How the New Atheist Movement Blew a Big Opportunity to Bring Acceptance to Non-Believers

[rug]

Notables like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking are arguing not just for atheism, but against religion.

By Donald McCarthy / AlterNet September 29, 2016

In the mid-2000s, the clash between the forces of religion and the forces of secularism could not have been clearer. George W. Bush had just won reelection by not just stoking Americans’ post-9/11 fears, but also by bringing out the Religious Right with the issue of gay marriage, abortion, stem cells and the right to die.

There was a common refrain throughout the media that young people were less invested in religious issues than their elders, causing a deep sense of unease in religious Americans who believed their idea of a Christian America might soon be slipping away from them. This fear energized them in the voting booth, and America’s government ended up looking very theological.

Enter New Atheism. Led by figures like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, New Atheism argued not just for atheism, but against religion, claiming it was a poisonous aspect of society that had to be purged. With Christian extremists in the White House leading a religious war in Iraq (recall that George W. Bush believed the Christian God approved of his invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan), it is not surprising that there was a reaction from Americans who were not religious.

Yet a strange development occurred. Many of the prominent New Atheists did not end up focusing their attention on fundamentalism in America; instead, their attention became set on Islam and its spread. In essence, the New Atheists began to align with the very forces that they were reacting against: Christian imperialists aka neoconservatives.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/how-new-atheist-movement-blew-big-opportunity-bring-acceptance-non-believers

[MellowDem]

1. Once again...

The "new atheist" movement as seen in the US is defined in a narrow way, identifying it with popular individuals rather than any movement, if it's even defined at all.

As far as I can tell by how many theists try to label an increasing irreligious population, the only thing "new" is that some atheists are more outspoken than they were before, and society is becoming ok with that.

Thankfully, I don't think the "movement" hinges on individuals, it's more of an overall social relaxation of treating religion as a sacred special cookie that must be protected at all costs, a much needed relaxing of the sphincter of uptight religiosity. Religion still holds a whole lot of privilege in US society, and even more so in most places in the world, but some of that toxic attitude of the conservative Christian Era of the 70s and 80s is finally dying.

You can see it in the religious right especially, they seem to be becoming less religious themselves, almost sensing an end time for their kind, and are now just cynical to the point of nihilism, part of Trump's crowd, almost what like happens when a religious person loses their religion but clings to the label and traditions they no longer believe because they're too scared or don't know how to go on, just paralyzed by fear. They don't care about Trump's beliefs not seeming all that consistent with Christianity (both good and bad), they care about preserving a dying culture. They don't see that the reason it is dying is because they don't really know, care about, or believe the foundational beliefs that started that culture, some of which are heinous beliefs that modern society is shining an ever brighter light on and which just don't make sense. It's scary to lose your religion and part of your identity.

It makes even the most strident "new atheists" like Hitchens seem comparatively idealistic when looking at the conservative Christian movement rally behind Trump. It exposes the weakness of their belief system as well, as not even worthy of upholding or defending by those who identify with it. Moderate Christians do the same, but they've moved on from angry cynicism and now just have their own philosophy that they supplement with parts of religion they like.

Both of these behaviors have become more obvious, and so the growth in the non-religious. Mainstream Abrahamic Religion seems to require hypocrisy one way or another, and people are realizing they can do without it all together.

[rug]

2. The "label" here is being made by an atheist.

If you think Hitchens was "idealistic", you should read some of his ideals:

Hitchens’ fixation with Islam turned out to be even more disappointing when he published his New York Times bestselling book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. The book appealed to many who had been desperate for a non-religious viewpoint on life, especially the young in America. Young Americans who felt alienated from the religious vision of America found hope in the words of Hitchens, along with Dawkins’ and Harris’. Instead of using his newfound stature to quell religious extremism in America, Hitchens continued his crusade against Islam. In the same year that God Is Not Great was published, Hitchens published an article in Vanity Fair decrying the embrace of multiculturalism that he felt allowed for the growth of Islamic extremism in England. Instead of presenting an argument against religion, Hitchens ended up sounding not too dissimilar from current day Trump supporters sobbing about illegal immigrants taking their jobs away from them. To read his article, one could be forgiven for believing that half of England had posters of Osama bin Laden plastered across the walls.

In his own words: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/06/hitchens200706

[MellowDem]

3. Exactly...

Hitchens was idealistic, he had ideas (many I don't agree with) and stood up for them, especially compared to the Christian Right today, which has stopped trying to uphold any robust ideology at all, and their support of Trump shows it well. True believers like Cruz are becoming less of the norm, and is being replaced by cynical doomsayers who seem to only get any happiness from pissing off the wider society they see as eventually overtaking their culture.

Which is funny, because a favorite mantra of the Christian Right about atheists is that they're all nihilists with no will to live, bitter individuals, but even atheist populizers put that lie to rest, they all have (often very different) ideas about moving society forward and argue for them with passion. The Christian Right is giving up on that. It has helped fuel the entirely obstructionist and directionless Republican Congress and is why it's easy for them to support a candidate that is clearly not "Christian Right" but that is essentially a bulb thrower against everything they despise.

I saw the author is an unbeliever, doesn't excuse the poorly defined "movement" that is mimicking how so many believers have tried labeling atheists and is a pretty useless and shallow definition.

[rug]

4. Like it or not, it is a movement.

And Hitchens ended his life as a neocon.

[MellowDem]

5. What is the movement?

I'd say in the US it's describing how people are becoming less religious. There are few organizations that advocate secularism, but for the few there are, they seem to be the movement, that and their supporters, but it's not widespread.

As for Hitchens political views, I don't agree with all of them, but thankfully he isn't the leader of a belief system I subscribe to. Certain others are currently railing against the evil of gender theory and promoting misogyny. Glad I don't have to deal with the cognitive dissonance that entails.

[rug]

6. Start here:

https://richarddawkins.net/

You'll end up here,

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2016/01/center-for-inquiry-and-richard-dawkins-foundation-merge-into-one-organization/

with lots of stops in between.