What is new atheism ?

alistair spuds

Wiki (yes I know) gives the following definition :

"New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Do you agree ?

looksee

No, if people want something to believe in, fine. Just so long as they don't force it on me in public life. There are a lot of historically and aesthetically important buildings and artifacts as a result of religion. It is a short step from 'not tolerating' religion to destroying things that would be better left as part of our culture. Do we want to remove the neolithic religious burial structures?

Religion will gradually fade out, (though i think it will be replaced by something else, no more desirable) let it go quietly, it has cost enough lives without stirring up more aggravation.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

No, if people want something to believe in, fine. Just so long as they don't force it on me in public life. There are a lot of historically and aesthetically important buildings and artifacts as a result of religion. It is a short step from 'not tolerating' religion to destroying things that would be better left as part of our culture. Do we want to remove the neolithic religious burial structures?

Religion will gradually fade out, (though i think it will be replaced by something else, no more desirable) let it go quietly, it has cost enough lives without stirring up more aggravation.

Erm, I think when the OP asks "Do you agree?", they mean do you agree with the definition of "New Atheism" as explained by the quote from Wikipedia.

I'd say it's pretty accurate myself, though it's moreso used to describe a movement than simply Atheism as a concept in and of itself.

lazybones32

alistair spuds wrote: »

Wiki (yes I know) gives the following definition :

"New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Do you agree ?

"Anti-Theism" would be more accurate based on your post. Their 'raison d'etre' is to counter any and all influence by theists, so why not call themselves for what they are...

endacl

alistair spuds wrote: »

Wiki (yes I know) gives the following definition :

"New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Do you agree ?

Do you agree...?

alistair spuds

endacl wrote: »

Do you agree...?

I haven't made my mind up, I believe atheism is simply a non belief in gods, in another sense i believe all religion and any hint of reigious belief should be confined to behind private walls at all times. I don't seen anything new about logic and reason.

endacl

Well put.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Erm, I think when the OP asks "Do you agree?", they mean do you agree with the definition of "New Atheism" as explained by the quote from Wikipedia.

I'd say it's pretty accurate myself, though it's moreso used to describe a movement than simply Atheism as a concept in and of itself.

Erm, I think it reads either way, since the OP did not offer any opinion at that stage it was not clear what he was asking.

To answer your interpretation of the question, atheism is an absence of belief. You can work to remove the influence of religion from public life, but you cannot force people to not believe any more than you can force them to believe.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Erm, I think it reads either way, since the OP did not offer any opinion at that stage it was not clear what he was asking.

To answer your interpretation of the question, atheism is an absence of belief. You can work to remove the influence of religion from public life, but you cannot force people to not believe any more than you can force them to believe.

Ahh right, I apologise, I was reading the OP's question literally -


"What is New Atheism?"


And then they go on to give an explanation of New Atheism from Wikipedia, and I thought they were asking do people here agree with that explanation of New Atheism (not simply an absence of belief in a deity or deities, but a social and political movement).

The Wikipedia entry goes on to further explain -

New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."[1] There is uncertainty about how much influence the movement has had on religious demographics worldwide. In England and Wales, as of 2011 the increase in atheist groups, student societies, publications and public appearances coincided with the non-religious being the largest growing demographic, followed by Islam and Evangelicalism.[2] This trend in the growth of non-religion preceded the New Atheist movement.[citation needed]

New Atheism lends itself to and often overlaps with secular humanism and antitheism, particularly in its criticism of what many New Atheists regard as the indoctrination of children and the perpetuation of ideologies.

Source: New Atheism, Wikipedia entry


I think a good example of the New Atheism movement in Ireland would be Atheist Ireland which is a political and social movement aimed at promoting atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism. They also promote an ethical, secular society where the State does not support or finance or give any special treatment to any religion.

Now I understand that the vast majority of people who identify as Atheist are neither politically nor socially motivated, but that just identifies Atheism, as opposed to "New Atheism", the movement.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think a good example of the New Atheism movement in Ireland would be Atheist Ireland which is a political and social movement aimed at promoting atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism. They also promote an ethical, secular society where the State does not support or finance or give any special treatment to any religion.

