What does the 'new' in 'new atheism' really mean?

[cbayer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/19/new-atheism-meaning

Plenty of academics would be happy to give up pinning down this term, but it would help map the non-religious landscape

Lois Lee
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 September 2012 03.30 EDT


'Despite the notable differences in their approaches and interests, the combined work of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens describes the new atheism movement as a whole.' Photograph: Murdo Macleod for the Guardian

A common subject for discussion in these pages is the meaning of the phrase: "the new atheism". What precisely is "new" about the new atheists, people ask – above the line but, especially, below it? And often rhetorically – before similarities with past atheist writers (David Hume, Bertrand Russell, et al) are cited.

So is the "new" in "new atheism" simply inaccurate? Or worse: is the notion of a new atheism an attempt to patronise today's atheists – to dismiss a forceful cultural phenomenon as fleeting, a brief mania being peddled by a small set of zealots?

In academic circles, additional questions have been raised about how faithfully the concept of new atheism has been applied. Thomas Zenk and Ulf Plessentin, researchers in Berlin working on a project dedicated to new atheism, point out the range of people who have been called a new atheist – from Richard Dawkins (OK) to Alain de Botton (but his argument opposes Dawkins's in a number of ways!) to Slavoj Žižek (really?) and a host of less obvious people besides.

Then again, sometimes the concept of new atheism is used to describe the work of a small set of writers and broadcasters, while at other times it is used to indicate a more fully fledged social or cultural movement. As a researcher of contemporary non-religion, I am, in fact, frequently contacted by journalists wanting me to identify new atheism as a new social movement – with the subtext seeming to be that they would really like me to identify new atheism in this kind of thrillingly cultish way.

more at link

[phantom power]

1. I think the 'new' modifier is pretty simple to define:

[cbayer]

2. In some ways, I think you are right, but it's probably more complex than that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. O'Hair cannot be a "new atheist" and certainly wasn't quiet

Recently I read some criticism of US Atheists from a leading European atheist (can't remember who this early). Sounded a lot like the sniping between xtian sects.

Here is an article on Maxism and New Atheism, (presented without comment) http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1007/newatheists.html

[rug]

17. Bookmarked.

It is from a Trotskyist, and not purely Marxist, perspective but it has some sharp insights. I have to read it again more closely.

[RLBaty]

4. New atheists!

"New atheists" don't believe there is a God!

Some folks believe there is a God!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/24058

[cleanhippie]

5. What makes that any different from "old" atheism?

[RLBaty]

11. The old, the bold, and the new atheists/atheism??

Antony G.N. Flew might have been considered at one time one of the "old" atheists in that he took up the proposition that "I know that God does not exist" in his debate with Thomas B. Warren:

http://www.thebible.net/video/warrenflewdebate/

Flew faltered in that debate and digressed into trying to take up a lesser proposition.

Did the old atheists prove that there is no God?

I don't think so!

I guess they didn't think so either!

The new atheists appear to now take a milder approach, when pressed for specifics. That is, the proposition now is "I don't believe there is a God".

Some believe.
Some don't.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[cleanhippie]

12. I don't follow. What is "new" about not believing in a god?

[RLBaty]

13. Nothing new in not believing in God!

There is, however, a difference in:

> I know that no God exists,

and

> I don't think any God exists.

Flew, perhaps representative of the old school, tried the first proposition with Warren; didn't work!

New atheists seem more inclined to the second; if you can pin them down on the matter.

I try to keep things simple.

For all that new or old atheists know, there is a God.

They don't believe.
I do.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/24058

[cleanhippie]

14. You seem to be conflating "agnostic" with "atheist." It's a common mistake.

This may help clear things up.

[RLBaty]

15. I don't think so, but such is part of the semantics game!

Most often these days, the days of the "new atheism", I hear alleged "atheists" claiming that that just means they don't believe in God.

I take them at their word and let them define the term accordingly.

Those atheists don't believe in God.

For all they know, there is a God.

If you want to define that as being "agnostic", that's fine with me.

Nice chart!

As for the fuss over what, if anything, we can know, and how, I leave that for the more philosophic amongst us.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/24058

[cleanhippie]

16. Its not semantics, its the definition of words.

[RLBaty]

18. Yeah, that's what I said! :o) :o) :o)

I define semantics as having to do with the definition of words.

You don't!

I'm not alone.

The first link that came up when I Googled it had this, in part:

> semantics: plural of se·man·tics (Noun)
>
> Noun:
>
> (2) The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text:
>
>> "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff".

It may seem that way, but it gets serious when you have a serious disagreement.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[humblebum]

6. It should be "new" atheists, but not "new" atheism. The faces have changed

but the ideas and tactics of generations past remain unchanged.

[Goblinmonger]

7. I think the "new" is a term others have applied

and not from the people included in that class themselves.

[rexcat]

8. "New"...

is a worthless adjective. It brings nothing to the table and some here use it as a pejorative.

[longship]

9. This is likely correct

Although I did not really see atheists distancing themselves from the label, I also didn't hear them using the term except when mentioning it specifically as a media couned terminology. Now, things have changed and atheists seem now to be embracing the terminology.

Physicist Victor Stenger actually has a book with the title, The New Atheism. Stenger was also the author of the fifth atheist book that hit it big, God: The Failed Hypothesis. I have read the latter, but not the former. As somebody educated in physics and math myself, I naturally like Stenger's approach.

Myself, I usually do not call myself a new atheist. I just say I am an atheist, and leave it at that. But, if somebody called me a new atheist I would not disassociate myself from that. To me, the difference is meaningless.

[RLBaty]

10. On Victor Stenger! :o)

It just so happens that I had a run-in with Victor Stenger in the context of trying to get him and his to take up a discussion of my debate with Dr. Dziubla over atheism.

Victor Stenger, who lives not far from me, wasn't up to it, his minions weren't up to it, and they cut me out of their little discussion group.

From what I read, Stenger is considered the "5th Horseman" of "new atheism".

My run-in with Stenger and his apologists is archived at my place.

Here's one message from Victor regarding that matter:

> From: Vic Stenger
> To: L@Lists...
> Date: Saturday, October 8, 2011
>
> Subject: Re: FW: A logical argument for your commentary!
>
> Anyone want to handle this?
>
> Please send reply to both Baty and list.
>
> Vic

Vic couldn't/wouldn't deal with it.
His fellows couldn't/wouldn't deal with it; though they tried.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/24058

[onager]

19. I have Stenger's book right here...

"The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason."

Stenger explains things pretty clearly in the Preface. Here are a few highlights from it:

The new atheists write mainly from a scientific perspective...All of us have been criticized for not paying enough attention to modern theology. We are more interested in observing the world and taking our lessons from these observations than debating finer points of scriptures that are probably no more than fables to begin with...

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 sympathize with these concerns, we do not consider them as serious as the even greater dangers imposed by the irrational thinking associated with religion. Most people recognize the value and necessity of scientific research, especially medical, and are not likely to change that to spite a few loudmouthed atheists...

We strongly disagree with the National Academy of Sciences, and many scientists, that science has nothing to say about God or the supernatural. The gods most people worship purportedly play an active role in the universe and in human lives. This activity should result in observable phenomena, and it is observable phenomena that form the very basis of scientific investigation.