Tuesday 21 June 2011

We Atheists Should be More Critical of New Atheism

I generally find it quite difficult to explain my stance on New Atheism to both atheists and believers. In an argument with a believer about whether God exists or not, my arguments are pretty much the same as Dawkins and the rest of his gang - no evidence and so on. However, if I try to point out to fellow atheists that there are problems with pretty much everything else that the New Atheists claim - that religion is the sole cause of human conflict, that religion is defined by adherence to a particular text, that it is impossible to practice science while having religious faith - I immediately sense hostility, as if they suspect that I am some sort of religious apologist.

I really want to separate the question of whether or not God exists from the more complex question of how people use religion, or any system of values and beliefs, in their day-to-day lives. To point out the many logical errors of the New Atheists' historical and philosophical claims about the the effects of religion does not weaken my stance on the question of whether God exists or not; I just don't think that that question in itself is particularly important. So this is an initial attempt to outline a couple of reasons why atheists should take adopt a more critical stance on New Atheism.

Note - I would be interested in hearing different perspectives on this from Americans and Brits. It strikes me that the style of the New Atheists' arguments is perhaps more forgivable in an American context where anti-evolutionism is a more pressing public problem than in  Britain.

New Atheism is Boring

The British Humanist Association recently hosted an event in London with Richard Dawkins in conversation with PZ Myers. It started promisingly with some interesting speculations from the perspective of biology about how life on other planets might have evolved differently to on Earth. After about fifteen minutes, however, it took a right-angled turn to issues of atheism and religion. This in itself was fine, but what they were saying was so boringly familiar that I quickly lost interest.

As a rationalist and an atheist, I know that immaculate conception isn't biologically possible. I know that creationists are deluded. I know that there is no more evidence for God than there is for Thor. But this is stuff that an intelligent eight-year old can tell you. Indeed, my eight-year old niece has declared herself an atheist having worked each of these things out for herself, but she hasn't made millions by writing a book about it. Dawkins, however, has been churning out these same basic ideas at least since The God Delusion came out.

In a sense, he's a bit like Oasis - one release with some simple and derivative, but basically enjoyable ideas, and then a subsequent repetition of the formula for years afterwards, with no artistic development and increasingly tedious results. And yet there is a hardcore fanbase who will not hear a word said against him. I have attended a few similarly themed events in recent weeks, and they seem to me to function not so much as a forum to debate ideas, but as a social occasion at which humanists and atheists sit around and congratulate each other about how rational they are and laugh at how stupid religion is. This is a perfectly valid position to take, but the endless repetition of the same basic ideas is becoming increasingly tedious to me.

And yet, judging from various declared atheists I follow on Twitter, there are many other people who, rather than seriously examining the issues and problems around religion, are happy to just repeat aphorisms over and over again - such as 'The Holy Bible. Turning the sin of intellectual indolence into a virtue for nearly 2000 years.' Things like this are fine in themselves, but it doesn't get any more sophisticated than this, and it indicates to me that many atheists have an over-simplified idea of how people select from and draw on religious traditions in their own lives. In the 'atheist community', if such a thing exists, there appears to be no attempt to examine the issue in any more detail - there just seems to be an unthinking circulation of the same basic ideas.

What the New Atheists Get Wrong

Aside from the fact that New Atheism has become dull, I think it is important to also point out the things which the New Atheists are just plain wrong about. I am embarking on a project to re-read the central works of the 'New Atheist' canon (The End of Faith, The God Delusion, God is Not Great, Breaking the Spell) and I'll be posting some detailed pieces outlining my take on each of them over the coming weeks. For now, I would just point out a few common and problematic claims. Firstly, they all (possibly excluding Daniel Dennett) claim that religion can be isolated as the sole, or at least, the most significant, factor in causing human conflict. I'd be interested to find out if any credible historian or political scientist supports this view.

They also claim that to be religious is to draw on the contents of a particular holy book. But this would involve ignoring the fact that people can also draw on particular theological traditions and alternative interpretations rather than directly from the source text, and some have a concept of religion that means nothing more complicated than being good to other people. This is no different to what most humanists would believe, whether there is a god out there or not.

They also claim that religion is inherently incompatible with science. This of course makes sense with someone who thinks that there really is evidence for Intelligent Design, but what about someone for whom God is not a scientific entity whose existence could ever be verified, but just exists somewhere, a comforting presence who does not lay down moral dogma or play an active part in the world?

In summary, I want to emphasise that pointing out that New Atheism is crude and intellectually lazy is not the same as arguing that perhaps creationists have a point. Also, it is not to deny the existence of major problems where science is attacked or prejudice grows out of religious beliefs. But it should be the duty of any rational person to subject the claims of Dawkins et al to the same scrutiny as anything else - and not just their claims about whether God exists or not.

2 comments:

  1. Hello Stephen from Robert Bumbalough (a new acquaintance on Twitter http://twitter.com/rbumbalough )

    S wrote > "I have attended a few similarly themed events in recent weeks, and they seem to me to function not so much as a forum to debate ideas, but as a social occasion at which humanists and atheists sit around and congratulate each other about how rational they are and laugh at how stupid religion is."

    My opinion is likely wrong, but nevertheless, I think the "New Atheism" is mainly a social grouping wherein an identification with the group sub-culture is made via means of your observation. When Secular Humanism is added, the "New Atheism" itself becomes a religion of sorts in a nominal sense. Religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe". The qualifier, "especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." is not a necessary part of the principle definition. However, Secular Humanism purports to offer a moral code informing a collectivist ethic foundational to modern Labor/Liberal Welfare Stateism. I think the "New Atheism" does qualify as a religion of sorts and should be subjected to Critical examination. Stephen's projected scrutiny of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al should be interesting and perhaps useful. Atheists such as myself should not be complacent or rest on our laurels, especially since our self-esteem mandates we continuously be on a trajectory of continuing education and self-improvement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although I agree fully with this, and much of Robert's reply, I have to take exception to anyone claiming that 'religion is defined as' x. As a Historian of Ideas I can tell you, a definition of religion has never been agreed upon and has been hotly debated since Herbert, Lord of Cherbury. Very few definitions agree that the latter part of Robert's dictionary definition is 'not a necessary part' of the definition. In fact, almost every commenter on the debate place the supernatural element front and centre.

    New Atheism is not a religion, it is oversimple and boring, but cannot honestly be defined as a religion, and Secular Humanism does not accept New Atheism uncritically for the most part; I certainly do not.

    As for 'I'd be interested to find out if any credible historian or political scientist supports this view.'- the short answer is no. Historians know that no one element is ever enough to explain complex outcomes; not the Crusades, Witchcraft and Heresy trails (my particular fields) or the wars of the reformation.

    ReplyDelete