Now I understand that the vast majority of people who identify as Atheist are neither politically nor socially motivated, but that just identifies Atheism, as opposed to "New Atheism", the movement.

To me atheism is a state of total neutrality, you do not believe in god(s) because there is nothing to believe in. If you promote this concept (there being nothing to believe in) you are immediately getting into a belief system, a belief that there is no god and that that belief should be disseminated.

(thank you for your courtesy, I had overlooked the heading as part of the thread starter Moving on...)

recedite

lazybones32 wrote: »

"Anti-Theism" would be more accurate based on your post. Their 'raison d'etre' is to counter any and all influence by theists, so why not call themselves for what they are...

The last bit of the quote

religion .... should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises

indicates that religion should not be countered if it is minding its own business. So by this definition, new atheism seeks to balance, or to become a counter-balance, to the influence of religion on the affairs of humankind.
Not quite the same as anti theism.

Brian Shanahan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think a good example of the New Atheism movement in Ireland would be Atheist Ireland.

I wouldn't characterise AI as "new atheist" because the term as coined and meant by its inventors (and users) is essentially a shibbolethic strawman used by religious leaders afraid that their con game is being exposed in an attempt their opponents.

They are running scared because unlike in previous generations today's atheist is generally a lot more likely to not keep their head down and are willing and able to speak about their lack of belief, their continuing morality (one of the cornerstones of religious thinking is that religion is the font of all morals) and the utter lack of any evidence to support any religious position. The only difference between today's atheist and yesterday's is that they are less likely to face the auto da fé

One eyed Jack

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I wouldn't characterise AI as "new atheist" because the term as coined and meant by its inventors (and users) is essentially a shibbolethic strawman used by religious leaders afraid that their con game is being exposed in an attempt their opponents.

They are running scared because unlike in previous generations today's atheist is generally a lot more likely to not keep their head down and are willing and able to speak about their lack of belief, their continuing morality (one of the cornerstones of religious thinking is that religion is the font of all morals) and the utter lack of any evidence to support any religious position. The only difference between today's atheist and yesterday's is that they are less likely to face the auto da fé

The reason I would classify Atheist Ireland as a good example of New Atheism is because they're a pretty accurate example of the definition provided in the OP.

Even in your own post above you acknowledge that modern atheism is a lot different to previous generations of atheists whose atheism as I said wasn't influenced by a demand for social or political change, they may well have campaigned for social and political change, but they didn't conflate it with their absence of belief in the way that a minority of atheists do in modern society.

In fact, Michael has said in the past that anyone is welcome to join Atheist Ireland regardless of the fact they are atheist or not, to contribute to the aims of Atheist Ireland in working towards a secular society free of superstition and so on (which kinda knocked my application on the head, I'm all for a secular society, but I'll keep my superstitions to myself, nor would I ever want to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't believe or think. I prefer to allow people to think for themselves and whatever works for them).

What's actually more interesting though is New Atheism on a global scale, and how that's affecting political and social change Stateside (outside our own little island), and how black atheists are now less concerned with secularism, and more concerned with political and social equality -


http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/16/blacks-are-even-discriminated-against-by-atheists/


http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/09/black-atheists-say-concerns-overlooked-long/

pH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Even in your own post above you acknowledge that modern atheism is a lot different to previous generations of atheists whose atheism as I said wasn't influenced by a demand for social or political change, they may well have campaigned for social and political change, but they didn't conflate it with their absence of belief in the way that a minority of atheists do in modern society.

Which would be right, if it wasn't completely wrong and ignored pretty much the entire actual history of atheism. What's different now is certainly not the message, it's a combination of the message getting widespread attention and the inability of anyone in authority to silence it.

For example, communism/Marxism has a strong atheistic world-view, and you're saying they didn't "conflate" the atheism with their social and political beliefs? Honestly?

Are you really saying Charles Bradlaugh never existed, his wiki entry is fevered imagining, a man who championed political and societal change combined with his atheism? And he is but one of many.

