes are trying to bring to light.

It's not simply that these conflicts BEGAN about religion - it's that they've become virtually unresolvable BECAUSE of religion.

[PentopAnger]

The mistake the author makes regarding whether or not the root of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is religious is that he takes the middle of the story and makes it the beginning. Even if the original zionist leaders were all secular, they wouldn't have gotten into the position of creating a modern Israel if a bunch of 19th century British Christians didn't have the crazy idea that the Jews had to go back to the Holy Land before Jesus could come back. Not to mention, early Zionists were much more enthusiastic about the option of a homeland in Palestine than they were about the proposed alternative in the Congo. This was probably a religious preference. Barbara Tuchman's "Bible and Sword" gives a pretty detailed accounting of all this.

[seathanaich]

The only "trouble with the new atheists" is that they dare to criticise the taboo subject of religion in the same way that people are used to hearing politics criticised, and that makes religious people uncomfortable because they know - though they won't admit - that religion has enough silly and false elements to it that if they start pulling on one thread the whole sweater will unravel. And when the thing you will lose for doing this is immortality, that scares religious people, as well it should.

Gay rights, womens rights, anti-racism - nobody ever got anywhere by staying silent. When religionists complain that atheists are "strident" or "arrogant", they are lying. What they want is a continuation of the Exemption From Criticism that religion has imposed upon society. The mere existence of atheism is intolerable to religions; it doesn't matter how politely they assert their views, it will be met with intolerance from religion because religion is by nature divisive and intolerant of "the other".

Those who can't see that religion is the cause of Jewish-Muslim conflict are in so much denial it's staggering. I mean, it's called "Jewish-Muslim" conflict because . . . ? Talk about going to any lengths to avoid having to ask tough questions about your own religion, god, and use of "faith" as a virtue!

[elmerfude]

Each day is a different god. Today where I live it is the god of heat and crickets. Annie Dillard in her book Holy the Firm gives a good description of how each day is a different god.

[Taliesan]

So, he was unimpressed by the "new atheist" responses he got - but ended up admitting that of the four horsemen only two even sort of maybe fit his premise of the "new atheists" being rightwing on foreign policy.

He had to back right down on Dawkins after it was pointed out to him that Dawkins does not actually support rightwing foreign policy.

Not only that, but he also admits that he tailored his sample to fit his hypothesis - note his reasoning for excluding Dennet.

Yet even after admitting that essentially his first article was based on false and flawed data, here he is clinging to his conclusions. Cognative dissonance anyone?

As to his continued argument, there is another flaw to it, he seemingly assumes that the full extent of rightwing foreign policy can essentially be summed up as supporting the war in Iraq - and that "teh Muslims is out to get us."

His gross over-simplification of the rightwing is every bit as bad as his over-simplification of the atheist movement - he ignores issues of trade, of border disputes, of nuclear power, of environmental policy, rights advocacy and other elements of foreign policy in order to focus on policy regarding terrorism.

Essentially, reading his articles one gets the idea that the only foreign policy worth talking about is in regards to the Middle East.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"Is there a "new atheism"? Some atheists objected to my making a general indictment of the "new atheism" as if there were much coherence to the label or much homogeneity to the group it is meant to cover."

Incoherent indictments are objectionable.

[RobinSeattle]

"By depicting religion as a prime mover of conflict--especially in the Middle East--"

Actually, the Christian zealots that are part of the GOP's Republican base were the ones making that argument. The Bush Administration made this not just a conflict between good and evil, but one of fundamentalist Christianity vs. fundamentalist Islam.

Thus, I'm not really sure what your problem with atheists is. The "virus of the mind" remark is factual, that religion is created in the image of man and not vice versa and it often gets used for nefarious purposes (Christianity having been largely imposed on the west at the point of a sword, for one and Islam on north Africa ditto for two). That doesn't exclude one from nevertheless looking at conflicts in the Middle East in a holistic way, some of which is recognizing the legacy of foreign meddling in that region. In fact, dollars to donuts, I would bet you that you will tend to get a more honest and holistic examination of issues in that region than you would out of believers who have some kind of emotional attachment to the region by mere dint of their faith and who permit said affinity to obscure all reason and objectivity.

[octopi]

This post was better, but it reads like a non-apology apology. We don't come out as "new atheists," we come out as atheists. It is like calling gays since the second millennia the "new gays." There is nothing new about this phenomenon of atheism as it has always been an integral part of humanity ever since the first inklings of philosophy and science where a claim of agency or unreasonable belief was surmised or shown to have natural causes or underpinnings. The bottom line is you picked a minority based on self-selected representatives of atheism and that came off badly.