One eyed Jack

pH wrote: »

Which would be right, if it wasn't completely wrong and ignored pretty much the entire actual history of atheism. What's different now is certainly not the message, it's a combination of the message getting widespread attention and the inability of anyone in authority to silence it.

For example, communism/Marxism has a strong atheistic world-view, and you're saying they didn't "conflate" the atheism with their social and political beliefs? Honestly?

Are you really saying Charles Bradlaugh never existed, his wiki entry is fevered imagining, a man who championed political and societal change combined with his atheism? And he is but one of many.

For a minute there I thought I was going to get a proper schooling on the history of atheism, but what you've actually done is given a more recent history of political activism. I'm not actually ignoring the history of atheism at all, which, if we're to be entirely honest about it even pre-dates religion (until some bright spark came up with the idea of organised religion).

What's different now (and this really is only in the last century or so, I'd liken the movement of New Atheism to Feminism but Dawkins would have my guts for garters ), is that like feminist ideology which has evolved in waves, so too has the conflation of atheism with politics and social ideology.

Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity or deities, that's all, nothing more, nothing less. As looksee pointed out earlier, it really is a neutral philosophy -

looksee wrote: »

To me atheism is a state of total neutrality, you do not believe in god(s) because there is nothing to believe in.

I would suggest that would make it a passive philosophy, that there is no effort required not to believe something, a person just doesn't believe. In direct contrast to that however, religion takes all sorts of mental mindfcukery to believe in something that has never been proven, and can never be proven to exist - the essence of faith. That makes religion anything but a neutral position, it requires effort on the part of the individual (and the cognitive dissonance is mighty ), but, the thing is, that religion makes perfect sense to the mind of someone who thinks the way they do, and it gives them comfort that, well, that an atheist doesn't particularly need, because an atheist finds comfort in other things.

Now, the atheist may be a person who never believed in any spiritual or supernatural mumbo jumbo, or they may be someone who came to atheism through their own understanding of the world around them. They hold a neutral position.

The modern atheism of the last century or so has sought to give that position meaning, to give it momentum, to turn it from a neutral, passive philosophy into one that carries a message, a message that spreads, something that people can identify with and get behind, and that's why I think modern atheism has started to incorporate social justice, political ideology and scientific theories into it's philosophy, because being atheist means you're smarter than the average pleb (well, that's the theory anyway), and everyone likes to think of themselves as intelligent, forward thinking individuals, because let's face it, who actually prefers to think of themselves as dumb, backward thinking and lacking in intelligence?

That's why I don't bother getting into arguments with people who identify as atheist about religion and so on, because we're arguing from two different points of logic and critical thinking. What's logical and critically thought out to me, is gonna sound batshìt crazy to the person whose arguments are coming from an entirely different starting point.

I can share the same political, social and economic views as a person who is atheist without either of us ever touching on the subject of religion, but what New Atheism does is it tries to hog all the righteous stuff to itself in order to set itself up in direct opposition to religion, to say that the New Atheism movement is morally and intellectually superior to religion.

Depending on how your mind works, it's a philosophy that probably works for you, but in my opinion, I don't think it's a philosophy that's ever going to work for the vast majority of people in society, because the thing that drives people in my opinion is that which gives them hope. Religion does it for me, but for you as an atheist, it could be an infinite number of other things which drives you.

pH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

For a minute there I thought I was going to get a proper schooling on the history of atheism, but what you've actually done is given a more recent history of political activism. I'm not actually ignoring the history of atheism at all, which, if we're to be entirely honest about it even pre-dates religion (until some bright spark came up with the idea of organised religion).

What's different now (and this really is only in the last century or so, I'd liken the movement of New Atheism to Feminism but Dawkins would have my guts for garters ), is that like feminist ideology which has evolved in waves, so too has the conflation of atheism with politics and social ideology.

So despite me giving you 2 clear historical examples (and there are many many more) of people who conflated atheism with politics, you're insisting that this is a modern phenomenon, no more than 15 years old, because? reasons?

There is nothing that Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens said that hadn't been said before, there's nothing particularly "new" about their atheism, the term has primarily been used a a pejorative, allowing critics to create a strawman with which to tar prominent modern atheists with accusations of Islamophobia and intolerance.

"New Atheism is a contemporary intellectual movement uniting outspoken atheists. The New Atheists' philosophies and arguments are generally consistent with those of their predecessors; what's "New" is a difference in style and profitability. Most of the prominent New Atheists have had at least one book become a bestseller, which was almost unheard of for atheistic literature in the past."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_Atheism

Akrasia

New Atheism is a stupid term because it casts more doubt than certainty.

The term Secularism has existed for 160 years and it covers most of the aims of the 'new atheists' while not excluding people who believe in something but also want a seperation of church and state and freedom of conscience for all.

I'm in favour of voluntarily layoring labels to give a more precise indication of someone's world view (for convenience, not because I'm a fan of labeling people)

Atheism itself only describes one's lack of belief in gods. It soays nothing else at all about someone's political beliefs.

For example, you can be an atheist and a secularist
Or you can be an atheist who believes that reigion has it's uses and should be in partnership with the state,
or you can be an atheist who doesn't give a sh1te either way or the other and just doesn't get involved in the issue

And for those who are antitheist and want to organise specifically against the marching influence of religion or even the subtle influences of religious privilege and/or magical thinking on society, the word antitheist is perfectly cromulent for that cause.

I personally, am all three, I am an atheist who is a secularist and an antitheist. Looking at these combined 'labels' gives a better view of my position without implying that every atheist or every secularist holds the same view as me

One eyed Jack

pH wrote: »

So despite me giving you 2 clear historical examples (and there are many many more) of people who conflated atheism with politics, you're insisting that this is a modern phenomenon, no more than 15 years old, because? reasons?

I was wondering where you were getting the 15 years from until I realised I used the term "last century". I should've said the last 100 years or thereabouts, which, when you actually think about how long the concept of atheism itself has existed (even 500BCE would be relatively recent - this chap for instance), it's not much of a stretch to suggest that people conflating their atheism with other ideologies is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history.

I grant you the term "New Atheism" is a relatively recent one, but honestly I wouldn't have thought of it as a derogatory term. If anything I would have thought it was now used instead of the more inflammatory "militant atheism". I would have read it as simply identifying a new wave of the movement led by prominent figures in the media who were now suggesting that scientific knowledge and discovery could explain the world around us, and encouraging people to frame their arguments using logic and reason as the method to argue against religion. Then they started including all sorts of political ideologies, and then came the inclusion of social issues with "Atheism Plus" (and I think that may be the only time myself and Dawkins will agree that the whole Atheism Plus idea is rather silly!).

There is nothing that Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens said that hadn't been said before, there's nothing particularly "new" about their atheism, the term has primarily been used a a pejorative, allowing critics to create a strawman with which to tar prominent modern atheists with accusations of Islamophobia and intolerance.


"New Atheism is a contemporary intellectual movement uniting outspoken atheists. The New Atheists' philosophies and arguments are generally consistent with those of their predecessors; what's "New" is a difference in style and profitability. Most of the prominent New Atheists have had at least one book become a bestseller, which was almost unheard of for atheistic literature in the past."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_Atheism

I wasn't aware of the term being used as a strawman tbh, not a particularly flattering description above, but in fairness, it's a pretty accurate description all the same, and it's what happens when people start conflating their atheism with other unrelated issues. Over here in the West it's easy enough to separate out Christianity from the State, but with Islam or Judaism, it's a whole different ball game because Islam and Judaism aren't just a religion, they're ethnic groups in their own right.

Cantremember

I think labels like new atheism etc are utterly beside the point except to people in 3rd level who have to talk about talking to earn their crust. What matters is what's happening: the social dominance of those who claim to have special knowledge of humanity's nature through access to "revelation" has been broken. The fundamental absurdity of this approach has simply been outgrown. People don't believe such obvious nonsense. The impact on public life of religion is unravelling for years: it isn't atheism that has won this battle it's the obvious multiplicity of gods and the impossibility of adjudication between them. The state is learning that a cost effective neutrality is the way to go. Let their gods sort them out.