As for the rest of it, you are really focusing on antitheism, not atheism. Many atheists, including Dawkins, appreciate a good amount of the culture that has come out of religions while at the same time finding much fault with religions. Hitchens is an avowed antitheist and with great effect he uses that position in entertaining and thoughtful debates. Other atheists agree with PZ Myers that religion would be best relegated to a hobby like knitting; how can knitting be evil?

To argue that Jews saw the OT as historical ignores that most Christians do, too. You cannot separate the belief in fictitious things from religion, most religions derive from fictional histories. You are essentially claiming that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not religious even when their understandings of history are based on religious texts that have seldom been corroborated with archeological evidence.

[Ryan Shields]

This is really a non argument argument. This post attacks so called 'new atheists' for saying that religion is evil for fostering hate between people of different religions. (note that it is explicitly written in most religious texts and especially the bible to either convert or kill people of a religion other than one that praises the 'one true god') His entire premise is based on a stereotype of atheists...or new atheists whatever that is. I'm someone who has been atheist all my 19 years but i guess I would be lumped into the 'new atheist' category but I'm very ardently libertarian in my foreign policy views. My point is you can't lump together atheists like you do christians and the like because there is no doctrine or dogma thats leads us to act and believe in the same way.

[octopi]

I agree. I followed a link from Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish where Robert Wright wrote, "(b) Last week at the Huffington Post I published an assault on the anti-theist part of the “new atheism”; (c) This assault was so poorly worded, and got so much atheist blowback, that I half-apologized for it here." I vehemently disagree that there is such a thing as a new atheist.

Also, I meant "picked on a minority" not "picked a minority" in the last sentence of my first paragraph.

[RadicalRepublican]

Atheists don't attack religions. All other forms of belief attack each other and atheists regularly. We don't care if it's vishnu, allah, god or buddah, have a good time with your religion and stop trying to make everyone else believe as you do. Then we can stop defending ourselves from religious interference with democratic government.

[RobinSeattle]

"Atheists don't attack religions. "

Well, we do, but only when folks try to shove their fairy tales down our throats. Personally, I don't care if you want to believe in some omniscient cloud being, but just don't bore me with silly arguments as to why said cartoon character is real.

I have had friends who were born again Christians. I occasionally even listen to gospel music. And I will continue to be fine with hanging out with believers as long as they treat me like a regular, intelligent human being and not as a target for proselytism. I relate to people as people first and not as cardboard cutouts based on their religious or political beliefs. We can just agree to disagree and leave it at that while enjoying what we have in common.

[minimalist syntax]

Atheists do attack religions. And quite regularly here on the pages of HuffPo. They often come across as very self-righteous (as Christians do sometimes as well) so it is refreshing when the discussion can be one based on mutual respect.

[defiantskeptic]

Frankly, I find the assertion that the "new atheists" 'give aid and comfort to those on the right who believe (but generally have the tact not to quite say): "What's the point of trying to reason with those crazy Muslims? They'll hate us no matter what we do, because hate is what their religion teaches them."' a little strange. Obviously, I can't speak for all of us, but a good number of atheists are humanists, myself included, and are appalled by the persecution of any group by any other group.

To suggest that the "new atheists" are opposed to helping a group that is being abused by another group simply because they are Muslims (or, more broadly, religious) is not only wrong, but missing the point. In 'God Is Not Great', Christopher Hitchens—with whom I actually disagree on several issues, but not this particular point—mercilessly attacks the violent, murderous bigots who have perpetrated terrible atrocities against religious (or other) groups, whether that means Shia/Sunni violence or the persecution of Muslims in the Balkans, or the maltreatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government. Hitchens himself holds some views that are arguably center-right, but to suggest that somehow the "New Atheists" have a blind vendetta against religion that prevents us from seeing other causes for the world's ills, or from sympathizing with mistreated religious groups, is both unfortunate and wrong.

[Strepsi]

I am a Canadian Christian, and I completely believe that Religion is at the root of 90% of evil in the world today. Also why the Middle East is insoluble - both sides are theocracies. A theocracy, whether literal (Iran) or de facto (Israel) is counter to civil society. Even if it is founded in religio-moral traditions, Civil democratic society MUST be non-religious to function. Both sides are wrong. I am also gay, and am well aware that the half-dozen countries that publicly EXECUTE homosexuals are Muslim theocracies. These societies are uncivilized, period. So unfortunately, although I may end up on the same side of some issues as Christian crusader Hawks, my distrust of ALL theocratic governments (including at times the U.S.) is well-founded.